Sitting of 2 December 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House has having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Economy
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to discuss the economy.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): I met a delegation from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions to discuss the economy in May. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I have received requests for a further meeting.
    Mr. Parry: When the Minister next meets the ICTU, will he congratulate the trade union movement in Northern Ireland on organising huge and safe demonstrations for peace in the Province? Will he also state when the Government will publish their proposals on policy appraisment and the fair treatment paths?
    Mr. Atkins: I join the hon. Gentleman in his congratulations. As a former president of the Conservative Trade Unionists, I, too, have an interest. I offer deep support for the trade unionists in their activities in Northern Ireland, not least for the event to which he referred, which was a solid and impressive demonstration by a wide variety of working people expressing their desire for peace to be achieved and for the problems to be resolved. I hope to be able to say something about the hon. Gentleman's special point in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that not only members of trade unions but many other people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the training and retraining of people of all ages in the Province? When he next meets the trade unions, will he explain why money seems to be diverted from community workshops, which are badly run down in many parts of the Province, to private training agencies that apparently do little other than redirect people to colleges of further education?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is being untypically unfair about some of the great work that has been done by a number of the organisations to which he refers. It is fair to say that, pleasingly, an increasing number of young people wish to stay on at school to get qualifications of one sort or another, but the numbers using some of the training facilities have declined. We have made it clear that we will honour the commitment to provide every youngster with a training place and I am determined to ensure that that occurs.
    Mr. Stott: Will the Minister, during his discussions with Terry Carlin of the Northern Ireland trade union movement, explain how the Budget will help the economy in Northern Ireland, given that a typical family will pay £10 a week more in tax next year, which will rise to £16 a week more by April 1995? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those tax increases, coupled with the new taxes on house and car insurance and on holiday travel, not to mention VAT on fuel and the freezing of personal

    1149
    allowances, will drastically reduce people's purchasing power? Is not it self-evident that those measures will have a detrimental effect on the economy in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: I should have thought that if I were to discuss matters with Mr. Carlin along those lines, I might find perhaps not his agreement, but his acceptance of the fact that, had the Labour party been elected, his members would have been worse off than they are now as a result of one of the most difficult recessions in recent years, which the United Kingdom is pulling out of faster than anyone else, leading the rest of Europe. I suspect that as Mr. Carlin is a fair and reasonable man, he would understand that point.

    Employment
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effect of the MacBride principles on employment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: The comprehensive Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 provides a vigorous and effective framework for achieving fair employment. The MacBride principles are unnecessary and inadequate as they do not advocate investment, without which the achievements of fair employment would be more difficult. It is impossible to quantify the negative effect of the MacBride campaign.
    Mr. Trimble: I agree with all the criticisms that the Minister made of the MacBride principles, but it would be helpful if he got in touch with all the public authorities in the United States that foolishly adopt those principles and pointed out that in Northern Ireland more than 60 per cent. of employees are Protestant, yet according to aggregate employment in American firms to which the MacBride principles apply, only 55 per cent. of employees are Protestants, showing a significant imbalance.
    Will the Minister also point out that the firm with the worst employment record is the American firm, United Technologies, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), where out of 737 employees, fewer than 10 are Protestant. Will the Minister point out to the public authorities in the United States that if they are to take action to achieve fair employment, they could begin on those terms?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tacit support. I suspect that the proverb of mote and beam has a part to play here. My task and that of all Northern Irish Members is to ensure that any state or city of the United States that has companies that we wish to encourage to invest in Northern Ireland is persuaded by us, by the House and by our ambassador and his staff in the United States that the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act is one of the most rigorous of its type anywhere in the world. All that MacBride has done is to make life difficult for American companies that wish to invest in Northern Ireland, knowing as they do that it is such a fine place with such a fine work force.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend make the strongest representations to the Clinton Administration to remove the outdated MacBride principles? Will he assure them that the best way to help the Province is to strengthen its economy by investment and by increasing employment?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend puts her finger on the matter succinctly. It is true that President Clinton, as a candidate and as President soon after his election, made it clear that he supported MacBride. However, I know that the good work being done by our ambasssador and visits such as those carried out by Northern Ireland Members have made the position on MacBride and our Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act much clearer to representatives of the United States Administration. Their support in these matters is to be welcomed.
    Dr. Hendron: Will the Minister accept that it is the rhetoric of MacBride rather than the principles which could lead to disinvestment in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman, who played such a significant part, along with his colleague in this context—the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr.Walker) —on their recent trip, again puts his finger on the problem. It is the campaign and the people asssociated with it rather than the substance which is causing the problem. Anything that any hon. Member can do when visiting the United States will be much appreciated by everyone in Northern Ireland.

    Schools
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children of primary and secondary school age are in what number of schools; what is the average class size in primary and secondary schools: and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): At October 1992, there were 185,626 pupils in 983 primary schools and 145,512 pupils in 234 secondary schools. The average class size in primary schools was 24·9 pupils. Information on class sizes is not collected for secondary schools.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the quality of education in Northern Ireland is, rightly, highly renowned throughout the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that although excellence in education does not necessarily depend on class size, the class sizes in primary schools which he has mentioned are a matter for congratulation?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with his professional and lifelong experience of education, for what he says and for his tribute to the quality of education in Northern Ireland. It has the best rates for A-levels for those leaving school, so my hon. Friend's tributes are well deserved. Class size is a helpful indicator, but, as he rightly says, it is the quality of teaching rather than the size of schools which is the primary determinant of results.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that children who have had the benefit of a good nursery education are more likely to realise their full potential as they proceed through primary and secondary schools? Will he undertake to review the current low level of provision of nursery education places in Northern Ireland? Will he seek to make funding available to the boards so that they can increase nursery school places? Will he also take account of the importance of the early diagnosis and

    1151
    recognition of children with special educational needs, and will he seek to encourage earlier identification and additional remedial assistance for those children?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on what he says about the importance of nursery education. It is easy for a child from a deprived home or with particular difficulties to join the losers' club if he or she gets to school, finds that he or she cannot keep up and resorts therefore to the truculence and disagreeable behaviour with which we are all familiar.
    The overall proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery education in Northern Ireland—46 per cent.—is broadly in line with that in England and Wales. That is something which we wish to improve. I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman about the latter part of his question.

    RUC (Personal Security)
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to improve the personal security of part-time members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Irish Regiment.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Measures to safeguard the personal security of police officers and soldiers in Northern Ireland are in place and kept under constant review. It is not in the public interest to discuss specific items or cases.
    Mr. Brazier: Yes, indeed; but on this day, when another soldier has been killed in Ulster, I put it to my right hon. Friend that part-time soldiers, policemen and their families suffer the greatest risks of all. The attrition that they have suffered is the main cause for the sharp and continuing decline in their numbers.
    Is not the best way to improve their security and that of everyone in Ulster to get the terrorists behind bars? To that end—as with the criminal justice legislation—there must be ways of ensuring, through disclosure and other measures, that a higher proportion of terrorist prosecutions in Ulster results in such men going behind bars at the end of trial.
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He referred to the tragic killing today of a young soldier in Northern Ireland. I know that the whole House will wish to extend its sympathy to the family of that young man. My hon. Friend is right to say that the care of those who volunteer to serve in the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve and the Royal Irish Regiment as part-time soldiers is very important. We owe them a great debt.
    The fact that so many people in the part-time Royal Irish Regiment are able to make themselves available for duty every third day is a great credit to them and their families. I can assure my hon. Friend that every care is taken of them. I visited the Royal Irish Regiment yesterday and saw the arrangements for the care of those part-time soldiers and their families. I am pleased to tell the House that it is of the highest order. The point that my hon. Friend makes about reviewing the law is a matter that the Government have under constant review.
    Rev. William McCrea: Although I join the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in offering sympathy to the family of the young soldier, it is important that the safety and security of my constituents along the border should also be of the highest order. Has the Minister
    1152
    received any communication about the fact that, at 4 o'clock last Saturday, on the Kilcleen border in United Kingdom territory, a constituent of mine, who is a member of the security forces, was stopped and questioned by the Garda Siochana and asked for details concerning his comings and goings?
    My constituent told the officer that he was not answerable to the Garda when in the United Kingdom. When my constituent told him that it is not a united Ireland yet, the officer said, "It is near enough." That situation is despicable in the United Kingdom. It is totally unacceptable and is putting fear in my constituents. Unfortunately, although the House condemned the soldier's death today, there will be someone from the Government speaking to the murderers tomorrow.
    Sir John Wheeler: I have no knowledge of the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I take note of what he says and, if he gives me further details, I will have the matter investigated. I can tell the House that co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana has never been greater.

    Rathlin Ferry Service
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Rathlin ferry service.
    Mr. Atkins: The Government are committed to a safe and comfortable Rathlin ferry service. We have grant-aided Moyle council for safety works at Ballycastle and Rathlin harbours and have provided subsidies to the ferry operators. Major harbour works are required for a modern ferry service, but resources for those works will be considered along with other requirements against necessarily limited resources.
    Mr. Bottomley: I ask this question about north Antrim with the agreement, and blessing, of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), in his absence. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that, year after year, the necessary moneys to provide safe harbours at each end of the ferry service are cancelled from the estimates? Is it not about time that there was a firm commitment so that both the residents of, and the visitors to, this historic island can get on and off their boats in safety?
    Mr. Atkins: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in Rathlin island and is still famed on the island for his involvement there when he served in the Province. I share with him and the islanders the concern about the lack of resources, but he will know that we have undergone a difficult public expenditure round and finances are tight. It is in my mind to do something about that as soon as we can, not least because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland also has an interest in a route that might exist from Campbeltown to Rathlin and Ballycastle. However, resources are simply not available at this stage.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: As the Minister responsible for another form of ferry service, will the hon. Gentleman tell us when he hopes to publish the taxi review, which has been with his office for some time?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious, but he makes a fair point. It is one which my right hon. and learned Friend and I have been looking at in some detail.

    1153
    I am conscious of the urgency of the matter and of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has represented to me and others, and we are doing our level best to produce something soon.
    Ms Hoey: The Minister will be aware that there has been great delay in advertising for a teacher for the home tuition unit on Rathlin island. When will that post be advertised? Does he agree that if it is the Department's aim to increase the number of integrated schools, Rathlin island would be a wonderful place to set an example? It is the only place in Northern Ireland where people of all faiths are buried together. Should we not be trying to get an integrated school there?
    Mr. Atkins: Not only are people buried together, but they live together, and in this context that is perhaps more important. The hon. Lady raises a fair point. As she will know, I am not responsible for education, but I have taken the liberty, thanks to her, of making some inquiries. There has been no request from the island for an integrated school and that is the most fundamental factor, but my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State who looks after education matters, and I in general terms will look at the matter closely to see what can be done to follow through the point which she raises.

    Health and Social Services Boards
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many managers and administrators there were in the four health and social services boards on 1 January 1990, and in the designated trusts and boards on the most recent date available.
    Sir John Wheeler: On 1 January 1990, there were 5,789 managers and administrators employed in the four health and social services boards. On 30 September 1993, there were 7,190 managers and administrators employed in the four boards in the HSS trusts.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that answer, but it conflicts with an answer given in Hansard on 25 November. Will the Minister accept that there is some discrepancy in the provision of care in Northern Ireland when, as is shown in that answer, between 1990 and 1993, there was an increase of 11·3 per cent. in the number of administrators and of 91 per cent. in the number of managers and a decrease of 11·3 per cent. in the number of nurses and midwives? Does he agree that managers and administrators are not able to give hands-on care?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he says, there has been an increase, but that is linked to the growth in finance, personnel and information technology staff. The part played by the administrators and managers in the care of patients has resulted in the number of patients waiting for two years or more for in-patient treatment being reduced from 5,277 to 1,332, a reduction of 75 per cent. Those administrators play an important part in the health care programme for Northern Ireland and relieve the medical and paramedical people of a responsibility for bureaucracy and administration.

    Tourism
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest figures for tourism in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: The latest figures available are for 1992, when 1·25 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, representing an increase of 6 per cent. over the previous year. This was the fourth successive annual increase in visitor numbers, which is highly encouraging set against the background of a difficult year for the tourist trade worldwide.
    Mr. Bruce: Will my hon. Friend send our congratulations to all those involved in the tourism industry in the Province for maintaining their traditional welcome? Will he tell the House what more can be done to promote this excellent industry and to increase the benefits gained from tourism in the Province?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I join him in congratulating the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board, Hugh O'Neil, together with all members of his board. They have done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that tourism—the fastest growing industry in the western world—goes from strength to strength in Northern Ireland. There is more that we can do in terms of resources and commitments, and we are trying so to do. Above all, we need to get across—as we are doing —the positive message about Northern Ireland being "the place you will never know unless you go." The more that we promote Northern Ireland in the House, the more visitors will come and the more profit will be gained for those in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be aware that good travel facilities are necessary for tourists in Northern Ireland. Will he tell the House what steps he will take, or has taken, to sort out the infighting which is apparently taking place between not only the airports in Northern Ireland but the airlines there? It will lead to a lack of confidence about the travel facilities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on airport matters because he has an airport in his constituency. I take slight issue with him on his last sentence—that this will harm the tourist industry. It is clear that competition among airlines and airports can only be good for the traveller because, we hope, it will reduce costs and make things more attractive over a period. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises about differences of opinion interests me. They are not directly a matter for me, except in so far as it affects my custodianship of Aldergrove airport, albeit temporarily.
    Mr. Viggers: I take pleasure in the fact that 1992 was the fourth year of growth in the Northern Ireland tourist business. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland co-operate on tourism, particularly as it is supported by the International Fund for Ireland and European Community funds?
    Mr. Atkins: It would be fair to record that my hon. Friend probably started the increase in tourism when he was a Northern Ireland Minister and, to that extent, its roots lie with him. I agree with what he said. We must attempt to get the message across to those who wish to

    1155
    come to the island of Ireland that they can travel north and south and enjoy excellent facilities. Discussions that the tourist board is having with Bord Failte from the south are aimed at doing that. For example, the Erne-Shannon waterway crosses the border and is of mutual interest. It is something which people are keen to see when they come to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McGrady: I certainly accept that the Minister is deeply committed to the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that one important aspect is to provide the necessary infrastructure so that we can leap forward, as it were, when peace breaks out? Is the Minister aware that a quango appointed by the Government, the Northern Ireland Museum Council, has made direct representations to Brussels? That has frustrated applications made for funding there for several flagship developments for tourism. Is the Minister aware of that and does he agree with it—and if not, what action does he propose to take to indicate to the Brussels Commission that that is not the attitude or feeling of the people of Northern Ireland or of his Department?
    Mr. Atkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland has some fine museums, not least the one in his constituency with which I have been privileged to be associated. I am not aware of the detail to which he referred. I must investigate the matter and I promise that I will write to him. If he has further information that I ought to have, I should be grateful if he would talk to me later.
    Mr. William O'Brien: I agree with the Minister and with other hon. Members that tourism is most important to Northern Ireland. It mainly comprises small businesses, which compete for a share of the market. I agree with the Minister that the Northern Ireland tourist board brings together both the private and the public sector to develop tourism. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is required now is for the national heritage section of his Department to work with the Northern Ireland tourist board and the local authorities—which, with their limited resources, promote tourism—to make available through the Northern Ireland Office details about arts, culture, historic buildings, music, museums and so on, as that would help to give tourism in Northern Ireland a boost? Will the hon. Gentleman take that suggestion on board and act so that we can further stimulate tourism in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: There are many documents which pull together the concerns to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. As I would expect of him, he has come up with a very good idea. I shall certainly consider it and draw it to the attention of the bodies that can best implement it.

    Inter-party Talks
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards the resumption of the inter-party talks, and on talks that he has had with the Irish Government.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), is engaged in private discussions to explore the basis on which the parties can come together for further dialogue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently met the four main constitutional party leaders.
    1156
    Additionally, we are in discussion with the Irish Government on matters of mutual interest, including constitutional issues. It remains our objective to return to multilateral talks involving the two Governments and the four main constitutional parties at the appropriate point.
    Mr. Burden: Given article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Secretary of State tell the House plainly whether he accepts that the Irish people have a right to national self-determination, based on consent freely given—north and south?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that the Anglo-Irish Agreement speaks for itself. What is of most immediate importance to those concerned for stability, in Northern Ireland in particular, is that it should be thoroughly understood, as the Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear, that the British Government—the Government—stand firmly behind the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland as regards the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
    Sir James Kilfedder: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be a great mistake for the media or anyone else to interpret the present yearning for peace as a movement for appeasement at any price? Does he not agree that the majority of Ulster people want peace, political progress and the best of relations with the Irish Republic, but not at the cost of weakening their position within the United Kingdom?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend said, we went into the matter with some care on Monday. There is an overwhelming demand, as well as a yearning, for peace—but not, as I endeavoured to say on Monday, at any price. Peace properly attained is what people require and that is what the Government and all people of good will are striving to help the people of Northern Ireland to attain.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In response to any inquiries from foreign parts, will the Secretary of State explain clearly that those conversations and informal discussions being so ably pursued by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), have the aim and object of restoring accountable democracy to all the people of Northern Ireland and that that is a necessary first step to restoring stability and subsequently peace?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his well-deserved tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. My hon. Friend has made good progress with those with whom he is talking in the bilateral discussions. There is a good measure of agreement on the need for new political institutions in Northern Ireland. Those institutions are essential if democratic accountability is to be restored, and everyone recognises that that would be a good thing.
    I am not sure that I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that that is the first requirement. I believe, as I have just said, that the first requirement for the restoration of stability in Northern Ireland is for everyone to accept beyond question that the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland will determine their future status.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why, at a press conference in Northern Ireland on Sunday, he said that he had only recently learnt of some

    1157
    unapproved contacts on a face-to-face basis between British Government officials and the IRA, when the documents that he supplied to the Library indicate that he knew back on 10 May? Why did the Secretary of State tell the press conference that they did not form part of the process that the Government were having with the IRA when they formed part of at least three of the messages?
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman persists in saying that they were unapproved contacts. Why did he never at any stage after he was made aware of them indicate to the IRA that it was talking to loose cannons? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State came clean? Has he not stretched credulity beyond breaking point?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I said at the press conference that I gave on Sunday in Northern Ireland that it had recently come to our notice that there had been an unauthorised meeting between somebody of official status and a member of Sinn Fein. The reason I said that was because it was true. It had come to our notice—that there had been an unauthorised meeting—something like 10 days or perhaps a couple of weeks previously.
    We also learned that some three years ago there had been—or probably had been—a meeting with somebody of similar status in the circumstances which were probably described by Martin McGuinness recently. That happens to be the case. I want to make it clear that there is no question of there being anybody who is authorised to conduct talks or negotiations with Sinn Fein or the IRA, or with any other organisation that either perpetrates or justifies the use of violence.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State repeat the Prime Minister's recent comment that this still remains the best opportunity for peace? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the participants in the middle east process—which is so often cited—were not subjected to the full glare of media speculation or to leaked documents, and were helped by the presence of an independent arbiter? Can not we learn from that process?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is only a partially apt analogy, because the middle east process was one of negotiations. No negotiations have taken place of the character that I described on Monday by use of the chain of communication. That chain is a secret and valuable one.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the value of a secret means of communication with groups such as Sinn Fein. It should not be assumed that there is a direct analogy with the Israeli-Arafat process because no negotiations have been conducted by means of that chain.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the remarks by the Archbishop of Armagh yesterday here at Westminster when he called on Sinn Fein and the IRA to cease violence and, more than that, called for them to accept unambiguously the democratic process?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have heard many tributes paid to the speech made by Cardinal Daly yesterday which, unfortunately, I was not able to hear. The Archbishop was a fine record of resistance to and denunciation of violence which is pursued for political purposes or for any other purpose. His speech will repay a careful examination.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the value of the goal of a united Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: One needs to be careful when speaking in language that attributes value to a particular notion. The British Government cannot join the ranks of the persuaders. Here we differ from the Opposition who wish to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Ireland. We believe that it should be for the people of Northern Ireland to determine for themselves, without persuasion from us, whether they wish to remain in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman asks a rather naively loaded question when he asks whether we will sign up to the value of a united Ireland. What we sign up to is the value of maintaining a democracy and the rights of all democrats within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Butcher: I welcome the hint that my right hon. and learned Friend gave earlier that he may be considering restoring some of the functions of local government within the Province of Northern Ireland, but will he reassure me on whether a stage has been reached in which a foreign Government have a say in the internal constitutional affairs of the United Kingdom, or do the conversations that are going on with the Government of southern Ireland exclude that possibility?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: No, the Government stand by the agreement reached between all the four main constitutional parties and the Irish Government and ourselves back in 1991 that there should be discussions—political talks—with a view to achieving an overall settlement of all the political relationships within Northern Ireland, between north and south and between Dublin and London. The parties agreed that there should be a place in that process at a particular point for the Irish Government and that point was reached. When sufficient progress on strand 1 had been attained, the Irish Government came in. We hold to that agreement to which all the four main constitutional political parties adhered and we are not at the moment in the course of conducting any discussions that are incompatible with that agreement.
    Mr. Hume: Following what the Secretary of State has just said, he will reaffirm that the talks process to which both Governments and all parties agreed involved facing up to all the relationships that go to the heart of the problem, and those relationships include relationships with this Parliament. Have the Government already agreed a relationship with any party in this Parliament behind the backs of other parties?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer very well. He had better come out openly and ask whether a deal has been done between the Government and the Ulster Unionist party. If he asks that—[Interruption.] I would rather the hon. Gentleman did not shout while I am trying to answer his question, because I assume, in his favour, that he is interested in an answer. If that is what the hon. Gentleman means, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) have said. If, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report issued by the Procedure Committee last night, the Government have not reached a conclusion on that. The Government will study what has been said and will take account of the views of parties in the House in the ordinary way. Much has been said here about the need to reduce the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and affecting

    1159
    Northern Ireland, and it might be said that there is some value in having a Select Committee to look at the affairs of Northern Ireland rather than six separate Select Committees taking part of Northern Ireland's affairs into their ambits as they discuss the matters of individual Departments in Westminster. I simply offer that as an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

    Police Authority
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland Police Authority.
    Sir John Wheeler: The current membership of the Police Authority's term of office expries in June 1994 and the normal process for appointment of new members of the authority will commence shortly. I encourage all those approached for nominations to the authority to respond positively.
    Mr. Taylor: It was the last Government at Stormont who brought into existence the Northern Ireland Police Authority so that there would be cross-community involvement in supervising the provision of an efficient police service in Northern Ireland and to distance the police from political and Government control. Can the Minister assure the House that there is no intention to return the RUC to political or governmental control next year?
    Sir John Wheeler: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Consideration is being given to arrangements for policing structures in Northern Ireland, taking into account the White Paper and the Sheehy inquiry. Any changes would reflect the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland about policing, the need to hold the Chief Constable accountable to the community in Northern Ireland and the need to ensure the acceptability of the police to all sections of society in Northern Ireland.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vital importance of the north Wales railway line to the economy of north-west Wales, an importance recognised by the European Community? Yesterday's announcement about improvements to the west coast main line omitted to include any reference to the section to Holyhead. The Chancellor in his Budget statement did not even mention north Wales.
    May I impress on the Prime Minister the need to include the north Wales section in that programme, which should also include new rolling stock as well as track improvements?
    The Prime MinisterI am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any immediate commitment to that section of rail. Of course, in due course that will be a decision for Railtrack in conjunction with operators on the line. They will have to determine whether a commercial case exists for upgrading, electrifying or whatever appears to be appropriate for the north Wales line.
    Our commitment to the west coast main line is now clearly stated. The introduction of private finance can play a very substantial part both in the improvement of the line and in the renewal of much of the infrastructure.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn the merciless way in which Opposition spokesmen tried to frighten pensioners—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is riot responsible for Opposition policy or activities.
    Mr. Bruce: Indeed, Madam Speaker.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have fulfilled their commitments to pensioners? Will not the tough fiscal stance that we are continuing to take ensure that low interest rates and low inflation, which are the cornerstone of our recovery, continue to benefit both industry and the public?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly condemn scares, from wherever they may come. The Budget is delivering our policies to pensioners. We are delivering low inflation to protect their savings, we have uprated the pension to meet the cost of VAT on fuel, and we have introduced an income bond to give them a guaranteed income month after month. At the same time, we have been able to give a boost to business and to deliver sound public finance. The Budget is well on track to deliver, in due course, rising prosperity to all our citizens. I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) agrees with the Government that the proposed assistance to pensioners for fuel bills is adequate.
    Mr. John Smith: At a time of high unemployment, what is the moral justification for cutting entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have made substantial contributions towards both training and getting the unemployed back to work, which is the priority. Through unemployment benefit and subsequently, where necessary, through income support, we are ensuring that there is assistance for those who remain unemployed.
    Now, thankfully, we are seeing unemployment beginning to fall in every part of the country, and that is beginning to affect the long-term unemployed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know also that the majority of people who become unemployed are back in work within the six-month period for which they will still be entitled to unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister not begin to understand that it is a fraud on the public to raise national insurance contributions by a full 1 per cent. at the same

    1161
    time as cutting a benefit to which people have contributed all their working lives? Why do the Government not attack unemployment instead of attacking the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had his own, rather more dramatic, plans for increasing national insurance contributions. At the same time, he has his own plans for unemployment—plans which would put it up. A new training tax on employers would put it up. A minimum wage would put it up. Businesses with new taxes levelled up to the higher rates in other European countries would put it up. Forcing employers to introduce a 35-hour week would put it up. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's prescription for the economy. It would make more people unemployed, and for longer.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that in the real world in which, unfortunately, unemployed people have to live, if their partners work more than 24 hours per week they move from unemployment benefit to nothing—[Interruption.]—No, it is 24 hours per week. It was changed by the Government, as the Secretary of State for Employment should understand. Does the Prime Minister not understand that, however low the income that the working partner earns, the unemployed partner will receive no benefit? Is that not disgraceful in a country with so many unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman grows indignant in his usual fashion. Will he drop the policies that would make people unemployed, which he parades month after month? If not, what does he have to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a national minimum wage:
    "I knew the consequences were that there would be a shake-out in unemployment. Any silly fool knew that"?
    Not quite any silly fool, it seems.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for measures announced in the Budget to help small businesses? In particular, is he aware of the support for the announcement that the statutory audit for very small firms is to be abolished?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am aware of the support from many small business men and every small business organisation for the measures in the Budget. They do in a substantial way take the burdens off small businesses, abolish the audit requirement, and make matters simpler for more than 500,000 companies in this country. We are also raising the value added tax threshold to take 75,000 traders out of VAT. Ours is the only party committed to taking such measures to help small businesses.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the country waits to back the Prime Minister if he will take further risks for peace in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reaffirm that he has no difficulty with the principle of separate and parallel self-determination for the people of the island of Ireland—north and south?
    The Prime Minister: For us, there is one fundamental point. It is that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the freely expressed consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Gillan: Has my right hon. Friend had time to reflect today on the overwhelming vote of support that the other place gave the Government last night?—[Laughter.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a waste of time. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Order. The House is using up precious time.
    Mrs. Gillan: Is not that great success and the overwhelming support for the Budget on Tuesday further proof that the Labour party is totally out of touch with the British people, both in the other place and in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know that my hon. Friend's last comment about the Labour party being as out of touch in the other place as here can possibly be true. The reality is that it is rather odd to table a motion of no confidence in the Government in the other place the day after failing to vote against the Queen's Speech. I rather suspect that the outcome of the vote in the House of Lords, where fewer than 100 Labour Peers were prepared to support the Opposition, shows a great lack of confidence in the Labour party in this House and nationally as well as in the leadership in the House of Lords. That may be because it used to be a serious party, but it is no longer that because it has no policies.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the Prime Minister admit to any embarrassment or even mild contrition at presiding over the biggest tax rises in British post-war history? Is it not a grotesque betrayal of the people who voted for his party 18 months ago that he should now be introducing these colossal tax rises?
    The Prime Minister: I did not notice a great deal of complaint from the hon. Gentleman over the expenditure to protect people who were vulnerable during the recession. I did not hear a great deal from the hon. Gentleman about that. Broadly, had the Labour party won the election and were its members sitting on the Government Benches having implemented their programme, the increase to the average taxpayer now would have been about £24 a week.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend feel that on Northern Ireland we can do without the shifting and swinging influence and suggestions of the Liberal Democrats, in view of the utterances of that party's leader at the weekend? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy is clear and well balanced and provides the only way forward to a lasting and durable solution? I wish my right hon. Friend well for the meeting with the Taoiseach tomorrow.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who have indicated their support for the meeting tomorrow. I hope that we shall be able to make some further progress. There is an overwhelming feeling in Northern Ireland and elsewhere

    1163
    that we should seek to produce peace in Northern Ireland if we can, but there are parameters to those discussions and that must be understood. The first parameter is that to which I referred in answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, a moment ago.
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Prime Minister aware of my constituent, Michael Gibson, who died in August this year 16 months after being violently assaulted in Darlington town centre? Is he also aware that Michael's killer is now free to roam the streets again because the current law stipulates that a charge of murder can be brought only if a victim dies within 366 days of an offence taking place? Will the Prime Minister join me and the Gibson family in urging the Home Secretary to review a law which not only takes no account of advances in medical technology, but which simply fails to deliver justice?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the particularly tragic case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should like to send my sympathy to the family. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking at precisely that matter now.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us who entirely endorse his total and complete commitment to peace in Northern Ireland believe
    1164
    that one way of solving that desperate problem is to integrate Northern Ireland completely and entirely in the United Kingdom? Will he give the matter some consideration because many Members on both sides believe that that could bring the problems of Northern Ireland to a speedy conclusion?
    The Prime Minister: Among the principles agreed last year was an agreement, accepted across the House, that we were looking for an agreement that would stretch right across Northern Ireland and all the individuals who live in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that we are pursuing, as we are at present, the objectives that I set out earlier.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Prime Minister face up to the implications of his Government's Budget? Does he accept that not only the car worker, for whom he cried crocodile tears before the last election, but the average experienced police officer will pay well in excess of £500 extra in tax on their basic pay? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of presiding over the biggest tax bill ever for the British public?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might bear in mind that probably the car worker whom he is talking about is now exporting and making more cars than ever before and therefore has a more secure future, not least because of the policies that we have followed to get down inflation and interest rates.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER— Consideration in Committee of the Sunday Trading Bill (first day).
Motion on the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY 9 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on the European Community white papers, European Community budget and subjects to be discussed at the forthcoming European Council, on a Government motion.
FRIDAY 10 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 13 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 8 December to consider European Community document No. 8441/93 on the protection of animals during transport.
[Wednesday 8 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 8441/93, transport of animals; Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-xxxviii (1992–93), HC 48-i (1992–93).]
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I remind him that Labour Members expressed great concern last year about the fact that many people were losing their right to vote because of the defective state of electoral registers, especially in the Tory-controlled London borough of Brent. As this year's initial figures show that the electoral register in Brent is down yet again by 13,000, and as the council is refusing at present to do anything about it, will he ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about the activities that the Government are undertaking to ensure that people have the right to vote?
In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to take account of parliamentary answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 26 November, which show that, although in Scotland and Northern Ireland the relevant Secretaries of State intend to mount a publicity campaign to remind people who are disabled or sick or who have a right to proxy and postal votes of their entitlement to vote in the local and Euro-elections, no such campaign is planned in England and Wales? We should like the Home Secretary to address that issue.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement to the House, perhaps next week, on the defeat that the Government have suffered in the High Court at the hands of the fishing industry on the compulsory tie-up policy, which as yet has not been reported to the House?
1166
We all very much hope that, once the process of debates on the Budget is complete, there will be early and full discussions on the way in which business is now being handled. It cannot be satisfactory to the House to have substantial statements at the outset of business on each day of the Budget debate, thus squeezing the start of the debate itself well into the early hours of the evening? Because the Budget is combined with public expenditure, we all understand the need somehow to handle those statements, but there could and should have been full discussions about how we should deal with this before the unified Budget process was introduced. Since that has not happened, will the Lord President assure us that it will happen before next year, and may we have an Opposition day soon?
Mr. Newton: That was a rather longer list of questions than the right hon. Lady usually has. I will do my best to deal with them all.
First, as to the electoral register, I think that the right course is for me to bring the right hon. Lady's observations to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope also that, in the light of what the right hon. Lady said, the people who are responsible for those matters in Brent might also give them some consideration. The right hon. Lady might care to transmit that message as well. [Interruption.]
As to the days-at-sea point, as the right hon. Lady said, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation's case against the Government has been referred to the European Court, which, I understand, is unlikely to rule on it in less than 18 months, so final judgment in the United Kingdom will be correspondingly delayed.
I assure the right hon. Lady that the Government are urgently studying the position and will make an announcement when they are in a position to do so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is on the Front Bench, will have noted the request as to the way in which that announcement should be made.
As to the Budget debate and the right hon. Lady's observations, I think that I made it clear several times, not least to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that we do think that it will be right to review any lessons that need to be drawn from the unified Budget procedure in the light of experience this year. Of course we would expect to have regard to representations that the right hon. Lady might make through the usual channels or in other ways.
I would, however, make the point that, until the date of the social security uprating statement, for example, was changed the Government—in the mid-1980s as I recall, probably when I was Minister of State—for many years it was the norm for the social security statement to follow in the immediate wake of the Budget, as it has done this year. If the right hon. Lady wishes to make representations to the effect that she would prefer those matters to be dealt with only after a long delay—which, as they are involved in the Budget, would seem a bit odd—or by written answer, rather than oral statement, I would happily consider those possibilities.
Lastly, on the subject of Supply days, I always seek to satisfy the right hon. lady's ambitions, but I cannot make any great promises for the period between now and Christmas at this stage.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early, urgent debate on the policies that are being followed by local education authorities controlled by Labour and Liberal Democrat coalitions, not least in the county of Kent, where up to £100,000 of council tax payers' money is being set aside to encourage schools vigorously not to embark upon a policy of securing grant-maintained status?
Hon. Members: Abuse.
Mr. Newton: This is, I think, the second Thursday running when significant questions relating to the way in which Kent is dealing with those matters have been asked in the House. I will ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is drawn to them.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that next Thursday's business about EC documents and the motion that he intends to place before the House is not confined to the budget of the EC for the next year, but also relates to an adjustment of its own financial structure for the next few years? If that is the case, can the Leader of the House confirm that the forthcoming meeting of the European Council to which the motion will no doubt relate will take decisions on that matter, and that any Bill that may come before the House subsequently will be only to effect those decisions and not to give leave to anyone to agree to them?
Mr. Newton: The list of documents that are to he taken into account in the debate next Thursday is extensive, and it would not be sensible for me to attempt to run through them all at this stage. Nor, indeed, can I give undertakings —it is literally not within my power—as to precisely what will emerge from the meeting of the European Council. I note, however, the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon Friend aware of the inquiry that is currently being undertaken by the Arts Council into the future funding of the four London orchestras? Can he arrange for a debate to be held before Christmas, because this is a matter of urgency, so as to ensure that the House has an opportunity to express its views about a process which could lead to the destruction of two of those four orchestras, with consequent effects on the artistic and cultural life of the capital city and elsewhere, and on Britain's balance of payments?
Mr. Newton: I believe that the Government's commitment to the arts has been clearly demonstrated over a long period. Indeed, despite the continuing need to keep strict control of public expenditure, we have managed even now to find more money than was planned for the arts. I put that fact on the table before my hon. Friend, but I cannot promise what I would call a dedicated debate. However, he may find that there will be opportunities for him to raise the matter, if he wishes, before the House rises for the recess.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House comes to these occasions well briefed, but is he aware of my representations to Ministers earlier today about the 3,000-plus Ferranti workers now heading for the back of the longest queue in Britain—the dole queue? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask every Minister who can help to do so urgently, and may we have an oral statement next week on the Government's response to this tragedy?
Mr. Newton: I will draw the latter request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but I can readily assure the right hon. Member that of course Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and any other relevant Department will wish to do everything they can to assist with problems that will follow what has occurred at Ferranti.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate or statement before Christmas on safety standards and maintenance on London Underground, including investment in that organisation, so that my constituents, many of whom have to commute into London, can be reassured that they will not again have to face the awful ordeal that they suffered a few days ago, which caused many of them considerable difficulty?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the investment programme in London Transport continues at a high level—significantly higher than in the days of the old Greater London council, for example. But I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Now that we have reached the time of year when we celebrate both the Hindu festival of light and Advent, which is a preparation for our celebration at Christmas, may we have some enlightenment and some news worthy of celebration from the Leader of the House? May we hear details, set out in a logical way, of when the Government expect to introduce the legislation mentioned in the Queen's Speech, for which they obtained the assent of the House, so that we have some idea of the timetable for the year, especially in relation to the Sunday trading option votes—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is on Wednesday."] No, that is only the first day. May we also have some news about ordering the sittings of the House sensibly—news often promised but never yet delivered?
Mr. Newton: In my concluding speech in the debate on the Loyal Address, I made some comments on the continuing efforts to achieve progress in securing the necessary agreement on that matter, and I cannot now add to what I said then.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I presume that he had noticed that I announced the debate on the Sunday trading options, which we hope will be dealt with next Wednesday. Thereafter, I expect the Bill to go to Standing Committee and at some later stage, perhaps while the Bill is still in Committee, we shall have on the Floor of the House the day that has been committed for the employment protection provisions.
Beyond that, I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman a detailed catalogue of the dates on which Government Bills will appear. Some have already appeared; some will have their Second Readings in the House of Lords in the next week or two; others I hope to bring forward shortly after Christmas.
Mr. Simon Burns: As there is no time in next week's business schedule for a debate, will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade the appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) and myself of this morning's announcement by the Department of Trade and Industry that Chelmsford

1169
in Essex has received the full bid for KONVER funding to help defence-related industries that have suffered so many redundancies, and to provide a future, so that we can rebuild part of the manufacturing base in our constituencies?
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in communicating his mèssage to the President of the Board of Trade, because it would be easy for me to couple my name with that of my hon. Friends and to express my congratulations to the people from Essex county council and elsewhere who have put so much work into developing the project, not least because it is probable that as many of my constituents as my hon. Friends' will be helped.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 155?
[That this House condemns the Portuguese Government and authorities for its failure to investigate the tragic death of Paul Kenney, whilst on holiday in Portugal in July; is outraged that the Portuguese authorities failed to take any steps to trace Paul's family, who were in Portugal at the time and were only informed of his death after his parents traced him to a local hospital, where the body had lain for four weeks after being found on a beach in Portimao, although on several visits to the hospital his parents were told that no person of his description had been admitted; expresses its dismay that even though Paul had telephone numbers on his person that would have helped identify him, neither the police nor the hospital made any effort to trace his next of kin; condemns the extraordinary discourtesy of the Portuguese Ambassador and his staff towards the honourable Member for Leicester, West, when he sought to progress this matter on behalf of his constituents, the Kenney family; and demands that the Portuguese Government now take immediate action to investigate Paul Kenney's death, to inform the bereaved family of its causes and circumstances, and to apologise to the family for the disgraceful way in which it has treated them and their awful tragedy.]
It concerns the awful tragedy of the death of a young constituent of mine, Paul Kenney, while on holiday in Portugal and the outrageous behaviour of the Portuguese authorities. Could the Foreign Secretary make an early statement on why that British citizen's family were not informed about the death for four weeks, why they found out only by chance and why, even now, the Portuguese authorities have refused or failed to provide any information on how the death occurred, despite my efforts to find out through the Portuguese embassy—efforts that were most discourteously treated?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that that subject has been selected for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Newton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was going to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that. The Government share the concern shown in the motion about the circumstances of Mr. Kenney's death and the lack of notification to his family. We hope that the Portuguese
1170
authorities will respond positively to our consul's formal and informal requests for an explanation, and we shall continue to press for that.
As you, Madam Speaker, helpfully and informally reminded me, and as I was about to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he did not already know, he has the Adjournment debate on that matter on Friday 10 December, when he will have a greater opportunity to ventilate his concerns.
Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects that we will be able to have a full day's debate on agriculture? I understand that it was initially intended to have a day before Christmas. He will know from the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that there is to be a further reduction in the support given to hill farmers. It is likely that the first chance that the House will have to debate agriculture is when some specific, related motion comes before the House late at night. Would it not be much better to take a thorough, on-going look at agriculture to see how hill farmers are bearing up in the general context of farming?
Mr. Newton: There are three observations to be made on that issue. First, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be here on Thursday to answer questions. Secondly, on the same day, there will be extensive debating of European matters, into which he may probably squeeze a reference. Thirdly, I hope that he will acknowledge that, despite the reductions to the allowances to which he referred in 1993, the net farm income of the relevant farms rose by 33 per cent. in real terms between 1991–92 and 1992–93, and is set to rise by a further 28 per cent. this year.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 157?
[That this House welcomes the information provided by the Channel 4 programme Dispatches, broadcast on 1st December, which demonstrated conclusively that Aims of Industry is a front for the Conservative Party; notes with surprise that a number of companies who made donations to Aims of Industry have not included these in their annual report in breach of the Companies Act 1985; notes with concern the suggestion that before the 1992 general election Aims of Industry funded a campaign on behalf of the Conservative Party in Wallasey, apparently in breach of the Representation of the People Act 1983; and calls on the Prime Minister to instruct the President of the Board of Trade and the Home Secretary to authorise immediate investigations with a view to prosecuting those responsible.]
It concerns Aims of Industry and the Conservative party. In addition to a discussion about how Aims of Industry has illegally raised funds on behalf of and with the knowledge of the Conservative party—generally and in the constituency of Wallasey—we can discuss the dinners that the Prime Minister is again beginning to promote, with a tax-free subsidy that helps those dinners, and discuss the relationship between those who attend and donations from the tobacco companies, for example, to the Conservative election campaign in 1992 and the consequent refusal of the Government to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising.
Mr. Newton: I find the extent to which the hon. Gentleman appears to claim that the entire world rests on a permanent, running conspiracy of some kind quite

1171
extraordinary, and sometimes almost laughable. The Government's view is absolutely clear: that all companies should comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985, which was introduced by the Government. I hope that, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, he will find it possible also to condemn the millions of pounds spent on what was, in effect, political advertising by the National and Local Government Officers Association during the general election.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my right hon. Friend find a way to promote the superintendent of police in the Commons for his exemplary work in creating the maximum number of obstructions which prevent hon. Members from getting to the Commons and to the Chamber? Outside St. Stephen's entrance in particular there are more and more barriers which now resemble something out of Hampton Court maze.
During Divisions, we cannot get round Parliament square by car or by taxi because there is no police cover at the traffic lights to enable us to get through. When one finally arrives in New Palace yard, one finds that only officials and not Members of Parliament can park there. We have to park five or six floors down in the underground car park. Is it not time that we ensured that the House of Commons is run by and for Members of Parliament and not by officials for officials?
Mr. Newton: I shall convey my hon. Friend's initial recommendation to those responsible for these matters, although they may find that the gloss that he subsequently put on it conveys a rather different flavour. I say straightforwardly, not least because of your involvement in and knowledge of these matters, Madam Speaker, that there are present in the Chamber significant numbers of people concerned with security arrangments in and around the House who, I am sure, have noted what my hon. Friend has said and what has been said by a number of hon. Members earlier this Session.
Mr. David Winnick: As the Minister responsible for such matters, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that no motion will be put on the Order Paper for the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Would it not be wrong, at this time of all times, to do anything that would further divide the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland? There was no direct recommendation from the Select Committee on Procedure. The Committee was split, with Labour Members making it clear that we were opposed to such a Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman bears in mind the sensitive position over Northern Ireland at present.
Mr. Newton: I have, of course, looked at the report that the Procedure Committee agreed last night, and I have noted the voting pattern to which the hon. Gentleman accurately refers. He well knows that the Government have consistently acknowledged that, although such a Select Committee may, in principle, be desirable, a number of issues need to be considered before coming to a decision, let alone before putting proposals to the House. Obviously, any such proposals need to be the subject of discussion.
Mr. Ian Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give his attention to the announcement of a debate next Thursday on the European Community White Paper and budget? We find that all the relevant papers are
1172
not available at this stage. I have in my hand what is a available so far. Do we have enough time to review the documents, given the short notice?
Mr. Newton: I shall take first the main thrust of my hon. Friend's question. He is right to think that the documents that will be referred to in the motion are already in the Vote Office, as he has physically demonstrated, or will be there as soon as possible. Some of my documents are being prepared for the European Council, and final versions may not be available until early next week. It is obviously right that debate should take place before the European Council. The House would expect that to happen and would complain if it did not; that inevitably involves some late documentation, I am afraid.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When shall we have a Government statement about the role of the judges in meting out so-called "justice" in the courts? Does it not stink in the nostrils that Roger Levitt, who was involved in a £34 million swindle, was recently allowed to escape on the most important charges by the Government's Crown Prosecution Service, and that he finished up with 180 hours community service? He has friends in the Tory party, including Tory Members.
Terry Ramsden, a member of the race horse fraternity who was involved in a swindle of more than £50 million, got only an 18-month suspended sentence. Yet a Labour councillor in Derbyshire, in a case involving £13,000, was sent down the line for 18 months. Poll tax payers who refuse to pay the poll tax on principle are sent to gaol for as long as six months. There are double standards operating in British law, which is what one would expect from this tin-pot Government.
Mr. Newton: That is another question of what might now be regarded as a traditional variety from hon. Members who sit just below the Gangway. I simply observe, as calmly as I can, that I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about judges to the attention to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his observations about the Crown Prosecution Service to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at his timetabling, and give time to a matter that is of great importance to all the parents in my constituency and to every parent in the United Kingdom: the fitting of seat belts in coaches? There have recently been two tragic crashes. One of them was on the M40, near my constituency, when many young lives were lost. Sadly, last week there was another crash, on the A3. Although the children who were wearing seat belts were hurt, they were not killed.
I should be grateful if time could be put aside to debate the matter, as it is of great concern to all parents throughout the United Kingdom whose children travel every day on coaches and minibuses.
Mr. Newton: I well understand why my hon. Friend raised that question. Although I cannot promise time for a dedicated debate—as I called it earlier—she may find opportunities to raise that matter if she wishes between now and the recess. I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

1173
The Government are currently reviewing the technical and cost implications of her proposal, but feel that it would be unwise to rush into new legislation until the full reports of those accidents have been thoroughly considered.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Can we have a statement on the future of the days-at-sea legislation before the European debate next Thursday? Would it not be foolhardy to proceed with such controversial legislation while the matter lies before the European Court?
On the same time scale, can we have a statement on the crisis in the Scottish salmon industry, which impacts on thousands of jobs across rural Scotland? Why are the Irish Government defending the interests of their producers in Europe more vigorously than the British Government are defending our producers? Those of us who hope to see better Irish-British co-operation on a number of important issues would like to see some practical co-operation to protect the interests of that vital industry.
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know of the active interest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been taking in those problems. He will know also that the Commission introduced emergency safeguard measures in the form of minimum import prices to provide a temporary floor in the market while the longer-term problems that face the industry are addressed.
As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot give a date for any announcement by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the matter that I touched on earlier, but I take note of his request about the timing.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that, in Wednesday's debate on Sunday trading, there will be a completely free vote in the House of Commons and that there will be no so-called payroll votes on that issue?
Mr. Newton: I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), who is a member of the Whips Office, that that is not a matter for the Leader of the House. I presume that he is protecting some other empire. I do not speak for the Opposition Whips and therefore cannot say what they will do. Nobody has told me what to do.
Mr. David Shaw: Might it not be necessary to extend the debate on the Budget beyond Tuesday, given that so far we have had so few policies from the Opposition and that there is not much prospect in the next few days that we shall hear any more policy objectives from them?
Mr. Newton: That is a good question. Although I am much tempted, even if I were to extend the debate for a further year, the Opposition would still not have a policy.

Local Government Finance
3.56 pm
Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. I take points of order at the end of statements.
Mr. Clelland: But this point of order is about the statement to be made by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry; I can take points of order only—
Mr. Clelland: My point of order relates to what the Secretary of State is about to say. Hon. Members do not have the statement. I understand from the Vote Office that the Secretary of State has decided that hon. Members will not be entitled to see the statement until after he has sat down.
Madam Speaker: As I have explained on numerous occasions, it is at the discretion of the Minister whether to issue a copy of the statement before he makes it, when he rises or after he has finished. It is entirely a matter for him.
Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is normal for the documents relating to a statement to be made available by the Minister at the beginning of his statement, not at the end. Will the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House authorise the Vote Office to issue the documents? There is no question about it—they should be made available.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I would not want to be curmudgeonly. I merely did what I understood had been done before, and if the House would like the statement now, I am happy for that to happen.
Madam Speaker: Do I understand that the Secretary of State is releasing the documents in the Vote Office?
Mr. Gummer: I am.
Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.
4 pm
Mr. Gummer: With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority finance settlement for England for 1994-95—the document that is now in the Vote Office.
In forming my proposals, I have listened carefully to what local authorities and their associations have said to me, and I have considered fully the demands that will be placed on local authorities in the coming year. I have also weighed very carefully the interests of the economy as a whole. We must reduce the public sector deficit. Local government accounts for around a quarter of general Government expenditure and cannot be immune from our rigorous examination of all spending programmes.
I have had regard to levels of price inflation, with the RPI increase to October at 1·4 per cent. and the underlying rate currently the lowest for decades. I have also had in mind the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any increase in public

1175
sector pay in 1994–95 must be paid for by greater efficiency and economy. I have considered the scope that many authorities still have to increase their efficiency.
Those are the considerations underpinning the aggregate figures I published on 30 November. The Government's view is that the appropriate level of revenue spending for local authorities in England in 1994–95 will be £42·664 billion. Central Government funding in support of that expenditure will be £34·3129 billion.
Those figures reflect a number of specific changes in local authorities' functions next year. The most significant is the further increase in community care clients needing assessment and support. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 29 October, the Government propose to make available in 1994–95 a special grant of £736 million for that purpose. That amount is included in the figures I have just quoted.
I remind the House that that comparison must be like with like. Therefore, excluding such function changes, my proposal provides for a 2·3 per cent. increase in local authority spending year on year. That reflects our responsible approach, and I believe is a fair outcome in the current circumstances. Provided that local authorities themselves take the same responsible approach to pay and efficiency, and in assessing their spending priorities, front-line local services can be maintained.
I announced on 30 November that the distributable amount of non-domestic rates in 1994–95 should be £10·685 billion, and I am today publishing details of the full calculation. I proposed that the main revenue support grant in 1994–95 should be almost £18·5 billion. In addition, some £5·1 billion of specific and special grants would be available.
That is the total, and we must now see how it is to be divided up. The means of distributing the revenue support grant has at its heart the standard spending assessment for each authority. This year, because of the many cross-party requests, we have undertaken a thorough review of how SSAs are calculated, in consultation with the local authority associations.
The review had two essential purposes: first, to bring the system up to date by incorporating detailed information on social characteristics now available from the 1991 census; and, secondly, to review the elements that make up the SSA calculation by reappraising the factors that determine necessary local authority expenditure.
There is not an hon. Member who will not have heard from his local authority that this or that factor might be done in a different way. We have sought to listen to those requests very carefully, in association with the local authority organisations. We are very grateful for the co-operation and participation of the local authority associations in the process of the review. In addition, 200 individual local authorities made detailed representations. All these points were carefully considered before I formulated my proposals.
The package of proposals is detailed, but I will describe briefly some of the main points as they are of the utmost importance to many hon. Members. Having considered the evidence, I propose to reduce the present weight assigned to the allowance for additional needs within the education element. This is in the light of an updated statistical analysis of the proportion of local education authority spending that is attributable to additional needs. Even after
1176
the reduction, the additional needs allowance will still represent more than 20 per cent. of the education component of the SSA.
In the personal social services element, I propose a number of changes to the underlying indicators. In particular, for the assessments associated with elderly persons in need of domiciliary and residential care, I propose to introduce an indicator of long-term illness. That has been pressed upon me widely. For residential care, I also propose to adjust the calculation to reflect authorities' responsibilities under the community care arrangements.
One of the most controversial features of the method of calculating SSAs since they were introduced in 1990–91 has been the measurement of social conditions by means of the all-ages social index. That index aims to provide a broad measure of social conditions that are likely to affect the cost to local authorities of providing services. A large number of authorities have suggested that a wider range of social and economic indicators should be incorporated in SSAs. I have looked carefully at the evidence and I propose to introduce a revised social index and an economic index, which will include indicators of unemployment, ill health and homeless.
I also propose to make allowance for the numbers of day visitors within the assessment of services for districts. Previously, we did not have reliable data on a consistent basis for all authorities, but as a result of research commissioned for the purpose we now have the necessary estimates of numbers of day visitors by authority.
I have thought most carefully about the issue of the adjustment to take account of additional employment costs in London and the south-east. That is an issue on which opinions are sharply divided, and those divisions are almost entirely geographical. Those who fall within the area covered tend to be very enthusiastic about it; those who fall outside the area naturally find reasons why it is not correct. My predecessor acknowledged in the debate on the 1993–94 settlement in February that we would need to consider carefully the evidence for the present cost adjustment, and that is what we have done. I have concluded that there is firm evidence to support the present level of allowance for employment costs, and that there is justification for a further small addition for the costs of business rates. That is what I propose.
My proposals for 1994–95 are firmly based on the available statistical evidence, and I am confident that they will stand up to scrutiny. The system is fair, rational, up to date and comprehensive. Each of the proposed changes has been subject to the most rigorous analysis and has been incorporated only if it was resilient to that analysis.
At individual authority level, the effect of my proposals will vary. Changing a means of distribution to make it fairer produces losers as well as gainers. I recognise that authorities facing a reduction in SSA will need time to adjust their spending. I therefore propose to set aside some £280 million for a special grant to authorities whose SSAs are reduced by more than 2 per cent. as a result of the incorporation of the more detailed information from the 1991 census and of the review. The grant will be paid in support of expenditure by those authorities, cushioning the impact on council tax payers. I will review the situation next year before deciding whether to extend that transitional measure.
Last year my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, looked ahead to the first year of the council tax. He predicted that the tax would place

1177
local government finance on a sure footing and would find general support. I am pleased to report that my right hon. and learned Friend's optimism was well placed, and that the council tax has been successfully established as the means whereby local residents contribute to the cost of local services. In doing so, I gladly echo my right hon. and learned Friend's commendation of the constructive role of local authorities and their associations in preparing for its introduction.
Council taxes can vary widely, depending on the spending decisions of each local authority and its performance in collecting the tax, on the circumstances of each household and on individual entitlement to exemptions or benefits. There is therefore practically no meaning in talking about average taxes. For the sake of grant distribution, however, we have to identify notional taxes for each valuation band, for a standard level of spending—the so-called council tax for standard spending or CTSS. My proposals incorporate a CTSS for band C of £468. I emphasise again, however, that that is merely an element in the grant formula. It is neither a prediction of individual council tax bills nor a national average, and those who have sought to use it as such in the past have found how very far out their calculations are.
One reason why the bills of individual households will vary is the effect of council tax transitional relief, which has reduced the bills of those who faced the largest increases from the move from one taxation system to another. Some 3·7 million households are benefiting from transitional relief this year. In line with our commitment to continue transitional relief for two years at least, I propose to make available, in addition to the central support that I have already announced, some £130 million to provide continued relief in 1994–95. In general, taxpayers will receive last year's relief less an amount ranging from £67 a year for band A to £137 a year for band H.
In the current economic circumstances, we are as determined as ever that local authorities should play their full part in making reasonable spending plans that their local taxpayers and the country can afford. I am today announcing my provisional capping criteria for 1994–95. I am also issuing proposals for the calculation of notional amounts for certain authorities whose boundaries will change from 1 April 1994. They are the base from which I will measure increases in budgets in determining whether those increases are excessive. In addition, my provisional capping criteria themselves make allowance for the expenditure on care in the community that is being met this year by the special transitional grant. That allows a fair year-on-year comparison.
As in previous years, my provisional capping criteria allow larger increases for authorities with budgets close to their SSAs than for those whose budgets are relatively higher. Where budgets are very substantially above SSA, I intend again to seek budget reductions. The effect of my intended criteria is that: any increase of more than 1·75 per cent. over 1993–94 will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement above the authority's SSA; any increase of more than 1·25 per cent. over 1993–94 will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA; and any increase of more than 0·75 per cent. over 1993–94 will be considered an excessive
1178
increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA. In addition, I intend that any budget requirement more than 12·5 per cent. above SSA will be considered excessive—save that an authority will not be designated if it fulfils certain conditions equivalent to those that have applied in previous years. Those criteria are necessarily provisional. I cannot make any decisions on capping until authorities have set their budgets for 1994–95. When I come to take those decisions, I shall of course take into account all appropriate considerations.
One issue affecting a small number of authorities in 1994–95 is the start-up cost of local government reorganisation. Our intention is that, in 1994–95, authorities should be able to borrow for any such costs, and I am today issuing a consultation paper on the detailed arrangements.
In conclusion, my Department today is writing to every local authority in England with details of the system. The package includes a consultation paper which sets out how we propose to distribute central Government support between authorities, including my proposals for SSAs and for damping SSA losses.
The package gives details of the proposed council tax transitional relief schemes, sets out provisional capping criteria and includes proposals of notional amounts. It also includes a consultation paper on how costs arising from local government restructuring should be met. Copies of the package have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Library.
The proposals which I have outlined today represent a balanced and reasonable response to the conflict between the pressure to provide ever more resources for local government and the need to reduce the public spending gap. They provide for a 2·3 per cent. increase in local authority spending. They incorporate major improvements in the way in which the available resources are allocated, while protecting people in those authorities which stand to lose most from the results of the incorporation of the 1991 census data and the SSA review. They would allow council taxes next year to be set at reasonable levels, maintaining a substantial measure of transitional relief, and offering protection from excessive bills. They represent a package which the country can afford.
Mr. Jack Straw: On Tuesday we had the bizarre spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasting of cuts in the House while the Secretary of State for Environment boasted of rises in spending outside the House. Since they cannot both be right, has not the Secretary of State surrendered to the Chancellor? Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how he came to issue a press release on Tuesday with the unqualified headline
"Local Government Spending to Rise by 2·3 per cent"?
Did the Secretary of State know that was plain wrong or did he just not bother to check?
Has the Secretary of State studied the small print of the Red Book? Table 5.4 shows that, during the next two years, the cut which he has accepted and to which he has surrendered is £860 million next year and £1·5 billion the year after that. Is not that cut three times greater than has been conceded by any other Minister? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that is the worst record of any service-providing Minister?

1179
Is the right hon. Gentleman proud or ashamed of his surrender, and of the damage which will flow from his failure—larger classes, higher home help charges, less help for vulnerable children, fewer day nursery places and lower spending on crime prevention and on youth work?
The Secretary of State claimed in the press notice, and repeated it today, that a 2·3 per cent. increase represented an increase in total spending. How does that fit with the letter which his predecessor, the present Home Secretary, wrote to the Chief Secretary in May saying that an increase of 5·2 per cent. was needed in total standard spending
"to protect local authority services."?
If the then Secretary of State was right to claim that 5·2 per cent. was needed, how can the present Secretary of State be right today? Will the Secretary of State confirm that compared with what authorities are spending this year by lawful budgets, each of which was approved by his predecessor, the settlement will mean a 1·2 per cent. cash cut?
On top of those cuts, all councils will have cuts in their capital programmes, including a £500 million cut from the Housing budget and the re-freezing of capital receipts. Is not it crazy that local authorities should have over £5,000 million of capital receipts in the bank at a time of desperate housing, social and economic needs? They could and should use those capital receipts for the benefit of their residents for housing and for other much-needed capital projects, but instead they have to be locked up by order of the Chancellor.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, last December, the then Secretary of State told me
"there is no need, as you suggest, for authorities to cut their staff as a result of my proposals for the 1993–94 settlement"?
Will the present Secretary of State repeat such a brazenly incorrect statement today? Does he realise that, contrary to that statement, during the past year thousands of local authority jobs have been lost as a direct result of that settlement? How many more jobs does the right hon. Gentleman estimate will be lost next year as a result of this settlement?
Standard spending assessments have a profound impact on spending and council tax levels, but the Minister will accept that the information which he has presented to the House, and which hon. Members have had just 15 minutes to digest while listening to his captivating statement, include complicated algebraic formulae and factors which run to 16 decimal points, and that in those circumstances councils will need time to comprehend the full impact of what he has announced today?
However, is it not clear, from the information that is already available to hon. Members, that once again the Secretary of State has sought to distort the system so as to stuff grant the way of a few favoured Tory councils? Can it be an accident? Annex A of an unnumbered special grant report shows that, of the 88 councils that are to receive the so-called standard spending assessment reduction grant, it is, surprise, surprise, Conservative-controlled Wandsworth which gets the largest amount—£26·5 million, nearly one tenth of the national total and £3 million more than Birmingham which has more than five times Wandsworth's population. What a surprise from a Government who claim to be fair. That is on top of the £30 million of so-called transitional relief, again one tenth of the total for the country, which his predecessor stuffed to Wandsworth this year.
1180
If, as the Secretary of State claimed in his statement, his decisions today are "fair and rational" and will stand up to "scrutiny", why does he not do what the Audit Commission and the Opposition have proposed and submit his plans to the scrutiny of an independent local government grants commission to make recommendations to Ministers and to the House about the distribution of grant?
Is not it time for hon. Members and Ministers to recognise the futility of all this financial gerrymandering? Last May, despite extra grant to the then Conservative shires, the Tory party suffered its worst ever losses in those shires. On top of those losses, reducing Tory shires to one, in the last six months the Conservative party has lost control to Labour of Hillingdon borough council in outer London, of Gravesham council in Kent and, last Thursday, following an astonishing Labour victory in a safe Conservative ward, of Dover council. Local elections have repeatedly shown that the voters have overwhelming confidence in Labour councils, which provide far better services and have average council tax payments £14 per resident less than in Tory areas.
Despite the Secretary of State's weasel words, will he say by what percentage on this settlement he expects councl tax bills to rise on average? Will he confirm that the obscure figure of £468 for council tax total spending levels at band C means a band D tax, which is the central tax, of £526, and that, on the information that the Secretary of State has given to the House, that involves a 6·8 per cent. increase in council tax—four times the level of inflation?
As for capping, when will the Secretary of State recognise that he now presides over the most centralised system of council control in the western world, which denies local choice and which system was specifically disowned by the Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary in a 1988 White Paper in which he said that councils spending from their own local revenue should form no part of the Government's control total?
Is not it astonishing that, of all Secretaries of State, the right hon. Gentleman, who is so ready sanctimoniously to lecture others about morality, should in today's statement be so alarmingly lacking in those key moral values of courage and candour? He lacks the courage to admit that he failed in the public spending round, and he lacks the candour to admit that his failure will lead to serious reductions in the services that councils provide and in the number of staff they employ.
Mr. Gummer: In a general statement on ministerial answers, Madam Speaker, you asked for answers to be kept short. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Black burn (Mr. Straw) that he does his cause no good by trying to produce false comparisons in the figures and seeking to avoid—[Interruption.] I am telling the absolute truth. I compare like with like, not like with totally unlike.
As an example, I shall take the hon. Gentleman's comment about the average council tax. If a council has a large number of low-banded houses, overall it will have a lower council tax than a council with a large number of high-banded houses. If there is to be a proper comparison, the hon. Gentleman must not twist the figures or misunderstand them—he must compare band with band. The truth is that, when comparing band with band, Tory authorities have lower taxes than Labour authorities. Of course, we would not expect otherwise because Tory authorities believe in low tax while Labour authorities

1181
believe in high tax. The hon. Gentleman knows that and he uses his figures with a lack of candour and a great deal of cowardice. He is not prepared to use the proper figures.
I shall move on to other matters. To compare the Red Book figures with total standard spending is to compare like with unlike. The Red Book figures show an increase in spending for local authorities, as is perfectly proper. The TSS, compared with last year's TSS, has increased by 2.3 per cent. The current Red Book figures, compared with previous figures, suggest a smaller rise. That is not surprising because there is a much lower rate of inflation, many local authorities have learned to make their money go further by taking a more sensible view on contracting out and so on, and interest rates have decreased considerably.
This is the first time that I have heard a rise called a cut, except in the mathematics of the hon. Member for Blackburn. Indeed, his mathematics were pathetic. He referred to job losses, as he did on the previous statement. Indeed, he used the same figure last time as he used this time. He did not use it today in the House, but I heard him use it on the radio. I know the figure that he is using. Last time he said that Birmingham would suffer job losses. We all remember him saying that Birmingham would get rid of almost all its staff, there would not be any jobs and everything would be terrible. In fact, there was a 2.3 per cent. increase in the number of jobs in that council. That does not square with all the doom and gloom that we heard from the hon. Gentleman.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that there would be some public sector job losses, because that is the consequence of going out to private tender. When a private firm wins a contract there is an increase in the number of private jobs and a decrease in the number of public jobs. The hon. Gentleman grabs the decrease and fails to mention the increase. He does not want more jobs, only more council jobs. That is what the issue is all about, even though he knows that an increase in private jobs and a decrease in council jobs lowers the cost of services, results in the provision of better services and gives the council more money to spend on other council services, which is what we want.
The hon. Gentleman says, "Do not let the Secretary of State for the Environment do that, or any of the people who used to do it before"—including in a Labour Government —"but let some private quango do it." The scourge of the quango wants a new quango. I think that is a very good idea. It would mean that I could come to the House and say, "I am awfully sorry that your SSA in Blackburn has fallen, or has not increased as much as you would like. But that is nothing to do with me—the independent quango told me what to do."
Happily, I am an elected Member of Parliament. I am responsible to the House for the figures. They are my figures, by which I stand. What is more, they are correct—unlike the false figures of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend totally disregard the party political tomfoolery we have heard from the Opposition? If I understood the arcane figures correctly, Cambridgeshire county council will receive an SSA more than twice the
1182
rate of inflation. Therefore, there is no excuse for inefficiency by the already incompetent Lib-Lab coalition in command there.
My right hon. Friend is to be commended for tackling the vexed question of the area cost adjustment. Is it not possible to correct the absurdities that result in Cambridgeshire receiving nothing and Oxfordshire and Bedfordshire receiving benefit by moving away from the crude and arbitrary regional area system and returning to a county system in interpreting area cost adjustment?
Mr. Gummer: It is perfectly true that my hon. Friend's authority is subject to an increased SSA, in common with a number of other authorities. I happen to have a list of them. Wigan, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield and Newcastle all do extremely well—although the hon. Member for Blackburn might have thought that they would not—because of the objective measurements. Wandsworth gets the largest amount of damping grant because it has the largest cut. Labour Members are busy trying to make party political propaganda out of an honourable and decent thing—which is to cut where cutting must take place.
I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion for the next time, but I warn him that everybody feels one way if they benefit and the other if they do not.
Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a peculiar anomaly that capital spending by local authorities from capital receipts is still frozen when the Government insist that the Ministry of Defence's capital receipts are 100 per cent. spent this year in MOD spending on revenue or capital?
Mr. Gummer: The capital receipts that arise from this year—the parallel that the hon. Gentleman would be making—are available for spending in local authorities, so he cannot object to that. That is one thing that we did this year for a particular reason, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased about it.
Also, capital receipts are not frozen. They are available to pay off debt. Labour Members do not appear to understand that when one borrows money, one has to pay it back—which is why they have always got the economy in such a mess. That is why they talk about freezing when in fact it is available for the spending for which it ought to be available. Labour and Liberal councils have a great deal of debt to pay off before they start lecturing us.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I wonder whether I have understood the position correctly in respect of Devon. It seems that my right hon. Friend responded to the case that I and a number of west country Members of Parliament put to him and to his predecessor over a number of years—that SSAs do not necessarily reflect the amount to which Devon should be entitled. If that is correct, and if more money could now be spent on, for instance, education, can my right hon. Friend say anything to ensure that the money really does go on education and is not just frittered away by the Liberals who control the county council?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend and his Devon colleagues have an honourable record in pressing the case for Devon with the Government. When the various items that he raised were looked at properly, it resulted in Devon receiving a better share of the cake. That money can be spent by his county council as it thinks fit. It will be up to him to point out how much is ill spent by the

1183
Liberal-controlled local authority. As this is a universal element in Liberal control, he will not have much difficulty in pointing it out.
Mr. David Clelland: In his examination of the all-ages social index, did the Secretary of State give any consideration to the introduction of an economic deprivation factor into the SSA for other services—parks, recreation and environmental services? Is he aware that that would be a fairer system than the all-ages social index, which has Cambridge and Cheltenham more deprived than Newcastle? Not only would it increase spending in deprived areas by reducing bills, but it would save money for the Treasury—the Chancellor might be interested in this—by reducing benefit levels. Will he look again at the all-ages social index and consider introducing a much fairer system than we have now?
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to look at anything that the hon. Gentleman puts before me. I have already looked carefully at that and I think that he will be pleased with the economic index that we have put in which takes particular care to deal with unemployment and long-term illness—two things which the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues thought were important. I am happy to say that the changes in the SSA have improved the SSA in Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne, in one case by 4·1 per cent. and in the other by 4·8 per cent.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome as reasonable the 2·4 per cent. increase all over the country, but we are obviously concerned for our own areas. Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year the London Boroughs Association considered that we lost £200 million from London to the rest of the country and we would like it back? Is he also aware that, if we are using the figures from the 1991 census, London will be disadvantaged because so many people disappeared down black holes so that they did not have to pay the poll tax that up to 10,000 were missing from any one constituency, and there is no consideration for that?
Mr. Gummer: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. He will be happy to know that the damping grant of nearly £19 million ensures that the loss in Brent would not be more than 2 per cent. With the damping grant, London as a whole will receive an addition of £200 million.
That is in stark contrast to the statement by Mr. Toby Harris, the leader of the Association of London Authorities, who said on the radio this morning that London would lose more than £800 million. Mr Harris's figures were £1 billion out. The only comparable error in figures was made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It seems that innumeracy is a quality shared by most Labour local government spokesmen.
Despite that, there is a particular problem with Brent. [Interruption.] Happily, the new authority in Brent has improved things considerably after Labour-controlled Brent produced one of the worst examples of local government in the country, if not in the world. Part of Brent is moved to the neighbouring borough under the reorganisation. That causes a specific difficulty, but I shall be happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about that. He will be pleased with the increase in money coming to London.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is not it the case that, as a result of the review of SSAs and the changes in the additional education needs allowance, most inner London boroughs have suffered serious losses? Is not it absurd that areas of inner London which are extremely deprived in all sorts of ways and which show signs of serious social deprivation should be losers rather than gainers in the review of SSAs? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the net loss for the inner London boroughs as a result of his new settlement?
Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman gives a curious example, because six inner London boroughs gain and six lose. They do so by an objective system. We have sought to make the system as objective as possible. The result is that, for example, Greenwich has a 7·6 per cent. increase, Southwark a 3·8 per cent. increase, Barking an 11·8 per cent. increase, and Hillingdon, an outer London borough, a 7·8 per cent. increase. The right hon. Gentleman's borough has a 4·3 per cent. increase. I will be happy to send him the detailed figures for inner and outer London.
We have devised objective methods, many of which were introduced because of requests by the Labour party, on the long-term ill and unemployment, which were specifically raised with me when I visited the right hon. Gentleman's borough. As we listened to the requests of the Labour party and made changes from which his borough benefited, it is churlish of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is something wrong with a system that is designed to do the best we can. Perhaps he would like to rethink the way in which he put his question.
Sir Cranley Onslow: My right hon. Friend will remember a deputation of Surrey Members visiting him and making a strong case about the unfair way in which the system of calculation has worked against the interests of the residents of Surrey. What has he been able to do to put that right?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend advanced a strong argument in the discussions. It upsets me considerably when the Opposition suggest that we run the system so that certain authorities benefit and others do not. We cannot do that. We apply the same criteria to every authority. The result is as good as it can be—as fair a balance as is possible between the various authorities. It so happens that, when we followed that policy, my right hon. Friend's contention proved to be true. That is why Guildford has an improvement in its SSA of 6 per cent. and Woking of 7·2 per cent. Those who object to our policy are objecting to a system that tries to take into account the objective methods that the Labour party asked for.
Mr. Stephen Byers: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the 2·3 per cent. increase in the education SSA for next year provides a figure that is about £232 million less than the amount being spent in our schools this year? Does he recognise that £232 million is equivalent in cash to 9,096 teaching jobs? How can cuts of £232 million in the school budget, threatening more than 9,000 teachers' jobs, be reconciled with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Tuesday that the Budget would increase education opportunities and improve standards?
Mr. Gummer: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has not had much time to look at the figures——
Mr. Straw: He needs more time.
Mr. Gummer: He does need time because he is comparing two different figures. He is comparing the outturn figure at the end of year with the total standard spending figure at the beginning of year. The outturn figure is always higher than the TSS figure. One should take the two figures that are comparable. There is no way around that. It is like comparing the budget of a company with its spending at the end of the year. One should compare budget with budget and outturn with outturn. If one compares the TSS this year with the TSS last year, one finds that there is a 2·3 per cent. increase.
The hon. Gentleman will find that we have spent a good deal of time in ensuring that our priorities, one of which is education, get a disproportionate increase so that we not only safeguard but improve services. The hon. Gentleman should compare like with like. The figures that he gave therefore are not true because he compared two totally different figures when he should have compared the same ones.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that comments such as those made by the Labour leader of the ALA are pitiful, given the incompetence of the authorities that he represents, of which the collection of the council tax perhaps is an example? Many of those authorities are now suffering in their budgets the effects of the sale and lease-back nonsense of the 1980s.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. It is perfectly true that some authorities do a very poor job for their council tax payers. I think, for example, of the London borough of Lambeth, where the council tax is significantly higher than it would have been had it not been for its incompetence in collection and its long history, which is now having to be paid for. However much better it may get year by year, its council tax payers are still bearing the burden.
Mr. John Fraser: I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that things are getting better in Lambeth. I recognise that there are swings and roundabouts, but will he confirm that the extraordinarily high SSA reduction grant of £21 million in Hackney, £22 million in Lambeth and, most of all, almost £28 million in Wandsworth underline and show a pretty gigantic shift in resources as a result of changes in the SSA, at least for those three London boroughs? What is the net loss for those three boroughs as a result of the change in the SSA and, since this very high special subsidy is only temporary, at what rate will it be withdrawn, because does not that presage some horrendous problem for Tory and Labour boroughs as a result of the change in the SSA calculation?
Mr. Gummer: I have always tried to encourage wherever possible. That is why I said the nicest things that I could about Lambeth, but it started from an absolutely appalling base and almost anybody could do better. I hope that it will continue to try to do so.
The hon. Gentleman must accept that we have tried to apply precisely the indexes that the Labour party wanted. The result has meant a shift of resources from Lambeth to Greenwich, to Southwark, to Barking and to Hillingdon. That is perfectly understandable and it is disclosed by the figures. It underlines, I fear, the fact that the Lambeth council has been less good than it should have been.
1186
Wandsworth, however, has a very low council tax. It has very good services. It is a very good council, and if Lambeth had done as well as Wandsworth the people of Lambeth would be very pleased indeed and would be prepared to accept the change because they would know that their council had properly looked after their resources.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the detailed points that he wants.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the change in calculating the SSA for day visitors, which should benefit a constituency such as mine that has many visitors, but have my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary received representations from West Mercia police authority about the level of civilianisation that it has been able to achieve and whether it has been adequately reflected in the way in which the police block of the SSA is calculated?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have reflected in the police block grant the various changes that have been made in the SSA. I am pleased that Wyre Forest has an improvement in its position of 11·2 per cent., which reflects a real problem that he has so often raised with me and my predecessors.
Mr. Clive Betts: I have major reservations about the total size of the cake, but may I give some recognition to the fact that the Secretary of State and especially the Minister for Local Government and Planning have gone some way to recognising the representations that have been made by the Webber Craig authorities and Sheffield, in particular on the economic index, including unemployment, ill-health and homelessness?
I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a problem that is facing those authorities, of which I hope he will take account. It arises where an authority has had its SSA relatively increased, reflecting the fact that in the past it has done relatively badly. In those circumstances, the year-on-year expenditure capping rule bites heavily on those authorities and means that they cannot take full advantage of any increase in the SSA that is available. Will the Secretary of State be willing to take account of that problem and reconsider the capping rules?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his balanced comment and I hope that other Opposition Members will take seriously what he says.
Sheffield has a 4·9 per cent. increase in its SSA. That is another example to give the lie to the, I think, outrageous comments of the hon. Gentleman about the way in which that is done. I hope that in a quieter time he will wonder to himself whether it is proper to suggest that a system is run in order to benefit one party or another when it manifestly is not. Of course I have thought about the matter. I have made my provisional statement today; and obviously things are provisional until they are confirmed. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and will think about it.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the thought that he has put into this subject and the skill with which he has presented it would have been easier to appreciate if we could have had the papers earlier? Is there not a case, on this statement above all statements, for Members to have the papers an hour or two before the statement is made in the House? So

1187
that I can tell my people in Staffordshire their fate, will my right hon. Friend say precisely what has happened as a result of the representations that we made?
Mr. Gummer: It is difficult, I know, for everyone to take in the figures all at once, but my hon. Friend might like to look at page 8 from which he will see that South Staffordshire has an increase in its SSA of 21·7 per cent. I imagine that he will be able to put that over pretty clearly without any warning or advance notice.
Mr. Ron Leighton: As the Secretary of State knows, last year the London borough of Newham, in the east end of London, was short-changed by more than £22 million. That was because of a defective capital SSA and because the borough had to spend more than £11 million on homelessness, for which there was no SSA. Therefore, the council could not spend up to SSA on a range of services, including, for example, education. As a consequence, I went to a school in my constituency this morning where the gym could not be used because of the rain coming through the roof. Has the Secretary of State's statement today rectified the situation or made it worse?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's borough has an SSA per head of £1,143. One ought to remember, when dealing with London, that the per head SSAs are still clearly ahead of those anywhere else in the country. If the hon. Gentleman fears that under-registration of the type that he thinks may have distorted the census will make a difference·he did not say so just now, but I have heard him say it before·I want to ensure that he realises that that has been taken into account by the OPCS and that the figures have been adjusted to take that into account.
The London borough of Newham is one of those which has a reduction in its SSA, and that reduction·which is why, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman mentioned it·will mean that there is a damping grant of £13 million which goes to Newham to ensure that there will not be a reduction of more than 2 per cent.
Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and especially on the increase of 2·3 per cent,. which well exceeds the prevailing rate of inflation, and also on some sensible amendments, especially regarding the ACA.
I ask my right hon. Friend, either now or perhaps later, to turn to annex 4, page 8, where we have the figures for Gloucestershire, with six councils, of which three, including Stroud, have almost identical populations, but unfortunately Stroud seems to have only £8·5 million SSA compared with considerably more than £10 million for the other two. That seems to be because the external funding for Stroud, with 105,000 people, is only a little more than that for the three smaller and rural councils in that county. I should be most grateful if my right hon. Friend would reconsider that aspect of what is otherwise an excellent statement.
Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to give my hon. Friend a detailed explanation. His SSA increase is up by 7·6 per cent., so he can tell the people of Stroud that his pressure has at least brought about that result.
Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Secretary of State explain to me and to the people of Hammersmith and Fulham what has changed in Hammersmith and Fulham that results in the council·which has met the
1188
Government-approved target of £169 million and received the accolades of a number of Ministers on its transport policy, its anti-crime policy, some of its housing policy and so on—still having to confront an enormous cut, in effect, bringing it down to about £145 million or £150 million? How on earth is that to be explained to the people of Hammersmith and Fulham, and will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the council to argue for some cushioning of that enormous impact?
Mr. Gummer: There is considerable cushioning·£18 million of cushioning·in order to meet the requirements exactly. The reason that Hammersmith and Fulham has had a reduction in its SAA is that, if one applies the specific objective tests which the Labour party was among the most vocal in demanding, Hammersmith and Fulham has a smaller SSA and Greenwich, Southwark, Barking and Hillingdon—all Labour-controlled boroughs —have an increase in their SSA.
I am afraid that if one has objective changes there will be some winners and some losers. I am happy to meet a deputation, however, and will provide them with all the figures.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does the settlement for Dartford reflect the fact that that council is liable to incur extra costs in the next year in developments for and leading to the east Thames corridor? If there is no reflection in those figures of such expenditure, is my right hon. Friend open to suggestion on that subject?
Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend on that basis. Dartford has an increase in its SSA of 12·2 per cent., but that would not reflect that item.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister tell us whether an authority such as mine that has had an increase in excess of inflation under the recalculation of the SSA for which my authority has been arguing for years will now be allowed to increase its expenditure to that level so that the proven need in the borough can be met? Or shall we be given the money with one hand but be restricted from spending the money to meet that need because of the right hon. Gentleman's calculations on the cap?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right in that Rotherham has an increase of 5·3 per cent. and I am pleased about that because it underlines the fact that the fears of Rotherham have proved to be ill founded. The difficulty is that Rotherham is already spending significantly more than its SSA and therefore the permitted increase in budget will only be 1·8 per cent. That in itself is a significant change and I am sure that the Rotherham council will make the best use of it.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents in Eastbourne will warmly welcome what I calculate to be nearly a 12 per cent. increase in SSAs over last year? May I take this opportunity to congratulate him and his colleagues on their skill and patience in tackling issues such as the day visitors statistics, which have had such a direct bearing on the calculation of SSAs for resort towns such as my own?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right that the increase is about 11·7 per cent. for Eastbourne and 12·2 per cent. for Wealden. In both cases there is a high proportion of older people and there are necessary alterations because of the number of day visitors to Eastbourne. That is a fairer

1189
representation of the needs of Eastbourne. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has acknowledged it and thank him for his remarks.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement will be regarded by the people of Newham as one of the most unjust and harsh statements that he has made? He has just admitted that the SSA for Newham will be reduced by up to 2 per cent. and that that of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will be increased by 10 per cent. Is he aware that the London boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham are three of the most deprived in the country? Can he tell us about homelessness? Does he not realise that £11 million of expenditure has to be taken out of the expenditure for the other services? Yet he has not taken much account of that because he did not deny the charges that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) made a few minutes ago. Does he realise that his 40-minute lecture to us in West Ham town hall about partnership is just empty claptrap when there is that type of deal?
Mr. Gummer: I would have expected better of the hon. Gentleman. I have heard him debate many times and he has always tried to be assiduous in his comparisons. I do not think that he has mentioned that the SSA per head in Newham is £1,143 and that in Eastbourne it is £120. It seems to me that that represents a fundamental recognition that Newham is to get an enormous extra amount of money.
Mr. Spearing: Education.
Mr. Gummerr: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, even if spending on education is taken into account, a considerable amount of extra money goes into Newham, because of its difficulties. But when we compare Newham —[Interruption.] The Labour Front-Bench spokesman is right to say that we should compare like with like, and compare Newham not with Eastbourne but with places similar to itself, such as other London boroughs. The fact is that, applying the same criteria, when the deprivation is measured and all the figures are added up, Barking, which is not a million miles from Newham, has an increase of 11–8 per cent., whereas Newham has a decrease. I did not invent that; it happens as a result of applying the same criteria. Opposition Members have wanted us to use those criteria for many years, and it is not acceptable for the boroughs that are adversely affected by those criteria to complain while Labour Members whose boroughs benefit hardly say thank you.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the increase in the SSA for Langbaurgh, a Labour-controlled authority, is an unparalleled 20 per cent. this year? My constituents will appreciate that, as they have appreciated the courteous and thorough way in which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have conducted the negotiations over the SSA this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the generous settlement will mean that there is no excuse for Langbaurgh council not to get a grip on its finances, and no excuse for any increase whatever next year for the long-suffering council tax payers of Langbaurgh?
Mr. Gummer: Langbaurgh does not have a reputation as a well-run authority, so I hope that my hon. Friend will continue his pressure, and tell the council that we have recognised its particular difficulties, which he has often graphically described to me, and that the formula now takes account of them. The council is therefore now in a position to complete its half of the bargain—that is, to become a more tightly run authority and to use its money more effectively, thus demanding less from the people who pay its council tax.
Mr. Doug Henderson: I was worried by the Secretary of State's response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers). The right hon. Gentleman appeared to tell the House that it was inappropriate to compare next year's budget with this year's expenditure. I should have thought that there were enough Members on his side of the House who could have advised him on financial matters and accountancy procedures, and told him that no company in the land would prepare a budget for next year without considering this year's expenditure.
Is it not irresponsible for the Government to say that it is not fair to compare next year's budget with real current expenditure? Does not the current level of spending determine the level of police services, fire services, education services and social services? If there are cuts in the budget, those services will suffer. Will the Secretary of State not own up to the fact that the real impact of the financial settlement that he has announced will be cuts in
services and jobs, and that he expects local authority employees to bear the full burden of his surrender to the Treasury?
Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a comparison with business, I might point out that most businesses will be looking for ways to save on overheads this year; they are not looking forward to the 2·3 per cent. increase that local government is being offered. The hon. Gentleman will probably realise that at such a time as this businesses will deal with the problems that arise when we are coming out of recession by seeking to tighten their belts more than the Government have suggested. The figures are not such as to make local authorities throw their hats in the air, but they expected the settlement to be a good deal tougher. They did not expect an increase of 2·3 per cent. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that every year the outturn figure is higher than the total standard spending.
We need to compare like with like. The first rule for reading any kind of balance sheet is to compare this year's figure with last year's figure, but one must ensure that those figures refer to the same things. To compare this year's figure with last year's figure, when wholly different factors were involved, does not lead to sensible accounting. Perhaps that is why all Labour Governments get themselves into a financial mess. Perhaps that is what the Labour party has been doing all along the line, and it still has not learnt.

BILL PRESENTED
COAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Redwood and Mr. Tim Eggar, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment and

1191
functions of a body to be known as the Coal Authority; to provide for the restructuring of the coal industry, for transfers of the property, rights and liabilities of the British Coal Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries to the other persons and for the dissolution of that Corporation; to abolish the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council; to make provision for the licensing of coal-mining operations and provision otherwise in relation to the carrying on of such operations; to amend the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and the Opencast Coal Act 1958; 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 4.]

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
  5.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's statement. He has emphasised the progress already made towards our central goal—the achievement of sustained non-inflationary growth. We have not wavered from that goal in difficult times, and we shall not depart from it now, especially as recovery is so well under way.
  My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on the skill with which he has constructed his first Budget. I am especially pleased that he has enabled me to announce today the details of our new scheme for apprenticeships and credits, in which I am pleased to say that my Department will invest £1·25 billion over a three-year period, in addition to expenditure of £900 million on youth training over the same period.
  Training is not some homogeneous good to be hurled indiscriminately at young people. To be really worth while, it must be based on mutual responsibility and a high level of motivation. In the social market economy, both employers and employees should take clear responsibility for their development. Training is in the best interests of the individuals who receive it, and it is in the best interests of the companies that employ them, which is why industry's investment in training held up so well during the recession.
  However, we can always do more to strengthen the incentive to train and to reaffirm the key mutual commitment between the trainee and the employer, so today I want to give details of our plans to introduce a system of new modern apprenticeships.
  To remain competitive, our industries need an increasing number of people qualified to the key technician and supervisor levels. They, in turn, need high-quality work-based training, to defined standards; in other words, we want all the good features of traditional apprenticeships leading to a recognised qualification, and modernised to avoid time serving.

  1193
  I am today inviting training and enterprise councils to prepare to offer a full range of modern apprenticeships to young people in all parts of the country. I am also asking them to prepare to offer youth credits to all young people who leave school at 16 or 17 by 1995, so that credits will be the mechanism to give young people access to modern apprenticeships, as well as to other forms of work-based training.
  I am also inviting industry training organisations to work up model schemes of training to national vocational qualification level 3 or above. As the House will know, that is equivalent to A-level standard. Those schemes will describe what young people can expect to achieve and set out clearly the milestones on the way to becoming qualified.
  I want apprenticeships to be developed in all sorts of sectors and occupations. Of course, we need modern apprenticeships in engineering. We want electronics and mechanical engineering skills to be brought together, for example. We also want new, modern apprenticeships in areas such as financial services, in hotel and leisure management, in catering, in distribution, in the care sector and in science-based technology industries such as biotechnology. We want apprenticeships in information technology, as it applies across a whole range of sectors and right across the chemical, petrochemical and plastics industries.
  I also want to involve small and medium-sized employers as well as big employers. I want to see apprenticeships offered equally to young women as well as to young men. The modern apprenticeship needs to be open to every young person to whom it would be of benefit. I want every apprentice to sign an apprenticeship pledge with an employer. That will clearly set out the training the apprentice can expect to receive, and what, in turn, the employer will expect by way of progress and it will enshrine the commitment of each party to see the training through to successful completion. Ideally, it will set out an intended path to a job once the apprenticeship has been successfully completed.
  I want to see apprenticeships on offer to the school leavers of 1995 and I want to be able to run pilot schemes in 1994. That will be a challenge because there is a great deal of work that needs to be done and many people will need to play a part. Today, I have written to invite all the main organisations to come in for consultations, including, of course, the national council of the training and enterprise councils and the Confederation of British Industry. I have written to the Trades Union Congress, the National Council for Education and Training Targets and the National Council for Industry Training Organisations. I look forward to receiving their views and also to seeing the first training models that industry will develop in consultation with my Department as soon as possible.
  Mr. John Prescott: Is the Secretary of State admitting a failure in Government policy on apprenticeships, because in 1979, according to his Department's figures, there were 367 proper apprentices, as he describes them, and in the past year there were 240, after he had dismantled 26 training boards? Was that a failure of policy and is the right hon. Gentleman attempting to correct it in a "back to basics" approach?
  Mr. Hunt: No, I am not. I do not accept that at all. I do not want to engage in a negative discussion. I could describe in graphic terms how the old, male and trade union-dominated apprenticeship system was destroyed, but I shall not look to the past. If the only area of disagreement between myself and the hon. Gentleman is to be the past, then I look forward to the future with him. I noticed that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) spoke in the debate on national education and training targets and I have made it clear that I am prepared to extend the same invitation to him and his colleagues so that we can talk through how best to introduce the new, modern system of apprenticeships. I also extend that invitation to the other parties.
  Instead of looking back, we can look forward. Thanks to the labour market flexibility, we can look forward with much more confidence than ever before. I believe that the atmosphere is right for an initiative of that sort and I invite all-party agreement on that point.
  Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend referred to the employers' responsibility in the welcome work-based training opportunity for young people. If an employer runs into financial difficulty and cannot run the training, is there to be a back-up system whereby work-based training can be resumed elsewhere?
  Mr. Hunt: I am setting out the framework and funding of the scheme today. I am perfectly prepared to state clearly that the Government will invest £1·25 billion in credits and apprenticeships over the next three years. Obviously, it will now be up to employers to respond with the detailed structures that they believe best suit their industries and companies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) raised one special problem which I will, of course, consider, but I cannot hold out any hope of immediate alleviation of that problem because we want the maximum number of apprenticeships to be agreed with industries and employers. It is up to them to come forward with the way in which they would like to proceed.
  It may help my hon. Friend to know that I expect that the new programme will build up to about 150,000 apprentices in training at any one time under the new, modern apprenticeship system. The financial settlement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has allowed gives a real increase in the funds available. Our average investment in guidance and training for young people will rise in real terms by 25 per cent. over the three years. That is a measure of the importance that we attach to apprenticeships in a tough year for public expenditure. Like health and education, training is a clear priority for the Government.
  My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has already resulted in several messages of support, including a telephone call from the new director general of the Engineering Employers Federation which represents 5,000 engineering companies. He welcomed the announcement of
  "modern apprenticeships that are linked to achievements and competences"
  and I believe that his view is echoed across the country. I look forward to working with others who are keen to make the new apprenticeships a success.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: So that the House can assess the right hon. Gentleman's apparently welcome announcement, would either he or the Minister replying to

  1195
  the debate tell the House whether his apprenticeship scheme involves additional spending by the Department of Employment? If that is so, how much will it be and where will the cuts in the Department of Employment's budget come from, as outlined on page 117 of the Red Book?
  Mr. Hunt: At the moment, there is a rising number of young people staying on at school—a few years ago, the figure was 48 per cent. and it is now 71 per cent. As a result, the youth training programme is declining substantially and it is underspending this year, as I have just revealed in a parliamentary answer, and is likely to underspend further next year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget has allowed me not to impose the cuts which would have obviously followed, but to introduce a new, modern apprenticeship scheme to run alongside the youth training scheme and, in addition, to provide a rising tide of expenditure. That is the simple answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question and I am perfectly prepared to invite him and his colleagues to see me to go through matters in more detail.
  The key to modern apprenticeships, for which I believe many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been pressing, is the qualification to NVQ level 3, which is equivalent to A-level. Provided the scheme is a success—I hope that everyone will work to make it a success, as the preliminary signs are good—we shall see more than 40,000 youngsters on that scheme every year working to NVQ level 3—more than three times the present number in factories, businesses and companies. We have an increasing gap at technician and craft level and we intend to more than meet that need in the economy.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the proposal is an investment in our young people for the future which will be of benefit to all businesses for many decades to come?
  Mr. Hunt: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a tremendous investment in the future. It is no use the Labour party trying to downgrade NVQ level 3 to NVQ level 2. We are talking about a new skill target which is the equivalent of A-level. I want 150,000 new apprentices to reach that A-level standard in NVQs as soon as the scheme is up and running. I believe that all hon. Members will recognise the significance of that when they pause to think about it for a moment.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State comment on speculation in the press today that the cuts in unemployment benefit and the potential gathering together of the administrative arrangements for the payment of income support and of the new job seeker's allowance will lead to the abolition of the Department of Employment, which will make a fundamental difference to the administration of some of the schemes about which he is talking? Has the right hon. Gentleman really co-operated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish his own job?
  Mr. Hunt: I am disappointed that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), should so quickly seek to urge me to do myself out of a job. Any structures within Government are, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I believe very strongly that the new modern apprenticeship system and the fact that the Department of Employment is right at the
  1196
  heart of Government economic policy are good indications of the importance that the Government attach to employment and training policies, as I have just said.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in speaking further on the welcome news, that there is also a social dimension, which will benefit the country, in increasing the number of apprenticeships for young people? What will be the driving force in determining how many people go into particular apprenticeships? Will the job prospect at the end of an apprenticeship be a key factor?
  Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The key consideration in the new scheme is the ability to extend it and to spread it to a number of industries that do not have a tradition of apprenticeships as well as to the industries that have. With the old-style apprenticeships, the emphasis was very much on time serving. The emphasis in the new modern scheme is on reaching NVQ level 3, the equivalent of A-level.
  Much will depend, to answer my hon. Friend's point, on the models and schemes coming forward. Much will depend on which industries and which employers seize the initiative now and work closely with the organisations involved and with the training and enterprise councils. I shall, of course, talk to the Trades Union Congress about how best to extend those schemes in the way that it feels is right. Bill Jordan plays a key role in NACETT. He has already made it clear that we need such a scheme, which I am happy to discuss with him, if we are to meet the ambitious national training and education targets.
  I was also pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was able to refer in his Budget statement to the fact that unemployment is already down by 137,000 this year. By contrast, I have been asked by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends whether I will look up the equivalent figures for the rest of the European Union. I can reveal them to the House now. In the past 12 months, unemployment registers in the European Union as a whole rose by 1·6 million. There is only one country in the Community where unemployment is now below the European Union average and falling. That country is the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the House is grateful for that information; we welcome any reduction in unemployment. I have looked at the figures for the 14 years under the Government. I must tell the Secretary of State that the number of years for which our figures have been below the European average is three plus one—four altogether. Those are the only times this country has been below the European average level for unemployment.
  Mr. Hunt: I suppose that that comment makes a change from the comments made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He used to say that we were fiddling the figures whereas the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) now says that we are fiddling with figures. However much the hon. Gentleman may try to make a noise in the Chamber, he cannot deny the fact that unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by 137,000 this year whereas it has gone up in the resit of Europe by 1·6 million.
  Last month, I was able to announce a fall in unemployment of 49,000. In France, Mr. Giraud had to announce an increase of 40,000. In Germany, Dr. Blum

  1197
  had to announce an October increase of 56,000. Even in Spain, with its smaller population, Mr. Martinez announced an increase of 56,000 in October.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The Secretary of State referred to figures. I am sure that he will not dispute figures emanating from the Department of Employment—the quarterly employment estimates for November 1993. The Department says that the number of people in employment had fallen by 508,000 from June 1992 to June 1993, and that in October 1993 the number out of work for more than two years was 42 per cent. higher than in October 1992 and 92·7 per cent. higher than in October 1990.
  Mr. Hunt: I am not sure why I gave way to the hon. Lady. She omitted to mention two key statistics. I shall answer her question, but I shall then not give way for a little while. The first key statistic is that, last quarter, long-term unemployment fell for the first time in three years by 10,000. Secondly, according to the latest available statistics, the work force in employment rose over the three months by 42,000. That is an upgraded figure.
  Let us get the whole matter into context and recognise how right my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was when he reminded the House that unemployment was falling right across the United Kingdom. It is falling in every region of the United Kingdom and it is falling for both men and women. Two thirds of those who become unemployed leave the register within six months. Most welcome of all is last quarter's fall in the number of long-term unemployed people, which I have just mentioned to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). That offers real hope to all unemployed individuals that the misery of unemployment will soon be behind them. The figures are remarkable.
  The House may well ask why unemployment is falling at this time. I believe that there are four reasons. First, the recovery started in the first half of 1992. Since then, our gross domestic product has increased for six quarters in succession and it is now up by 2·4 per cent. over the period.
  Secondly, the population of working age is stable and there are no longer large numbers of people coming on to the labour market. I remind the House that, over the past 10 years, the number of people in work in the United Kingdom has increased by 1·3 million. There are now 1·3 million more people in work than there were 10 years ago. As output rises, employers take on more staff, and unemployed people are the main source of additional recruits.
  Thirdly, the labour market is now much more flexible. Deregulation and curbs on the abuse of trade union power mean that employers have the confidence to recruit people quickly to keep pace with increasing sales and output.
  Fourthly, my Department offers more help than ever before to get people back into work. There are now 1·5 million opportunities on offer to unemployed people, and they work. Last month alone, 487,000 people left claimant unemployment, which is the highest monthly figure ever recorded. Those are the reasons unemployment is falling, and in a modern, open economy, by far the best contribution that Governments can make to prosperity is to promote supply-side measures to help industries to be
  1198
  more competitive. That is why the Department stands centre stage as part of the Government's economic strategy.
  We are contributing all the time to job creation through our systematic deregulation and our progress in improving the United Kingdom training system. Continuing to reduce unemployment is a priority in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. From next April, the lowest rates of national insurance will fall by a full percentage point, so reducing non-wage costs—already among the lowest in Europe—by £1 billion in a full year. That will benefit all employers.
  It is evident in the modern economy that small and medium-sized enterprises are the real engines of job creation. Small firms also need to be encouraged to invest in training their employees. I have, therefore, today announced three new measures to encourage smaller companies to boost their training efforts.
  First, I am developing with three high street banks—Barclays, Clydesdale and the Co-op—arrangements for career development loans to be extended to small firms. Firms will benefit from an interest-free holiday during the period of training, and the Government will guarantee the loans. Once the necessary arrangements have been made, loans of up to £125,000 will be available from early in the next financial year.
  Secondly, I am giving special help to small firms to achieve the Investors in People standard. I shall remove the requirement on those with fewer than 50 employees to make a matching contribution when working towards Investors in People.
  Thirdly, I know that employee development programmes of the kind developed by Ford have proved remarkably successful, giving people control of funds for their training. Many training and enterprise councils are already supporting companies in developing such arrangements. I want TECs to encourage them further, in particular in small companies or groups of companies.
  Taken together, the measures form a powerful set of incentives for small firms. They are good news for small firms and they are excellent news for all those who are looking for work.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The Secretary of State has been properly exercised in his office by announcing the new Government policies. Is he aware that when he was talking about announcing unemployment figures he made a slip of the tongue? It is not his job to announce unemployment figures; they are announced by statisticians in his Department. Government statisticians are having the greatest difficulty in re-establishing the integrity of Government statistics and trying to establish that it is not Ministers who are constantly cooking the books. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore make it clear that it was not he who announced the unemployment statistics, but the statisticians in his Department?
  Mr. Hunt: The only reason statisticians find their position undermined is that the antics of Opposition Members cast doubt on the statistics.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The Secretary of State said that the key reason for what he described as the "improving" position is the increased flexibility of the labour market. On behalf of many thousands of people, I put it to him, with all the urgency that I can muster, that

  1199
  what he sees as flexibility of the labour market is seen by many thousands of people as casualisation of the labour market.
  I know of firms in the midlands that lay off 100 people on one day and the next day offer most of them short-term contracts. I know of a youngster who has worked for the same firm for one and a half years on the basis of 70-odd weekly contracts. Is that the way in which the Secretary of State wants the labour market to develop? That is deeply damaging not only to individuals but to the stability and security of our society.
  Mr. Hunt: I do not accept any of that. I wanted to give the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East an opportunity to get into the debate, but I will not be able to do that if there are lengthy interventions from hon. Members who get upset if I do not give way.
  If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) looks at the labour force survey, he will find that the accusations of substantial increases in temporary and casual work are completely without foundation. The number of permanent jobs is increasing—there are now more than 20 million. The hon. Gentleman does his area a grave injustice by seeking to paint an alternative picture that has no truth and foundation whatever as a general statement of policy.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced several initiatives to improve the operation of the labour market. The new job seeker's allowance, to be introduced in two and a half years' time, will be an important step forward in the help that we provide for unemployed people. The name of the new benefit demonstrates a shift in focus; we are making it clearer than ever before that people will get benefit because they are seeking work, not because they are passively unemployed.
  Everyone who is genuinely looking for work will be entitled to the new benefit for as long as he or she needs it. Those who have paid the requisite national insurance contributions will be entitled to a personal allowance for six months, regardless of their income, their partner's income or any savings.
  At the heart of the new job seeker's allowance is new clarity about a principle that has underpinned our system of support for job seekers from Beveridge onwards: the principle of mutual responsibility between the state and the unemployed individual.
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mr. Hunt: I have given way to the hon. Lady already. Just as the state has a responsibility to support unemployed individuals, individuals have a responsibility to make every effort to find new work.
  To make that duty clear from the start, we shall be introducing, with the job seeker's allowance, a job seeker's agreement. Each claimant will have to reach an agreement with his employment service adviser, identifying from the outset the steps that he will be taking to get back to work. He will then have to put that into action.
  Last year we introduced job plan workshops. They have already given positive help to more than 112,000 people, with a success rate of more than 90 per cent. Building on that, I am today announcing a new restart course for those who have been out of work for more than two years.
  I am also introducing three new pilot schemes in advance of the introduction of the job seeker's allowance. We shall pilot a job finder's grant, paying up to —200 to people who find work after being unemployed for two
  1200
  years or more, to help with the initial expenses of returning to work. We shall be setting up two further pilots to test new approaches to getting young people back to work as quickly as possible. Those measures will further improve our help to job seekers.
  I very much welcome the Chancellor's announcement introducing, from October next year, new disregards for child care costs in working out families' entitlements to family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. That will help 150,000 families, and it will make more explicit the Beveridge principle that the best way off benefits is into work.
  That could be worth up to £28 a week in family credit alone, and will provide a powerful incentive for families to move back into work and be better off. It will particularly help those lone parents who want to work but have found that child care costs represent a barrier. That is in addition to the £45 million programme run by the TECs, under my Department, for out of school child care. That programme will create 50,000 new child care places.
  The Government attach the highest possible priority to increasing the number of jobs, reducing unemployment and looking after those who most need help. But it is industry and enterprise that create jobs. Everyone of working age should be given every incentive and every opportunity to contribute. Economic growth on its own is not enough.
  Much of the industrialised world has discovered the phenomenon of jobless growth, and Europe is particularly afflicted. Between 1979 and 1989—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic cycle—the United States economy grew by 32 per cent. and the number of jobs grew by 18 per cent. In the same period, the economy in Europe grew by 24 per cent. but generated only 4 per cent. more jobs. As a result, unemployment in Europe has now reached 19 million, and it continues to rise. In general, it is where labour markets are most flexible that jobs are created. The United Kingdom has the most deregulated labour market in Europe and we have more of our people in jobs than any other major country in Europe.
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht, he was presented with a social protocol that would have given European trade unions a direct role in legislating and opened the door to a whole raft of expensive burdens on business. That would be bad for Britain and bad for Europe, so my right hon. Friend had the courage to refuse to sign up to it.
  Last month, the leader of the Labour party—I am pleased to see him here—was presented with a proposal for a statutory 35-hour week in the United Kingdom. That would cost our industries £20,000 million a year and prevent 14 million of our citizens from working hours that they want to work. That would be a very bad thing indeed. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has said so himself.
  I have to apologise to the socialists because I have done them an injustice, for there is an opt-out at the end of their manifesto. It is for a country whose Conservative leadership fought long and hard to be excluded from the most intrusive European legislation. The socialists recognise that, and an opt-out was agreed. Lucky old Denmark.
  The Labour party did not fight for an opt-out. Its leader just signed up, on the basis of sign first, ask questions later. Having signed up in Brussels, the Labour leader now claims to have experienced a mystical conversion on his

  1201
  aeroplane home. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East now says that there is a difference between the words "must" and "could". I agree that there is. I have the official document, distributed at the press conference at which the hon. Gentleman was present, and the word "must" is there. His leader signed up for "must" and not for "could". That is the difference.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has now given me a version that substitutes "could" for "must". Could he not go a step further? Could he not substitute "ought not to" for "must"? Perhaps it would be easier to say "must not". The charter which I have here, which is the unexpurgated version, states clearly:
  "These measures must include a substantial cut in working time, to ensure a better division of the available work."
  I know that Labour Members pretend that the document does not exist, but it does. Let me quote Glyn Ford, Member of the European Parliament, who has said that the Members of the European Parliament are going to campaign in favour of a 35-hour week across the EC. So, Labour still clings to the discredited social protocol.
  Our partners, right across Europe, are abandoning that protocol and everything for which it stands. Increasingly, they recognise that there is a connection between job creation and deregulation and they are coming to see the social protocol as an expensive luxury. As Britain leads Europe out of recession, the argument is moving our way. Flexible labour markets and high standards of education and training are widely acknowledged as the twin routes to success. Modern apprenticeships, the new schemes for small firms and the job seeker's allowance are all part of an on-going revolution that will continue to release the enterprise of our people and create jobs for them. I commend the Budget, which is a Budget for jobs, to the House.
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In an otherwise superb speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment used, as have other Ministers, the expression "European Union" in rather an extravagant and broad manner. This afternoon, in response to a parliamentary question that I tabled a couple of days ago, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made an authoritative statement on the Government's policy in respect of the use of the expressions "European Union" and "European Community". He said:
  "Government policy is to use the term 'European Community' when describing matters specific to that pillar and to use the term 'European Union' when referring to all three pillars collectively or to matters specific to the two inter-governmental pillars outside the Community."
  Would you be good enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, to take account of that when the expression "European Union" is used in the rather loose manner employed by the BBC and the Financial Times and now by some Ministers?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. Mercifully, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of what hon. Members say.
  5.45pm
  Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State has been kind enough to say that he might have to leave before the end of the debate because his wife is going into hospital for an operation. I am sure that the House will join me in offering best wishes to his wife, and to him. I shall fully understand if he has to leave the debate. I hope that he will understand that I shall be harsh in my criticism of his Department. The debate is a bit of a surprise, because I thought that it would come on Monday. Things have changed rapidly.
  I am delighted to see the Chancellor here with us as we debate the Budget. I recall that we both took part in a debate in 1987, when he was Paymaster General, in which he defended the so-called Budget for jobs. Unemployment has increased by about 1 million since then, although he told us that that Budget would be successful. He told us that there would be more firms, but there are 100,000 fewer than there were then. He told us that there would be an explosion in training, but there are 100,000 fewer places. Those were the predictions that he made as Paymaster General.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right about one thing. He said that there would be considerable growth in the economy. There was indeed a massive growth in the economy, with an increase of more than 1 million jobs, showing that if the Government feel that it is a priority they can create many jobs. The trouble was that it was one of those dashes for jobs—the booms and busts—so much associated with Tory Governments. Then the brake was put on—not on the expenses or wages of Members of Parliament, but on the unemployed. After that boom came the general election, and then 1 million people were thrown back on the dole. This Budget is designed to do something similar. Rather than dealing with the problems of today, it is designed to deal with any problems that might arise before the 1996 elections. However, I shall address myself to the problems of today.
  The Budget is not a Budget for jobs. On his own admission, the Secretary of State expects it to create more unemployment. It is not a Budget for industrial investment. That will not be enhanced by the policies. It is not a Budget for ordinary people. It is a Budget for the City. If there is any doubt about that, I will quote a paper not known as a Labour paper—the Evening Standard. On Tuesday, I picked up the "West End Final", which said, "£15 billion share boost". That was while the Chancellor was speaking. Within half an hour of his sitting down, another "West End Final" was rushed out, which said, "£18 billion share boost". I picked up the Evening Standard again today and it said:
  "Nearly £25 billion has been added to the value of the shares since Chancellor Kenneth Clarke's Budget on Tuesday".
  That is what the Budget is about—welcoming the City back to the casino economy. Nothing has changed in our economy, but all those people dealing in stocks and shares have decided that they can make a killing out of what the Chancellor has done. It is all about a City judgment.
  I noticed that during his speech the Chancellor had a smile playing on his lips when he said that he was prepared to exempt wine for Christmas. When the people in the City are drinking their champagne and toasting the Chancellor, I hope that they will bear in mind the price of what they have done to the country.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that the reason why shares were boosted so rapidly is that the people responsible for investing the pension funds of many working people were encouraged to invest that money in British industry? They thought that the outlook for British industry was improved by my Budget measures.
  The hon. Gentleman is at least trying to adopt some sort of attitude towards the economy, which is more than the shadow Chancellor was able to do, but he is revealing a neanderthal approach to a free market economy.
  Mr. Prescott: That is the second time I have been called neanderthal; it must be a strategy of the Tory party. First it was the Prime Minister, and now the Chancellor is saying "Get Prescott, the neanderthal man". The right hon. and learned Gentleman should address the arguments.
  As to pension funds, the same headlines could be seen in newspapers in 1987 and the same people were encouraged to buy shares. The pension funds did not invest in manufacturing, but in property and assets other than manufacturing. That is what caused the problems in our industry.
  I have heard many promises from many Chancellors and Secretaries of State for Employment about growth being around the corner, but I have yet to see it materialise. We will wait to see what this Budget produces. There is no doubt that it will have considerable consequences for many areas of our community.
  The Budget does nothing for the workers, for the homeless or for the helpless. When the people in the City raise their glasses, I hope that they will bear in mind that what the Chancellor has done for their advantage will be at the expense of many people who can ill afford it.
  Conservative Back Benchers who were cheering the Chancellor on Tuesday will perhaps pause to think when they are walking through that passageway that we all walk through and see that person wrapped up in blankets. The warmth that he got this morning was from a copy of the Evening Standard that he had stretched across him. The Budget offered him no possibilty of a job or an increase in the housing programme so that he might have a home. I hope that Conservative Members are a little ashamed when they walk past that person in the morning. I feel ashamed, but at least I shall be voting against the Budget. I hope that there are some decent Conservative Members who will rebel against the nature of the Budget and its unfair way of dealing with our people.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Budget is so inappropriate and awful, why is it that last year the Labour party produced a document entitled, "Labour's Budget Statement 1992-93" but this year it has not got one? Are they frightened of producing one or are they just plain incompetent?
  Mr. Prescott: It may shock the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), but we are the Opposition: our job is to address what the Chancellor has done in the Budget and to be critical of it or to praise it. For example, we think that the increase in child care benefit is an improvement and will be welcomed by all in the House. We have to address the essential thrust of the Budget.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Are we finally to hear, for the first time in the debate, what Labour party policy is—to produce a Budget that takes no heed of
  1204
  City opinion? Does the hon. Gentleman recall what happened in the 1970s, when we used to have Budgets which did not take heed of City opinion and we ended up with the International Monetary Fund coming in to rescue the nation's finances?
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) should have a chat with his father and discuss how his father's party handled the economy during his time. He would be reminded of the collapse that followed the boom of 1987. That was a mistake which did a lot of damage. It reduced skills, levels of employment and investment.
  We now have a new Chancellor, and this is the Budget that he has produced to address our current problems. In the Budget he has started to target a lot of people who should not be so targeted. It always used to be the Church and the trade unions that were targeted. Towards the end of his speech, the Secretary of State said that the good old trade unions were being attacked again and that the Government would not be entering into consultations with them, whereas a few minutes earlier he had said that Bill Jordan would be walking in through the front door to discuss the apprenticeship situation with him. Will the Secretary of State be discussing that kind of problem as an act of charity, but not as a right? Everyone should have a right to make a contribution to discussing problems of this type.
  I welcome the "back to basics" proposal for an increase in apprenticeships. The Government have seen a bit of sense and gone back to apprenticeships, which are badly needed. Even with the current small amount of growth in the economy, there is a shortage of skilled people. We shall not get an increase in jobs from the growth in the economy because of the lack of proper skills. That situation was caused by the bad decisions made by the Government 10 years ago.
  The Government are targeting not collective bodies such as the churches and trade unions, but individuals such as the disabled, the sick and the unemployed. They have decided that people who are unemployed—and many have been unemployed for a long time—will have to prove that they are job seekers. I do not know what 2 million people will have to prove. It was always a requirement that a person had to be available for work in order to get benefit. If the Department had any doubt about a claim, it had all sorts of fraud squads to investigate it.
  I wonder what the new procedure will be. Do the Government want these 2 million people to get an employer to sign to say that they had visited the company looking for work? I can imagine the personnel department of some small company having hundreds of thousands of people queuing up and saying, "To get my benefit I have to get a chit from you showing that I have been seeking a job."
  It is all very well for Conservative Members to screw up their faces, but presumably some form of proof will have to be provided. Will what the counter clerk thinks about an applicant's statement that he has been looking for work be sufficient? If that statement is not accepted, will the Department adopt the procedure for suspending benefit? Benefit used to be suspended for six weeks, but it is now to be for 13 weeks—a doubling of the delay in payment. How will the proof be provided? We have heard the criteria, but what evidence will be expected from a person

  1205
  who is on the dole? Those are major concerns for the unemployed, and why I say that we are targeting these people unnecessarily.
  Mass unemployment, such as we have in this country, is the scourge of all developed economies. Anyone looking at unemployment in western economies will see that throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s it doubled every 10 years. That has happened in every country. We can quibble about whether our employment is going up or down, but mass unemployment is a substantial problem in the developed western economies. It is also a problem with eastern economies, but I shall refer only to economies similar to our own.
  We have to address that particular problem. Our argument is that unemployment has reached and is maintained at far too high a level. Mass unemployment is something that will continue for a very long time, and what the Budget will produce is a low-paid, low-skilled, low-cost and low-value economy. We have no chance of competing against the Pacific rim countries. We must go for a high-wage, high-productivity and high-value production economy.
  Everyone agrees that that is what we must aim for, but to achieve it we must invest in education and skills. The Secretary of State has told us that the extra money for the apprenticeships, which we all welcome, will come from another part of his budget—presumably from the budget for training people who will not go into the apprenticeships.
  Only a third of our labour force have any qualifications, whereas some two thirds of the German labour force have some form of qualification. We have a long way to go, and the strategy of the Budget to produce more low-paid, part-time, low-skilled jobs is fundamentally wrong.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is strongly criticising my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget for jobs. Perhaps he can explain something to me. France is likely to experience an increase in unemployment of 800,000 this year and Spain has an unemployment rate of 20 per cent. How can the hon. Gentleman think that we are so far out of line with other countries, especially as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said the opposite? We have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that we have more than a million more jobs today than we had in 1979. How can the hon. Gentleman say that we are so far out of line with those other countries?
  Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening instead of talking to his hon. Friends, he would have heard me say at the outset that mass unemployment has plagued all western economies and doubled every 10 years. Unemployment has increased under Labour and Tory Governments alike. My charge is that we have a higher level than is necessary and that things could have been done in the Budget to change that. Any silly fool can look at the figures and say that Spain and other countries are also affected. I conceded that right at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman would be better informed if he listened to what was being said instead of trying to jump in with questions that the Whips have given him to ask me.
  The Budget is also designed to justify a wholesale attack on the welfare state. It is all very well the Secretary
  1206
  of State quoting Beveridge and saying that that is what he wants to achieve. The fact is that at the heart of the Budget is the view that we cannot afford the existing welfare state. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor have admitted that mass unemployment—whether the figure is defined as 2·9 or 2·8 million, we have mass unemployment—will continue at least until 1996-97. I do not think that anyone doubts that mass unemployment will continue throughout the Government's period of office.
  Another proposition that we can accept from the economists is that growth will not create enough jobs to compensate for the high unemployment that prevails in developed economies today. It is unlikely that the growth estimated by the Chancellor will materialise—indeed, it is being suggested in some newspapers that the tax revenue of some £30 billion that will come out of the Budget is likely to reduce those limited growth figures. But even supposing that the Chancellor's optimism proves justified and the growth levels to which he has referred are attained, it will not do a great deal to reduce unemployment and will certainly not cure mass unemployment. We are therefore faced with a decision. Are we prepared to fund the welfare state? Are we prepared to fund the unemployed and the disabled?
  What has been done to benefits for people with disabilities would certainly appear to be an attack on them. Those same people were driven on to the disability list because in the mid-1980s the Government discovered that they could encourage people off the unemployment register in that way. The Department of Employment's own doctors co-operated in that exercise. As Members of Parliament, we all knew that people could get more money in invalidity benefit. We drove them off the unemployment register and now we are about to drive them back because the Chancellor has discovered that the cost is too high. It is a consideration of the cost and whether such benefits can be afforded. The criteria by which a person is judged to be disabled are to be changed.
  We can see the good old hand of the Treasury in all this. The Government did the same in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act: when they found that more people were entitled to claim, they began to change the criteria and cut the cost. That is what the Budget is all about. We are talking not about meeting people's needs but about meeting the needs of the Treasury. That is at the heart of the Budget.
  The Government have decided that they are not prepared to finance a welfare state. Under their present strategy, they cannot achieve growth and they cannot reduce the cost of unemployment, which is about —30 billion, quite apart from the loss of production. That gives rise to a major question, and the Budget sees us at the crossroads. What kind of society is Britain going to have? Is it to be one that balances work and welfare, which was at the heart of Beveridge, or is it to be one that lives with mass unemployment while seeking to eradicate it in the figures, eventually—I gather from rumours that are circulating at the moment—abolishing the Department of Employment on the ground that we will not then need a Minister to come to the House to explain why so many people are unemployed?
  Mr. David Congdon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no case in any situation

  1207
  for trying to constrain the cost of an ever-growing social security budget? If so, why did the Opposition set up the social justice commission?
  Mr. Prescott: I am admitting that there is a fundamental question for us all to address. I do not think that there is any doubt that that question will be an issue at the next election. We are preparing ourselves for that argument and will have to present our case. Let us make no mistake about it. I am not arguing that there is no problem to be addressed, especially given that we are faced with mass unemployment. But decisions have been made about whether to give money to those who are well off or fund the welfare state, and the Government have decided to give tax benefits to those who are better off. That is what has created our problems.
  The problem that the Chancellor has identified in his Budget is the public sector borrowing requirement. Let us leave aside for a moment the question whether the PSBR is higher than that in other countries and how it is measured. Let us accept, for a moment, the Chancellor's view that the PSBR is far too high—and we could argue about that. The £30 billion cost of unemployment is very high indeed. It would be far better to get people to work rather than leave them to waste away on the dole.
  Other factors have contributed to the crisis, too. The problems in our public finances are in part due to the policies that the Government pursued in the 1980s. They wasted £100 billion worth of oil revenue—£10 billion or £15 billion a year. They privatised nationalised industries, stealing the silver to put quick money into the Treasury's coffers while losing the revenue flow from those nationalised industries—about £10 billion a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—£10 billion since they were privatised, then. As the Chancellor knows, we had both loss-making and profitable industries. But the net revenue was far higher than the tax that the Chancellor is collecting from the privatised industries. The Treasury has lost revenue. The introduction of the poll tax cost another £5 billion. The list goes on and on. The PSBR crisis has been caused not just by unemployment and welfare payments but by the Government's handling of our finances.
  The Budget is being used to justify a massive attack on the welfare state in line with the Government's policy in Europe which is that we need to pursue the least cost option. That leads to low skill and to industries that do not have the necessary research and development and investment to produce the kind of wealth to pay for a modern welfare state.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the point of the Budget is to cut back on a welfare state that we will not afford. Will he remind himself of the social security spending figures announced in our spending plans? The hon. Gentleman will see from the Red Book the changes that the Budget represents. In social security, the changes from previous plans are as follows: for 1993-94, £2,300 million extra; 1994, £1,600 million extra; 1995-96, £2,100 million extra. We have accommodated that increase of more than £5 billion by reordering priorities elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman has fairly praised the introduction of the child allowance and family credit. Whatever else he says, it is absurd to argue that the whole basis of the Budget is that we are not affording a welfare state. We are making
  1208
  proper provision for a welfare state but it is sensible to stop benefits being paid to those who were never entitled to them to accommodate growth in requirement.
  Mr. Prescott: Expenditure on the welfare state has increased under all Governments. That is part of the problem. The Secretary of State has identified some growth but there have also been cuts. With ever increasing and mass unemployment, he has to pay more. I should add that, in a low-wage economy, income supplements and so on become available to part-time workers. Is it the Chancellor's view that we can afford the welfare state and the present expenditure pattern?
  Mr. Clarke: We are demonstrating that we can. But the welfare state has been evolving ever since it was first introduced. It has never been a static social security system. I cannot recall a Government who have made no changes to social security for two or three years at a time. We are introducing new benefits for working mothers and there has been increased take-up of desirable benefits. The hon. Gentleman is standing there resisting attempts to cut fraud and to stop people claiming invalidity benefit when they are not entitled to it. That is an irresponsible approach to the welfare state, and an approach that the Government certainly do not share.
  Mr. Prescott: It was unfortunate that the Chancellor used the word fraud, and it is fraud in the context in which I use it. The Secretary of State talks about a welfare system based on national insurance principles, and he is going to deny unemployed people the entitlement to 12 months' benefit. That is their right under the national benefits as they are. They make contributions and they are entitled to the benefits. If a private company did something similar, would it not be taken to court?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is challenging the part of the job seekers' benefit which states that one is entitled to benefit only if one is available for work. If the hon. Gentleman resists that element of the job seekers' benefit scheme, which is designed to ensure that people do not claim the benefit when they are not seeking work, he is resisting quite legitimate proposals to stop people claiming benefit fraudulently by pretending to look for work.
  Mr. Prescott: The Chancellor has given a clear indication of how he stands on the matters. In my previous job, I made an allegation about the Chancellor—then the Secretary of State for Transport—when we were in opposition on another case. After what he has done to the railway pensioners with their pension funds, he is undoubtedly now about to raid the pension funds of the Post Office and the coal mines. There is no doubt about that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told the railway workers that he intended to set them up with a self-funded pension fund which would have no accountability to the Secretary of State. He has since taken money from them, and he is now threatening their assets.
  Mr. Clarke indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: The Chancellor may sit there and shake his head, but it is a matter of record. The Government are robbers, and they are involved in an act of fraud. They should make no mistake about it—that fact is known by the electorate. The electors know what the Government are about—it is clearly evident to them.

  1209
  The Conservative party is no longer credible in relation to a tax hike. It is a party that does not believe in high taxation. The Chancellor gave an interview on a radio programme in which he said, I believe, that it was now necessary to increase taxes. That will be done presumably to provide an opportunity to reduce them again at the time of a general election. That is how the Government play see-saw with the economy at the expense Of the unemployed and the homeless.
  One would have thought that the Department of Employment would be concerned about employment, but all that it has done so far is to encourage low pay. The Department and the Chancellor have designed a national insurance scheme which is a pathway to lower pay. There is an incentive now to employers to pay less, because the employer will make smaller national insurance contributions if they pay a worker less. That might be an incentive to try to get people at lower pay. If a mountain is built of people who are working part time, the employer will be encouraged to pay less and less. People will have less money to meet their needs. The justification given for the national insurance contribution scheme is that it will benefit employers—the consequences for employees are considerably different.
  We hear a great deal about the deregulation of our economy. I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have told us whether he would guarantee in that deregulation that we will not see a reduction in health and safety regulations. Those regulations are contained in a clause in a provisional Bill to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred. Many people are concerned about this. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will not change the essential principle in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which is
  "designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under those enactments"?
  Mr. David Hunt indicated assent.
  Mr. Prescott: I take that nod from the Secretary of State to mean that he will not change the health and safety legislation which has contributed to the reduction in the number of deaths and accidents in industry.
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman seems to be relying on the Chancellor and me to make his speech for him. I will make it absolutely clear. We have consistently stated that the review of health and safety is to make the system safer and simpler. We have asked the Health and Safety Commission to give us advice on a range of issues, and we now await that advice. I am proud to say that we have one of the finest health and safety records of any country in the world.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State must be aware that that is because of the essential principle embodied in the legislation that any changes in safety regulations must be superior to the provisions that they are to replace. It is a simple principle. Do the Government intend to change that in any way? We have seen a Bill which contained that clause. Are they saying now that it will not be done? I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would make such a statement. That is equally as important as the apprenticeships.
  Mr. Hunt indicated assent.
  Mr. Prescott: I take that asurance from the Secretary of State to mean that it will not be changed. I am grateful to him for that assurance. That will be good for our people, and I am delighted about it.
  On the business of departmental deregulation and the job seeker proposals, is not the rate of applicants to jobs either 21:1 or 35:1, depending on which area one takes? What is the point of a job seekers' scheme if people have no chance of getting jobs?
  That ratio of applicants to jobs works against the 1 million long-term unemployed in particular. What is the position for them? The Secretary of State has acknowledged that special measures are needed for them, but employers will not deal with those measures. How are the long-term unemployed to be dealt with under the schemes? The Department has no sympathy for them. To see the ineffectiveness of the Department, we must look at the way in which it has dealt with education and skill training. That is a most critical area, as the Secretary of State made clear at the beginning of his speech. We welcomed that, and I presume that he did so at the beginning of his speech to catch the evening news, knowing that presumably we would not be able to comment. That is the nature of the organisation of business in the House.
  The Secretary of State says that we are to return to basics. I will give him the figures concerning apprenticeships in this country. In 1979, there were 367,000 apprentices. In 1992, there were 240,000 apprentices. That is largely because the Government scrapped the training boards from which many of the skills came, whatever else was said about them. There has been a massive reduction in the numbers.
  The Secretary of State has talked of 10,000 to 40,000 apprentices. I could not keep up with the right hon. Gentleman because somehow he shot off to talk about a figure of 150,000. I do not know what period of time he was talking about. I understood that there were to be 10,000 national vocational qualifications, rising to 30,000 or 40,000. Is the figure of 150,000 to be achieved in the next century? [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not make for clarity when there are signs, whispers or seated interventions. The House must return to the normal way of conducting business.
  Mr. Prescott: If the total of apprentices reaches the figure of 150,000 that the Secretary of State wants by the next century, that will be 10 per cent. of the number of trainees in Germany now—an ambitious programme indeed to get Britain going into the next century and to produce the skills which we want for our industry. It is absurd—absolute nonsense.
  The figure is so low because the Government do not have the guts to tell industry that it must invest in people and in skills. If it is left to a voluntary system, industry will not do it. All the countries with skill training have a statutory framework and a levy principle. We broke away from that and since then we have seen a collapse in training, even in limited skill abilities which have always been a problem in Britain.
  Now the Secretary of State comes along and looks at NVQs and training and enterprise councils and tries to deliver some sort of apprenticeships. I hope that he is

  1211
  successful, because we desperately need those apprenticeships, but it is not enough: the Government must tell industry that it has to make a proper investment in the training of our people. That might need a compulsory element, but every other country in Europe has such an element.
  Mr. Hunt indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary shakes his head, but he does not have the problem of not getting a job because he has no skill. That is reality for many of our people. Those are the consequences for our young people who have no jobs or training.
  While I was getting ready for the debate, I read some of the promises made by previous Secretaries of State. They told the House what they were going to do to train youngsters aged between 16 and 17, but not one of their promises was ever achieved. All the promises were given with great confidence, but the record of the Department of Employment in producing people with skills is deplorable. That is quite apart from what that has meant for the economy. Industry should be ashamed of what it has done for the training of youngsters in this country. The Government are concerned with creating a low-pay and unskilled sort of economy. That is not the way Britain will go forward.
  The Department of Employment talks a lot about the importance of skills, but even in that area it is a complete failure. It has failed to train a labour force, to implement fair employment practices and conditions and to influence a policy of full employment.
  I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say that the Department of Employment was at the core of economic policy. I wish that it was, along with the Department of Industry. But I did not think that the Government believed in strategy for industry or for employment. I thought that that was all given to us by the market.
  I want to see Departments making a judgment and being actively involved and intervening. That is what happens in many European countries with Governments of the left or right. They need to plan, to intervene, to have objectives, to help industry and to train people. The Government have a role to play in that. But during the 1980s the Government copped out of that. The Department of Employment has been at the heart of doing basically nothing about it. It should be a powerhouse. That is important.
  The Department of Employment could have done more to shape economic policy. I am glad that the Secretary of State acknowledged that it should have such a role and that will be a basis for part of our debate. The Treasury, in pursuit of money to reduce subsidies and to deal with the financial crisis that has come about as a result of its economic incompetence, has sought financial solutions which have been to the detriment of our economy.
  The deregulation of the bus industry led to the collapse of a manufacturing industry. In order for the Treasury to save £100 million in subsidies, 7,000 buses have gone down the Swanee and a whole manufacturing industry has gone.
  I hear that the Government are now talking about the west coast main line. Two years ago I put forward a plan to finance that line with leasing and new forms of private financing. The Government have not yet learnt those methods, despite them being used in Europe. Under such a
  1212
  system we could combine training, modernising the infrastructure, providing manufacturing jobs and developing our roads.
  The Department of Employment should be arguing with the Treasury about how to produce jobs, provide a modern economy and train people, rather than skivvying around to get a few bob more from the Chancellor, complimenting him on that and then discovering that that money has simply come from another part of the Department's budget.
  The Chancellor has given the Department of Employment nothing. Its money has been going down and down. If one excludes the unemployment benefits, it has had nothing. It is the handmaiden of the Treasury. It has not been the core of decision making where it should be. If it considered industrial policy, it could have been.
  One thing that the Department could have done in the light of the Budget announcement of a cut in MIRAS, which, along with local authority housing cuts, will result in savings of about £1 billion, was to transfer that money to rebuild a housing programme.
  Those savings under MIRAS could have been used to provide 100,000 houses and 100,000 jobs. Those figures are available. Instead of the Treasury using that money to pay the City so that it can have its profits, it should have been used to meet the needs of the homeless, to provide jobs and to stimulate the economy.
  I intend constantly to return to what I call the jobs audit. We do not necessarily need to spend more money, rather to choose different priorities in order to get people back to work. The Government deliberately do not choose those priorities but rather maintain a high level of unemployment. Does the Secretary of State know what effect the Budget will have on jobs? Did he ask the Chancellor? Did they do a job audit? Did he ask how much unemployment would be created?
  Mr. Hunt: First, a few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to unemployment benefit being taken out of my Department's expenditure, but it is the Department of Social Security's budget; it is not in try Department's budget.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Yes, it is.
  Mr. Hunt: It is not.
  Secondly, this is a Budget for jobs and growth. We will see the results as the months and years unfold. The hon. Gentleman still has not explained why the United Kingdom is the only country with unemployment below the Community average and falling. In every other part of Europe, it is rising.
  Mr. Lloyd: How many jobs?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have intervention upon intervention, particularly when they are made from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State is right; I did use those words. I was referring to employment services—payment for training, and so on. That correlates with what is happening in the economy, and if that figure is excluded there has been a reduction in his Department's budget. Even if it is included, one could say that there has been a reduction.
  But, leaving that aside, the Secretary of State said nothing about the Budget's consequences for jobs. This is

  1213
  not a Budget for jobs. There are many different computer forecasts to play with. I shall use the one from Warwick. Cuts in housing and in local authority expenditure and the pay freeze for public sector workers mean that more people will be put out of work. That is the reality. There is no doubt about that.
  Estimates can be made. They are constantly made. The Department of Social Security estimates the effect of its policies on unemployment. It has been shown that 250,000 public sector jobs and 75,000 manufacturing jobs—325,000—will be lost. To keep those people unemployed will cost £3·5 billion. Why do we not consider that? That is a charge on the public sector borrowing requirement. Why are we not concerned to reduce the borrowing requirement by reducing the number of those whom we pay to keep idle on the dole? Would not that be a better way to use money?
  Housing cuts will cost a further £1 billion. There is only house building at the moment, no other construction. If the housing programme is reduced, as the Chancellor described—the Financial Secretary is here, he can confirm that—the inevitable consequence will be fewer people in work. Already, the building industry accounts for 250,000 unemployed people.
  The Secretary of State's rhetoric shows that he wants to be at the heart of economic decision making. But one would have thought that a Secretary of State for Employment might have asked the Chancellor in the run-up to the Budget what its effect would be on jobs. He might have done and the Chancellor would have said, "Don't worry, there will be a growth in jobs." To which the Secretary of State would have said, "Thank you very much, Chancellor." Then he would have moved on.
  The reality is unemployment. If the Secretary of State is in any doubt, he can ask the Financial Secretary about the consequences to the public sector borrowing requirement of the money that is being settled for the local authorities and the cuts in housing. The subsidies will go directly to the Treasury, not to the housing industry.
  In reality, the Government are not interested in unemployment. If the Secretary of State accepts the consequences for jobs that I have just described, he is choosing higher unemployment than is necessary. That is our charge against the Government. They do nothing to provide homes for the homeless, skills for the unskilled, jobs for the workers and help for the helpless.
  Our charge is not only that the Government are uncaring; they are incompetent and deliberately maintain high levels of unemployment. That is what this Budget is about and that is why we shall oppose it bitterly during its progress through the House.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. David Madel: In the early part of his speech, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) welcomed the new apprenticeship scheme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, and I hope that he and the representatives of the Liberal party will join the cross-party discussion and co-operation to get that important scheme off to a good start. We all know the necessity of giving
  1214
  young people good training, and the atmosphere will be hugely helped if there is seen to be cross-party support on that.
  I welcome the Chancellor's firm restatement in his Budget speech of Conservative philosophy—a modern welfare state, a competitive British economy with low inflation, and a country that vigorously pursues policies which remove obstacles to an expansion of world trade.
  The unified Budget has made economic policy more coherent to people and it has given us a chance for a much wider debate on the Budget than usual. I for one hope that the unified Budget will stay.
  The Chancellor fully delivered his pledge to help all pensioners and the less well-off in the commitments and the figures that he gave with regard to VAT on fuel. I am also glad that he coupled that with a £35 million per year increase in the home energy efficiency scheme.
  I previously had a financial interest in the window business. I no longer have such a interest, so I no longer feel inhibited in speaking about it in the House. I therefore looked up the 1990-91 regulations governing the making of a grant under that scheme. Among other things, they refer to a grant being made for draught-proofing and the insulation of any hot water tank or cylinder which is not already insulated.
  What is missing from the regulations is the need to replace windows. If windows and external doors were replaced by double-glazed sealed units, fuel bills would drop considerably. We always want to take action to help people to reduce the amount that they spend on fuel. I hope that the regulations will be amended to enable people to obtain a grant to fit new windows and external doors if necessary. Ill-fitting windows and external doors add hugely to people's fuel bills. The regulations should be amended so that people can take advantage of my right hon. and learned Friend's welcome extension of the home energy efficiency scheme.
  In his Budget statement, my right hon. and learned Friend said that a good social security system was one under which the better-off and people in work pay to support the poor and the disadvantaged. I support that view. However, there is one area where that aim does not fit, and that is the Child Support Agency. Many fathers on modest incomes are struggling to bring up a second family and simply cannot pay what is now being demanded by the CSA. Those fathers often made maintenance arrangements in a court of law, but the agreed figures have been overturned by the CSA.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is even worse than he has described because, in a matrimonial breakdown, it is now virtually impossible for solicitors to advise either fathers or mothers on any financial settlement, due to the unpredictability of the demands being made by the Child Support Agency?
  Mr. Madel: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am aware that he is a distinguished lawyer. I am sure that Ministers will have heard his point. Indeed, the Government are urgently investigating the matter.
  Where there have been sudden changes to various payments, the Government have often introduced transitional relief. Therefore, a good first step might be for some form of transitional relief to be introduced in maintenance payments. That would help those who are

  1215
  suddenly faced with the CSA overturning court orders. It is a serious problem, and the CSA's behaviour is contrary to my right hon. and learned Friend's philosophy on the welfare state and social security system—the better-off helping the less well-off. "Better-off' simply does not apply in many CSA cases.
  My second brief point on social security is that we should never underestimate the damage done by the late Mr. Robert Maxwell to faith and confidence in private and occupational pensions. Maxwell pensioners are by no means out of the wood. A considerable number of them live in my constituency, and it is the deferred pensioners, in particular, who are racked by uncertainty and anxiety.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is to introduce changes to the system. We need a battery of new laws to ensure that never again can some Robert Maxwell wreak havoc on those unfortunate enough to work for such a company. It is a thoroughly welcome change in the social security system. In a constituency like mine, with hundreds and hundreds of Maxwell pensioners, it cannot come quickly enough.
  My right hon. and learned Friend referred to motor taxation. We cannot say that we have not been warned about future increases in fuel duty, in addition to those announced on Tuesday. It should accelerate research and development into even more fuel efficient engines. That in itself should create new jobs.
  However, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep two points in mind. The first is the future of the vehicle excise duty—the tax disc. There is a case for freezing that cost. My right hon. and learned Friend has frozen mortgage interest relief at £30,000, but there is also a case for freezing the tax disc, especially in view of the plans to increase fuel duty.
  Secondly, we should not forget that world oil prices are now at a very low level. If they suddenly shot up again because of tremendous instability in the middle east, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend would reconsider his projected increases in fuel duty. Rocketing oil prices, plus his proposals, would place the car industry in considerable difficulty, and put a considerable burden on motorists and other consumers.
  The other interesting point mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend in relation to the car industry and the roads programme was that, when the technology is ready, motorway electronic charging will be introduced. That, too, should result in new jobs as the new technology is developed. I am delighted that the Government have opted for pay-as-you-drive rather than a flat rate charge. We believe in a shift of taxation from income to spending, and that charge is a form of spending.
  However, if electronic charging is introduced for certain stretches of motorway, some traffic will be diverted to A roads that simply will not be able to cope with such an enormous increase in traffic. That applies in particular to my constituency. The thought of traffic pouring off the M1 on to the overloaded A5 through Dunstable is too horrible to contemplate. Therefore, when the technology is introduced, it must take account of the fact that certain stretches of motorway must be free of electronic charging, because the A road system would not be able to take the sudden increase in traffic.
  I want to say a few words about education. I welcome the Government's success in having already reached the target of one in three of our young people going to university. I doubly welcome the confirmation in the
  1216
  Budget that university tuition will remain free. That is as good an investment in people as could possibly be imagined.
  My right hon. and learned Friend referred to students' living costs, and said that the mixture of grant and loan would continue, with a movement away from grant and towards loan. I do not quarrel with that. Indeed, the Select Committee on Education and Science, on which I served, advocated that in the early 1980s. I hope that people will not forget the existence of the access hardship fund for students in difficulty. It is a scheme that the Government should certainly retain.
  I am sure that there was a surge of relief in higher education and throughout the whole education system when it was confirmed that VAT would not be applied to books. Now that we have escaped that, we should refocus attention on the net book agreement. I understand that it is being considered by the Office of Fair Trading. I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members in saying that the price of books in this country is rather high compared with, for example, America. The net book agreement is not in the public interest. Books are an important part of student life, and prices could be reduced.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment mentioned the new apprenticeship scheme, which I welcomed in an intervention in his speech. is extremely good news that, when young people have that qualification, it will be the vocational equivalent of an A-level. I support the principle of high-quality, work-based training. However, I reiterate my concern: once an agreement has been signed between trainee and employer, were the company to go bust or get into severe financial difficulties, there must be a system to enable the young person to resume his work-based training elsewhere. That will require a great deal of employer co-operation.
  The truck manufacturing industry in Dunstable collapsed last year—imagine the damage that that has done. Industries do go bust, so if we are to increase the number of apprenticeships, there must be a safety net so that, should the worst happen, the apprentice can resume work with another employer without delay.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor mentioned many times the need to get unemployment down. Two things are most desperately needed to achieve that. The first is a deal on GATT, and certainly before 15 December. Every post-war surge in prosperity has followed a reduction in restrictions on world trade.
  Secondly, we must make the EC single market work properly and fairly. It is of the utmost importance to this country that our EC partners come out of recession quickly, because we are so desperately dependent on them for our exports. It is of the utmost importance that they, like ourselves, pursue policies that lower the costs of providing employment and thereby create more jobs.
  Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Budget's basic assumption that even the modest rates of growth that it predicts will be sustainable? As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that will depend on the European Community emerging from its current deep recession, because it is one of our main export markets.
  Mr. Madel: It is terribly important that the Community emerges from recession. I believe that the hon. Lady's constituency is near Ellesmere Port, where Astras are

  1217
  manufactured. The Cavalier is manufactured in Luton, and both plants desperately need increased opportunities to sell to the Community.
  The conditions for industry expansion are extremely favourable. Paragraph 3.12 of the Red Book refers to oil prices, and assumes an average price of$17 a barrel during the forecast period. Paragraph 3.19 states:
  "Low commodity prices and spare capacity in G7 countries should continue to exert downward pressure on inflation."
  We have as good an opportunity for economic expansion now as since the end of the Korean war, after which there was a downward movement in world commodity prices.
  We see the strains that high unemployment imposes on our EC partners, and must constantly look for new ways to boost manufacturing and business. I welcome the new venture capital trusts on which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will soon publish details and invite comments. It too will be a real job creator.
  My right hon. and learned Friend stressed that his is a long-term Budget to secure a much better economic future. He rightly promised no overnight miracles. We on this side of the House must remember Rab Butler's philosophy about the patience of politics. My party must show great patience and support for the Government in the next few years as we move into faster economic expansion, low unemployment and, above all, lower inflation.
  6.41 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The Chancellor's skill in designing his Budget was well demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), who is a man of broad sympathies and of views that I find more acceptable than those of some Conservative Members. I hope that that remark will not do the hon. Gentleman too much damage in his constituency.
  The hon. Gentleman's ability to commend the broad sweep of the Budget, which adds hugely to taxation and makes such heavy cuts in expenditure, and to find details that he can also commend—and which we on this side of the House support, such as plans for road building and the introduction of road pricing—nicely characterises the Budget's shape as a political instrument.
  As to the Budget's likely impact on the economy and its broad strategy, I will concentrate on what must be done now and in the future, and not parcel out credit and blame for past events and for the deplorable state of the economy today—with its huge imbalances of public borrowing, balance of payments and, worst of all, appalling unemployment.
  First, I want to give the Chancellor more credit than he probably deserves. He is right to seek to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement by one means or another, not at once but over a period of five years. He is right to announce in advance changes in taxation and in planned expenditure levels that will make clear that balance for which he is arguing—realistically, as he sees it. However, I do not agree with the particular levels of taxation and expenditure that he chose.
  Then there are matters on which I will reserve judgment. The Chancellor did not clearly explain his strategy for the balance of payments, the exchange rate and monetary policy. I do not suggest that he has no strategy or that his strategy is necessarily wrong—simply that he has
  1218
  not explained what it is. The markets, to operate confidently, must have a clear indication of the Government's monetary strategy.
  Finally, the Chancellor is plainly wrong to cling to deregulation and benign neglect of industry as the panaceas that will restore the competitiveness and capacity of manufacturing and make possible the reduction in unemployment that we all seek. However, overall, and given the political constraints within which the Chancellor is working, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did what I would expect a competent Tory Chancellor to do.
  The competence was to a degree thrust upon him, perhaps without the right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely appreciating it, by the discipline of having to launch a unified Budget. That made him examine economic issues as a whole. I gave a push in that direction with my amendment to the Industry Act 1975 requiring the Treasury to publish economic forecasts.
  From internal evidence and the Budget, I suspect that the Treasury, in its advice to the Chancellor, may have gone further with the optimisation of policy, which was also covered by my original amendment to the 1975 Bill, which the House approved. If the Treasury has not done that further work—there are many ways in which it can be done—it should have done so. I believe that the Economic Secretary knows what I am talking about.
  Since before the 1987 stock exchange crash, I have been publishing the results of policy optimisation on the Treasury model, using the Treasury's own computer programmes. It is a simple concept. Having identified priorities on inflation, unemployment, taxation, public spending, public borrowing, the balance of payments and so on, a model embodying the available evidence on how the economy works will show the policy changes that should be made now and those that ought to be made in future.
  Each year, I have undertaken post mortems on those exercises, which have shown that, if Chancellors had followed advice available within the Treasury at the time, they would have avoided the main mistakes made since 1987—most notably, the excessive reflation of 1987 and 1988.
  Models and forecasts are certainly imperfect. That is as true of the Treasury model as of any other. This year, with the help of three good research assistants, I undertook that policy optimisation exercise on not only the Treasury but on the London Business School, National Institute of Economic and Social Research and Oxford Economic Forecasting models. I gave the results at a seminar at Warwick university in July. Alan Budd, chief economic adviser to the Treasury—who in the early 1980s was an adviser to the Treasury Select Committee when I was a member of it—commented extensively on that paper at the seminar.
  The results of that comparative study of policy design and optimisation were published in the "Oxford Review of Economic Policy", a copy of which is in the Library.
  A fortnight before the Budget, a new version of the Treasury model was produced, revised in respects that I and others showed had been wrong. I have not had time to study the policy recommendations to which that new version leads, but with the revisions to the model to which the Treasury has drawn attention, I expect it to indicate the sort of Budget and forecast that the Chancellor produced.
  For that reason, I do not question the likelihood that the figures produced by the Chancellor are based on the best

  1219
  advice that he has received within the Department. I may be naive in that, but I am prepared to believe the attempt at objectivity in those forecasts.
  That optimisation exercise, which has been or could easily be done in the Treasury, will show a consistent exchange rate and monetary policy strategy which the Chancellor did not announce in the Budget. As I have said, there is no monetary or exchange rate policy in the Budget.
  All that does not mean that the results presented in the Budget could not have been achieved by other arguments or on the back of an envelope. The Treasury model is not a black box. The way it works is consistent with the economic common-sense terms in which the conclusions would, I am sure, have been presented to the Chancellor. A test of good methodology is that, after the event, everybody claims to have known the answer.
  On the evidence that is published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", the exchange rate is vulnerable to the intractable deficit in the balance of payments. To have run a balance of payments deficit in the depths of a recession and not to offer any recovery to zero, even after the depreciation that we have had, and to stop short of the publication of the forward look into future years is at least to fail to produce the evidence that a monetary and exchange rate policy is sustainable and consistent with the fiscal balance.
  To put the balance of payments right, supply side measures are needed which are not treated in the Treasury model. It does not treat the further deregulation and benign neglect of industry which has been pursued by the Government and which is recommended for future years, nor the effects of similar policies which will now be incorporated in the model and which have been shown to be insufficient in the past.
  Also, it does not treat the positive supply side measures of the Labour party on investment, training and research, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred, which Conservative Members are bored with us constantly reiterating, but which are important.
  Why has not the Chancellor set out an exchange rate and monetary policy strategy if his advisers probably have a good one under the table? First, he or his advisers may feel that they want to see more of how the strategy performs. That is wise in the light of the nostrums that we have had in the past and the experience of past monetary and exchange rate strategies. Evidence from all sources must be examined, and this is no exception.
  Also, nobody but the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board in Washington is equipped to do the sort of policy optimisation work on the Treasury model that I believe the Treasury has been doing. Academic modellers, the Bank of England, City economists and even journalists could do it, but they are not doing so. The technical details are fiddly, but the methods are well within the competence of intelligent graduate students, who can learn them in three months, though not at any British university.
  In monetary and exchange rate policy, we are dealing with influencing people's expectations. It is no use the Treasury using an argument if its listeners are not equipped to follow that argument and react to it. The game does not work if one is seeking to influence people's expectations and they are not doing the sums necessary to work out how to form their expectations. They have to learn to play the game. If that game does not work for the Government, how
  1220
  much less will it work for the Opposition, given the barrage of misrepresentation to which the statements of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are subjected?
  We are now past the stage where politicians and their advisers cannot understand the arguments that are needed on monetary and exchange rate policy. It is the public and the pundits who need to catch up. No Chancellor has adequately acknowledged the sheer technical competence and integrity of Treasury modellers and forecasters—a competence and integrity so inadequately portrayed in the anodyne caricature of analysis which successive Chancellors serve up in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Of course, forecasts are not accurate., so let the forecasters explain why, and what the implications of that inevitable uncertainty are for policy-making, as I have tried to do.
  The body in this country that looks at the development of models and forecasting is the macro-economic modelling consortium on which the three bodies represented are the Economic and Social Research Council, the Treasury and the Bank of England. The consortium has proposed that modellers—those whom it supports, such as the London Business School, the national institute and so on—should participate in the sort of exercise that my research assistants and I carried out this summer. That recommendation has come from the panel on which the Economic and Social Research Council, economists, Treasury representatives and the Bank of England are all involved.
  The Treasury and Civil Service Committee—I do not see a member in the Chamber, but I am sure that it will take the point—could play a useful role in commissioning the exercise in future years, thus getting people in Parliament, the City and the media used to the idea of how expectations could be formed more rationally.
  The Treasury's panel of independent forecasters—I welcome its operation, and it is doing a useful job—is in a more difficult position than the Select Committee. Even by asking the panel to do the exercise, the Treasury and its Ministers would appear to be endorsing the results that would emerge before anyone knew what they looked like. There is a limit to how far the Chancellor and the Treasury can try to lead public and technical opinion.
  There is a further difficulty that the Treasury would face in spelling out monetary and exchange rate policy, which is consistent with the fiscal stance that the Budget adopts. An exchange rate policy that would work could require major improvements in supply side performance in manufacturing, for which the Chancellor and Opposition Members hope but for which there is not yet any solid evidence.
  The country needs the stark realisation of the necessity of securing that supply side performance improvement. The objective may be achieved by people in industry responding more effectively to the Government's conception of supply side incentives, or it may need Labour's much more active policies on investment, training and research. What I suspect will prove to be the case is that it will need both.
  Either way, the Treasury has the clearest evidence, and it should be spelled out. The longer the picture is obscured, the greater will be the delay in addressing the greatest economic challenge we face, which is to restore the competitiveness and capacity of manufacturing, the more difficult will be the task and the greater will be the challenge from overseas. No monetary or exchange rate

  1221
  policy is likely to ease the fiscal stance: only effective supply-side policies will do that—and then only in the longer term.
  Let us consider what the political effect is likely to be of the balance that the Chancellor has chosen in the Budget between the tax increases and expenditure cuts that he has had to make. The Government will certainly face grave problems on the issue of public sector pay and in maintaining an adequate standard of public services in the next three years—that is putting it mildly.
  Economic models take a neutral stance in the balance between raising taxes and cutting expenditure and they do not measure the quality of services. As Members of Parliament, however, we are acutely conscious of the importance of those services and of the vital question of their quality.
  Ministers evidently believe that the Opposition are stuck with having to choose between losing the election by increasing taxes or by incompetence in the conduct of economic policy. The Government believe that elections are lost by increasing taxes or demonstrating incompetence; that, they believe, is the problem facing the Opposition.
  Despite my best efforts to defend the Chancellor's competence today, when the country judges the issues of raising tax or competence in the running of economic policy, it will condemn the Conservative party. That will not change before the next election. I have tried this afternoon to raise the competence stakes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury could do much more.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am delighted to be able to participate in the Budget debate. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his excellent Budget speech and on presenting a package of measures that will not only find favour across and in all sections of the country but deal with the economic and financial needs of our nation. In addition, the Budget projects us forward out of recession and back into growth and prosperity. It is at the same time an innovative and practical Budget and it should inspire considerable confidence in financiers, industrialists and the man or woman in the street. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will not even listen to my speech. I listened quietly to his speech and I now want to develop my ideas. I shall come to his speech later.
  For my constituents, the most important economic factors are low inflation, economic growth and jobs. The Budget will pass the test on all three fronts. My constituents, of course, also want the Government to reduce their budget deficit and they accept that tax increases and reduced public expenditure are necessary to ensure a sound economy.
  The whole community in my constituency, whether they work on the factory floor, in a shop or in an office, share the common aims of increased prosperity, better value for taxpayers' money and stable prices. People on fixed incomes, particularly those on pensions, are extremely keen that there is low inflation and that stable prices are maintained. Those with families are concerned
  1222
  about their jobs and job prospects. Those in work obviously want a secure future. All sections of the community, therefore, were looking forward to my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget with hope and expectation—hope that it would set the country on the right path for future growth and expectation that it would be fair. They looked also to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to rein in and curtail public expenditure. They have not been disappointed on either front.
  I encountered much praise for the Budget and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in my constituency yesterday. Considerable praise was expressed for his Budget speech on television because it was in simple language that the general public could understand. That was widely welcomed. His Budget was understood by more people because it was in simple language.
  I do not wish to spend too much time on the Opposition because they appear to be quite bankrupt of new ideas about how to deal with our economic problems, but we all know that they would spend more and more money on just about everything. What they never say, of course, is how that would be paid and how the ordinary taxpayer would suffer accordingly.
  We know that the Labour party is a party of high taxation. We heard that this afternoon from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East—have more taxes and use taxation for redistribution. That is what Labour Members are always after.
  Mr. Prescott: Oh, yes.
  Mr. Evennett: They admit it, and that is why they lose elections.
  The Opposition have no time for the wealth creators, the job creators or the entrepreneurs in our society. There is no chance of the Opposition supporting them. They offer no initiatives, no support and no commitment to those who make the real wealth.
  Labour is afraid of business—it always has been and business will never trust it. We know that Labour believes in more expenditure, more borrowing and more taxation. We have heard this afternoon about the social chapter, the minimum wage and new union rights. We have heard it all before, but we heard it again today. That is one reason why Labour Members will stay on the Opposition Benches and we will stay on the Government Benches.
  In Erith and Crayford, people looked for action in four key areas, to which I shall confine my remarks: first, local businesses; secondly, reform of benefits, particularly the disability living allowance; thirdly, help for pensioners to meet the imposition of VAT on fuel and power; and, fourthly, tax increases that were perceived as fair.
  Ms Eagle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the point of fair tax increases. Does he agree that under the Conservative Government one third of the huge tax giveaways of the 1980s went to the top 1 per cent. and that the current tax increases are hitting the lower-paid and those who are least able to afford them? Is that his definition of fair?
  Mr. Evennett: That is not only not fair but not true. I shall develop my argument on fairness subsequently. In the past 14 years, prosperity across all sections of society has increased. That has been very important.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Evennett: May I carry on a little? When I reach the part of my speech on fairness, I will give way to the hon. Lady.
  In Erith and Crayford, there is a large number of small firms and businesses. In the past few years, they have suffered a two-pronged attack—an increase in bureaucracy and red tape and the worldwide economic recession. They have urged my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to understand their problems and plight and to take action.
  Firms on my industrial estates of Thamesmead, Belvedere, Erith and Crayford, who employ many thousands of my constituents, wanted the Budget to deal with their real needs and issues. I know from conversations that I had yesterday with representatives of some of those firms that they are delighted with the outcome of the Budget. In particular, they welcomed the help for small businesses, with the raising of the VAT threshold, the abolition of compulsory audits for firms with a turnover of less than £90,000 and tax measures directed to help small businesses to get started and raise the necessary capital. Those are good news stories for businesses and small firms in Erith and Crayford.
  Together with those measures, the deregulation legislation proposed in the Queen's Speech and the Chancellor's determination to tackle the problems of late payment of bills will go down well with my business men.
  Cash flow is vital to smaller firms. Irrespective of how good a product is, if a firm does not get paid promptly on delivery, it can run into serious or perhaps terminal trouble through no fault of its own. Smaller firms therefore welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's comment in his Budget that he would reconsider this issue and try to deal with it for them. This year's Budget has been a Budget for business, a Budget for jobs and a Budget for training.
  I welcome the speech that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment this afternoon and applaud his new apprenticeship scheme for young people, which is innovative and will be good for young people. I also warmly support his three new initiatives for small firms to encourage training in the engine room of our economy, which is the small business.
  The second subject which I wish to mention is the determination of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Secuirty to reform the social security system and the urgent need to reform the disability allowance. I know from my constituency casework that the number of people who draw that benefit has increased dramatically in my area. I also know that by no stretch of the imagination are all those claimants severely disabled.
  All Conservative Members believe in helping people who are in genuine need. We believe that there should be a benefit to look after those people who are genuinely disabled to ensure that they are supported. However, quite a number of constituents have complained, at my surgery at Erith town hall on a Friday evening, that the present system is unfair and that disability allowance is given to too many people. We all know stories of people who can claim disability allowance who are not genuinely disabled. That was not what was intended when the benefit was introduced.
  The new incapacity benefit which will take effect in April 1995—with a new objective medical test, which I believe has been long overdue—will allow the benefit to reach the people who are in genuine need. People who are genuinely disabled will not have a problem because we shall ensure that they obtain the benefit. It is those people
  1224
  who do not deserve or need it who need to be worried. The new benefit will remove arbitrariness and will be seen to be fair.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) asked about fairness. Many people in my constituency believe that the disability allowance is unfair.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I am the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate; my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked questions regarding fairness. The question that I wished to ask the hon. Gentleman was, if the past 14 years have been so fair, why do a quarter of the poorest people in the European Community live in these islands?
  Mr. Evennett: The hon. Lady wanted to intervene on the fairness issue and I said that I would allow her to intervene on the fairness issue later, so she is not correct even about that. I was referring to her, not to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). It is important that measures are perceived as fair by the majority of people. During the past 14 years, there has been an increase in affluence in all sections of the community.
  The third subject which I wish to mention is VAT. In spite of all the pundits, especially those on the Opposition Benches, there was no extension to the VAT fold in the Budget. We all welcome that. Opposition Members have not even been able to acknowledge it.
  Pensioners and people in low-income groups were genuinely worried about what would happen when VAT was applied to fuel and power. In early October, I went to the local meeting of the British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Association. Apart from the usual party political nonsense that one hears at some of those meetings, many people expressed genuine worry about how they would be able to afford the increased fuel bill. I received many letters and had many telephone calls and meetings with other individual pensioners about the problem that they perceived that they would have. Many of those people who had small private pensions did not want to find that they would be excluded from help that would obviously go to those on benefit or very low incomes. They wanted the tax situation to be perceived as fair to them, too.
  The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an across-the-board benefit to all pensioners should reassure individual pensioners and pensioners' organisations that the Government have been fair to all pensioners in the Budget.
  Many pensioners in my constituency have told me that, although they welcome the reductions in interest rates for people who have mortgages and for all people who are borrowing money, they have noticed that their own private investment incomes have been reduced accordingly and they have been concerned. They might have another 10 or 20 years to live off their capital and they are concerned about the diminishing return for them. I am sure that they will be delighted with the new pensioners' guaranteed income bond, which they will greet with considerable enthusiasm.
  I believe that the extension of the home energy efficiency scheme, which was mentioned in the Budget, and the extension of eligibility to all pensioners and disabled people, will also be welcomed by pensioners' groups.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It is very expensive.
  Mr. Evennett: I think that all the measures will be expensive, but they will be perceived as fair to all pensioners, not just those on very low incomes. A large number of pensioners work for many years to enter retirement with a small occupational pension or savings. The pensioners to whom I spoke were naturally concerned about the future. The Budget has helped them and will continue to do so.
  I shall now discuss general perceptions of fairness. Whether the Budget is greeted favourably or unfavourably in our area depends on whether people perceive it to be fair to all sections of society and fair in dealing with everyone. I believe that the tax increases that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has proposed are fair—there is to be no increase in income tax, a limited increase in excise duty on drink, but more substantial increases in the price of tobacco and petrol. Those are welcome measures. I passionately believe in increasing the price of tobacco. I should have liked my right hon. and learned Friend to put more tax on tobacco, because smoking is a health risk. I welcome, however, the tax increase that has taken place this year.
  I believe that the benefit reforms will be regarded as fair by the vast majority of people in the country. Business people think that it is a fair Budget and will have great support.
  This year's Budget has been a no-nonsense Budget from a no-nonsense Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been crafted and constructed to deal with the problems that confront the country and to help those in real need. Obviously, tax increases are never popular, but I believe that the vast majority of people will recognise that they are essential at this time and that cuts in public expenditure are also important.
  However, the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has managed to continue to increase expenditure in the vital sectors of health, education and law and order highlights the Government's priorities. Yes, we have to curtail expenditure in certain sectors, but we believe passionately in developing policies in other sectors and we are prepared to spend extra money in those sectors.
  I believe that, in time, this year's Budget will be regarded as a great Budget from a great Chancellor of the Exchequer. I also feel that people appreciate his common-sense approach and plain speaking. This year, the people understand what he has to say and they like it.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: We have heard some interesting arguments during the debate and before I discuss broader issues I shall mention two. During the course of his contribution, with some of which I agreed, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) referred to the venture capital trust and, I think, the enterprise investment scheme. Any scheme that encourages investment in industry, especially manufacturing and productive industry, is to be welcomed. I have read the detail, such as it is, that has been supplied so far about those schemes. I would urge on the Treasury the view that any such scheme is unlikely to succeed if it does not include front-loading of tax relief.
  The business expansion scheme has been much condemned because of the way in which it was used to attract money into property-related investment. Some of that investment must have been beneficial for the building
  1226
  industry, which desperately needs help, and I make the specific point that the scheme attracted investment because those who invested could obtain tax relief as they put their money in. I urge the Government not to abandon that principle and to confirm that front-loaded tax relief will remain available, especially in the venture capital trusts, which should give a boost to the rather ailing venture capital industry in this country.
  My second specific point is about something that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said concerning pensioners and their savings. He gave a broad welcome to the pensioners guaranteed income bond. I have read the press release describing what detail there is about the bond so far, which was issued by National Savings as the Chancellor sat down having delivered his Budget speech. I hope that the Government can avoid the accusation that seems justifiable thus far—that the bond is something of a confidence trick by the Chancellor.
  We have been told that the bond will be introduced after the new year and, according to National Savings, its interest rates will reflect the market at the time of its introduction. We know that the Chancellor is likely to reduce interest rates between now and the new year, so it looks as if the bond will be introduced at an historically low interest rate. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury should tell us when he replies to the debate whether the bond will be linked in some way so that its interest rate rises if and when general interest rates rise. He shakes his head. That will be a great disappointment to pensioners all over the country, many of whom have small savings—£10,000 or £20,000, perhaps—which make a considerable difference to their standard of living. They have seen the return on their investments drop dramatically, and they too suspect, as we all do, that interest rates will rise.
  Unless something is done to secure pensioners against losing because of future increases in interest rates, the bonds will prove unattractive, and financial advisers will rightly urge caution before investments are made in them. I ask the Economic Secretary to reflect on the effect of introducing the bond at an historically low interest rate.
  The Chancellor delivered the Budget with his usual—and, to many hon. Members, enviable—self-confidence, but as a piece of economic thinking it was breathtaking, not so much because of what it told us but because of what it did not tell us. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been examining the Red Book to see where the money will come from to fill the gap of £3 billion to £4 billion that was unexplained in the Budget speech. That is easily discovered on page 117 of the Red Book: it comes from the contingency reserves. The table on that page shows that the reserves are to contribute £3·5 billion in 1994-95, £7 billion in 1995-96 and £10·5 billion in 1996-97. The Chancellor did not tell us in his speech the effect that using the contingency reserves to that breathtaking extent will have on the economy and its future growth. It is about time that we were given an explanation, and I hope that we shall hear it later.
  I shall now deal with employment policy, and unemployed people's view of the Budget. Five groups of people will have listened to the Chancellor's speech with bated breath. The first group is the young people who hope to be employed in future, and the second is people who are already on the employment market but who are unemployed. Then there are those who have worked but are now long-term unemployed, and those who have worked and want to work again but who are sick and

  1227
  therefore unemployed. The fifth group consists of those who are in work but who, because their jobs are so badly paid, are very poor and need help: they are entitled to help from the Government because they are doing exactly what the Government urge, and are working even though their wages are very low.
  All those groups will have looked for the prescription that the Government gave them in the Budget to deal with the ills that they experience. But some found the milk of human kindness prescribed only in the special form dispensed by the Secretary of State for Social Security. He is the dalek of the unemployed, uttering the word, "exterminate"—meaning, exterminate people from the statistics. One of the results of the Budget will be that for about the 29th time since 1979—I may be one out; it may be only the 28th time—the Government will be able to massage the unemployment statistics because of changes in policy. In the months to come we can expect a possible reduction of 200,000 in the official number of people unemployed, but that will not be a genuine reduction. I shall return later to the Secretary of State for Social Security and his plan for the sick and unemployed.
  The first category of people whom I mentioned—young people who hope to be employed—cannot have greeted the Budget with anything other than the deepest gloom and depression. All over the country we have a vast stock of brilliant and able young people who can learn skills, technology and knowledge, who have the capacity to soak up the skills needed to enable the economy to grow—many Members of Parliament can no longer do that, because we have passed that absorbent age for learning.
  Yet what prospect do those young people face? Those who come from affluent homes will be all right, because their mums and dads will see them through university, will give them the money to live on and will probably encourage them to take out student loans because they represent a cheap form of credit, but will pay off the loans on their children's behalf. Those young people will come out at the end of their higher education with a reasonable prospect of employment, because they will not be worried, at least at the beginning of their graduate life, about taking jobs with relatively low pay, if the prospects are good.
  Then there are the others—those who come from poorer homes whose parents will not be able to help them out, except at the cost of extreme sacrifice in some cases. If they go to university, they will be saddled with loans that now represent about one third of the cost of being at university. When they come out, they will face what is effectively a form of substantial additional taxation—the repayment of the loan.
  Let me give an example. The Government seem to think that £14,000 a year is a sufficient salary from which to start paying back the loan. I hope that many young people who come out of university will feel that school teaching is an attractive profession. In the early years of teaching they may earn little more than £14,000 a year. Are they really to be regarded as sufficiently affluent to start paying the price of their loans immediately at the beginning of their working lives?
  Salaries of people starting work in another category, in manufacturing industry, do not on the whole compare with the salaries paid by firms in the City. Are able young people to be driven out of manufacturing industry because they feel that they will be able to repay their student loan more successfully if they work for a firm of accountants or become lawyers? That does not seem to be a way to
  1228
  potentiate young people and to enable the country's economy to grow. It is a depressing picture that will drive many even into the choice of not going to university.
  There is also the question whether people can get jobs when they graduate. I know of many examples of young graduates who have no chance of jobs related to the skills that they have acquired. I was told by a constituent a few weeks ago of his son and daughter-in-law. The son is a brilliant first class honours graduate in a scientific subject and the daughter-in-law is a brilliant first class honours in history. Both had been promised research funding, which was removed before they could begin research; so they set about looking for work and obtained jobs selling hamburgers in the constituency of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), who is in his place. There is nothing wrong with selling hamburgers; it is an honourable occupation. Regrettably, there are rather more hamburger outlets in Chester than there used to be when I lived there as a young man and the fine, old shops were in greater abundance. People should not have to sell hamburgers if they have been trained in biotechnology or in microcomputer electronics or other subjects that are needed to enable the country to develop and grow.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has produced a test for those who are sick and unemployed that is more like a parlour game than a medical test. The consultation paper that was produced yesterday on the medical assessment for incapacity benefit contains items such as the following—a severity score of 17 points for those who cannot carry out simple mental arithmetic—that means that there will have to be a reshuffle in the Treasury. There will be 23·5 severity points awarded to those who are frequently muddled or confused—that will virtually wipe out the Government. There will be 4·5 severity points for those who cannot lift and push an unladen wheelbarrow—one of the tests that will be used to contradict the opinions of doctors as to whether people are able to work. Will doctors be expected to have an unladen wheelbarrow in their consulting rooms? With respect to those who sit in your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one test that may be especially apposite is the 11 severity points for regularly losing track of conversations.
  That is the regime that the Government are seeking to impose to decide whether people are fit for work. Until now, doctors—perhaps some do need to be more careful, for there is always room to remind the professions to apply high standards—have been respected for being able to decide whether people are fit for work. By those absurd tests, the Secretary of State for Social Security is to introduce a standard whereby civil servants rather than doctors will decide whether people are fit for work. Yet again the Government are set on conflict with the medical profession.
  What about the poor and employed? The wages councils have been abolished. The Government have pulled from under the poor and employed those very structures that at least fought for them, and on a statutory basis, to ensure that there was some kind of fairness even in poorly paid employment. There is nothing in the Budget that encourages people to take the jobs that the noble Lady Thatcher used to urge upon them; and that the present Secretary of State for Social Security, and others who have been given illegitimate titles at various times by the Prime Minister, encourage them to take to justify the feeling that they are doing something worthwhile in obtaining poorly paid employment. Why should people work as packers,

  1229
  assemblers or even hill farmers, who are no longer able to earn a decent income, if the Government cannot provide a minimum level of support to ensure a decent standard of living?
  Even housing has been attacked in the Budget. In Wales, where there is a desperate shortage of housing to rent in rural areas, Tai Cymru—Housing for Wales—is being given less money to build. What on earth can be the justification for that?
  In the Budget, we wanted to hear a strategy, not for the Conservative party or to call off the wreckers on the Tory Back Benches, but for the country for the years to come. If we had seen a real strategy for employment, our happiness would have been far greater than our regret at a Government success which might have deprived us of the opportunity of further by-election and election successes. The Liberal Democrats thought that the Government might have learned the lessons of their by-election defeats and the marvellous victories of my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). We would have willingly said to the Government "Well done" if they had produced a strategy that would have enabled unemployed and poor people to look to the future with greater confidence. Regrettably, they did not do so. In due course, the Chancellor will be judged on results and not on rhetoric.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: I join others on the Conservative Benches in congratulating the Chancellor on his excellent Budget. I shall not repeat the words of praise that have emanated from others, but entirely support them.
  The Chancellor was seeking to achieve twin targets of low inflation and growth. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). As I understand his argument, he wanted to reduce unemployment but did not take too kindly to growth, and he did not accept that the Budget would lead to growth. I do not understand how he expects unemployment to be reduced other than by virtue of growth in the economy.
  I listened to the hon. Gentleman attack the rising share prices in the City. He seemed to think that the confidence of City investors in Britain and from abroad showed that there was something wrong with the economy, instead of being, as it is, a declaration of support.
  I also listened to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) who followed the traditional course of Liberal Democrat spokesmen by being a manic depressive. That party gets incredibly excited for short periods, then goes into a deep decline. Today was a time of such decline. We heard doom and gloom, we were told that interest rates would rise substantially thus depriving people of the advantage of the new investments that they could make.
  We were also told that the Government should not eat into contingency reserves. The whole point of having contingency reserves is to have money available to support public services at a time of high inflation, when it is necessary for Government to divert resources because of emergencies. When we have stability in the economy, there is no need for such high reserves.
  1230
  If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery had thought about the targets of the Budget and about the success on which it was building, he would have appreciated that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was correct to reduce the contingency reserve. But doom and gloom will not allow that.
  The hon. and learned Member complained about reductions in house building. He should have told the House that the Government have pledged that the Housing Corporation will build 20,000 more houses than planned. As a result of lower prices, we are creating more house building; that is what he should have told us. But that is not good enough for hon. Members on the doom and gloom Benches.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on his allocation of local government funds today, pursuant to the announcement in the Budget. He has said that there is to be more money available for local government. Although, clearly, there will be some pressure on general levels of council tax, my right hon. Friend has acknowledged in the distribution of grant the needs of particular areas, especially those with growth problems and on the urban fringes, of which my own authority is one.
  I am delighted that Bromsgrove will be allowed to spend about £1 million more than it did last year, and that it will receive that same amount in extra grant, so that the council tax in my constituency can remain broadly the same, if the local authority chooses to spend at its new increased standard spending assessment level. That is welcome, and it is an acknowledgment of the needs of individuals and areas which is typical of this Government.
  There have been complaints from local government that the level of increase is inadequate. Those who criticise fail to appreciate that 70 per cent. of local government expenditure is based on wages and salaries. It is for local government, as it has done on occasions in the past, to ensure that it gets maximum value for money and that it limits pay rises to a level which can be afforded by the nation as a whole. I see no reason why local government should not contain its wage expenses.
  I pay tribute to the work of much of local government in delivering value for money; that drive must continue. We must look for extensions in competitive tendering and for more productivity in local government. Today's Audit Commission report points to fraud running at £25 million a year in local government. That is clearly one area in which action must be taken, and I hope that local government will note the Audit Commission's comments in seeking to deal with the problem.
  I now turn to business investment. I welcome the help that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has given industry by creating a low-tax economy and by giving assistance to the self-employed in VAT limits——
  Mr. Prescott: A low-tax economy?
  Mr. Thomason: That comment comes ill from an hon. Member in a party that has consistently committed itself to increasing the level of taxation for business and for individuals.
  Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that his Government's Budget figures demonstrate that taxation collected this year, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is 34·5 per cent., and that it will go up by 1998, on the Government's own figures, to 38·5 per cent.? When

  1231
  the Labour Government left office, the figure was 34·25 per cent. The Tory Government are a Government of high taxation, and their claims of low taxation have been exposed for the scam they are.
  Mr. Thomason: I take note of the fact that, under the terms announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, the proportion of public expenditure will be reduced from 45 per cent. to 41·5 per cent. We shall have less government and not more government. The Labour party consistently argues for more and more and more public expenditure, and for more taxation.
  There is a need to increase productivity, and much has been achieved to date by British industry. Management has been transformed in the past 14 years; much was done in the Thatcher years. We now have industry that is competitive. We have a work force who identify with the objectives of the employer in ensuring common success, not just for the shareholder and the manager, but for the whole work force. That transformation has been achieved on the back of a series of legislative proposals, and will be continued in the spirit of the Budget.
  We also see delivered in the Budget an opportunity to improve the skills of the work force. There is new training for apprenticeships, and there is education investment. Better standards will be attained so that the new generation will be fit for the workplace. However, in the international league, Britain's productivity levels still lag behind those of some countries.
  We need high growth and high investment. The two go together, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has difficulty in understanding. He complained about being likened to prehistoric animals. When I heard some of his comments, I understood the relevance of that criticism. High growth and high investment, running together. lead to improvements in productivity. We need to ensure that there are adequate margins to allow for investment. The call I hear again and again from British industry is that it wants to invest more so that it can then achieve a level of productivity second to none.
  We have a problem with short-termism, as even Opposition Members may agree. I hope that future Chancellors will have the opportunity to address that problem as the economy moves forward. We need to ensure that pension funds do not look just for immediate, short-term gains. We want the banks to be more flexible. We want less constraint on venture funds. Against that, we need to ensure that London maintains its position as a leading international financial centre, and we should not do anything that interferes overtly with that.
  Short-termism leads to the search for a quick return rather than to long-term planning, and there is not sufficient incentive for plant investment. We sometimes invest in the wrong sort of business asset—in land rather than in plant. A pressure that is especially important for smaller businesses is the need for high capital repayment on loans which can hinder their cash flow.
  I welcome the steps that the Chancellor has taken to deal with some of those problems, but I hope that he will go further in the years ahead. I hope that he will look critically at opportunities, when he can afford them, for capital allowances to be given. I hope that he will consider whether it would be appropriate for United Kingdom pension funds to bear tax on short-term gains. I wonder
  1232
  whether he will consider the liquidity requirements of banks, which might encourage them to look at equity investments and longer-term loans.
  Above all, what is needed for a long-term investment strategy for British industry is stability. The Budget is an important step in producing that stability that industry requires. Entrepreneurs need encouragement. Family businesses want equity partners. Business starters require long-term help and industry must have new plant to boost productivity. We are on the road to economic success, and we need to ensure that we achieve it through long-term investment.
  7.50 pm
  Ms Angela Eagle: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). He must be one of the few people to have visited Eurodisney, as he seems to have spent all his life in fantasyland. I do not recognise the society that he described.
  I noted the lack of response on the prickly issue of tax rises when I questioned him on the overall tax burden. It is an untypical occasion in that it is our first ever unified Budget. Unfortunately, it is leading to a depressingly familiar mixture of wrongheaded ideological economic bigotry from the Government, and cynicism that is so glaring that only the British Conservative party seems to be capable of it.
  The Budget is also revealing because Budgets are a time for choice. They reveal the Conservative philosophy behind what they do, their views on society, for which we shall soon call them to account in the run-up to the next election. The Budget is cynical because of the utter betrayal of all the Conservative party's election promises, none more so than on taxes. That is what this Budget represents.
  We must go back to the Budget before the last general election in 1992 and see how the Conservative party then presented the economic state of the nation. First, there was a tax-cutting Budget. When we look at the Red Book from that time, we find that the deplorable state of the economy was either conveniently not noticed or wilfully covered up. I shall leave it to individuals to decide who caused the mistakes.
  The £50 billion deficit on the PSBR, with which we are so concerned at this time, was absent from the figures and was much lower than those in the Red Book at that time. It was only after the general election that the small and conveniently underestimated deficit on the PSBR suddenly ballooned to £50 billion and became the centrepiece of the strategy for the two subsequent Budgets that we have had this year in the aftermath of the general election. We have a Chancellor who boasts about cutting the PSBR figure placed before the electorate in the Red Book by no less than £8 billion. That is £8 billion fewer for public services, schools, hospitals, investment in our crumbling infrastructure, welfare protection, transport, and so on. In the Budget, 3 per cent. of GDP was taken out of the economy. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a massively deflationary package.
  The Howe Budget in 1981, which caused such a catastrophic depression, was openly described as a deflationary Budget for taking a mere £1·8 billion of expenditure out of the economy. Taken with its

  1233
  predecessor in March, there is no description for the Budget other than massively deflationary, and we must be worried about that.
  The two Budgets must be taken together. Only then can one see the colossal switch in Government expenditure and values facing us now. It is a huge pincer movement. There has been a £23 billion overall increase in taxation. Who would have believed that from looking at the Conservative party election manifesto?
  As I tried to explain to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, the GDP share taken in taxes, based on the Government's figures, is forecast to go up from its present 34·25 per cent. to 38·5 per cent. by 1998. I must point out once more for the record that, in 1979, when the last Labour Government left office, the share of GDP taken in taxes—the overall tax level in the economy—was 34·75 per cent.
  Income taxes are to be raised, albeit surreptitiously, by £5·2 billion, through the freezing of allowances, changes to the married couple's allowance and changes in national insurance contributions, all of which are the opposite of the pledges that were given during 1992 and will add the equivalent of 3p to basic income tax rates.
  The Conservative Government do not raise income tax rates directly—they do not have the guts or the courage to do that. They raise them surreptitiously and try to claim that tax rises are not going on. But the facts are there. When people look at the deductions from their pay packets from next April, and as the tax increases begin to bite in the following years, they will understand, more than the Government believe, precisely what is involved in the Budget package.
  It has been estimated that we have also taken back with the massive rises in taxes almost all the tax giveaways that were such a feature of Conservative Governments in the 1980s. But they have not been taken back from the people who received them in the first place. As I pointed out, almost a third of the money given away in tax increases in the 1980s—some £9 billion—went to the top 1 per cent., while only £4·5 billion went to the bottom 50 per cent.
  That is why in the past 14 years of Conservative government there has been a reversal in income distribution, so that the difference between rich and poor, and the number of people who are now poor, is back to the level it was when General Booth first invented policy statistics and began to measure them in 1886. That is a deplorable record of which the Government should be ashamed.
  As well as massive tax rises, we are seeing swingeing cuts in the welfare state. That is another way in which the Chancellor is trying to balance the books, which are so unbalanced by the Government's economic mismanagement. We have heard much in the debate about changes in the benefit system and the way that it will affect some of the worst-off people. That very much reflects the values of the Conservative Government: do not take back the massive tax giveaways that were given to those who are already rich, but instead tax those on invalidity benefit, and introduce VAT on fuel so that some of the poorest people in society can be taxed to pay for the economic mismanagement; but whatever one does, do not tax those who can afford to pay it.
  1234
  We have heard announced in the Budget a vicious three-year squeeze on the public sector, which involves public sector pay and provision. I seriously doubt whether those spending targets can be kept. If they are kept, as a result of decisions taken in the Budget we shall have a public sector that is increasingly dilapidated and unable to replace essential goods, services and infrastructures.
  We must also remember that the public sector has been grossly neglected over the past 14 years. It is already in a weakened state. The fairness of introducing a public sector pay freeze and expecting it to last for three years, on top of the annual freeze on the 1·5 per cent. increase for those who work in the public sector, beggars belief. It will be extremely difficult for the Government to make their pay policy stick.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady argues that the Budget is deflationary. Therefore, I can only assume that she wishes to increase public expenditure. If that is the case, which of the many taxes aired by the Labour party would she increase?
  Ms Eagle: I shall come to the deficit shortly and explain what I believe should be the principles for dealing with it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait until I get to that part of my speech.
  None of the massive increases in taxes and vicious cuts in public spending was mentioned in the Conservative party manifesto. The manifesto claimed that the Conservative party was the party of low taxation; a claim that has been exposed for the cynical farce that it is. The Conservative party boasted about increasing public expenditure, yet as soon as the Conservatives have their greedy hands on the reins of power, they do the opposite.
  The Prime Minister's promises—they have been much quoted in the House, so I will not repeat them—have been exposed for the cynical sham that they are. Soothing pre-election noises about the welfare state have been replaced with fundamentalist new brutalism, which was rampant at the Tory party conference. It is fairly clear from looking at the position of the Conservative party at the moment that the right of the party is on the rampage, and it is led by those in the Cabinet whom the Prime Minister one accused of being of doubtful parentage. They are beginning to get their way. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and they are in the driving seat. The Prime Minister is either with them and agrees with them, or he is too weak to stop them. In the next few months, we shall be able to judge which of those conjectures is true.
  There is nothing new about the Conservatives' ability to play fast and loose with their election pledges. At the last general election, there was a famous and effective Conservative party smear about Labour's so-called tax plans. Hon. Members will remember all those posters saying things like "Labour's tax bombshell" on all those free poster sites given by the tobacco advertisers so that the Tories could put their propaganda around the country. The Conservatives claimed that, under Labour, a car worker earning £12,000 a year would be £359 a year worse off and an electrician earning £30,500 would be £563 worse off. As a result of the Budget, by 1996, a car worker will be £520 worse off and an electrician £570 worse off. I hope that the electorate will bear those illustrative figures in mind when they next consider which way to vote at a general election. The electorate will never trust the Conservative party again.

  1235
  The willingness to deceive the electorate is nothing new for the Tories. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues are just following a discredited tradition that has existed for a long time in the Tory party. Recently, I was shuffling through a book shop when I came across a book entitled "My Style of Government: The Thatcher Years" by Nicholas Ridley. It was the late Lord Ridley's memoirs, which I got for £2·99 off a discount rack, presumably because the market was working. I want to quote a couple of his pearls of wisdom. First, writing about the run-up to the 1979 election, he said:
  "They"—
  the British electorate—
  "were not invited to switch to a Government with clearly spelt out superior alternative policies. Margaret Thatcher was careful not to articulate them too clearly in public for two very good reasons. First, she was not at all assured of her colleagues' support for what she wanted to do. Second, it is never wise for an opposition leader to expose his or her detailed policies to the possibility of ruthless dismemberment by the Government."
  Later, he said:
  "Thus, the full nature of Thatcherism was not known to the electorate in 1979. Nor was it fully understood within the Parliamentary Party."
  The Prime Minister has carried on that tradition and taken it further. Rather than hiding what he aims to do, he has said that he will do the opposite. That is progress in the Conservative party.
  There is general agreement that the £50 billion deficit in the PSBR must be tackled, but there is no Government analysis of where the deficit came from. It is almost as if it just descended from above and landed on the Government and they now have to think of a way to deal with it. In reality, it is here because of the failure of their farcically named economic miracle. It is descended directly from the failures of their 14 years in power.
  There is also £100 billion worth of North sea oil revenue to be taken into consideration. They have given it away in tax cuts for their rich friends, leaving British industry unmodernised and in a weakened state. The OECD recently said that two thirds of the public sector borrowing requirement is cyclical—it is unemployment related. The figures show that £27 billion of the deficit goes on paying to keep people on the unemployment registers, where they are unproductive.
  Typically for the Conservative Government, they have decided that if close to half their deficit is a result of unemployment, they should cut benefits. They attack the victims and the symptoms but never the causes. Given the structure of the deficit, a job strategy should have been at the heart of the Budget. Noticeably absent from this Budget, as it was from the March Budget, is any such strategy. Most of us would welcome the sprinkling of supply-side policies, but they are irrelevant given the size of the problem.
  We have to cut the £27 billion cost of keeping people on the dole, not by cutting unemployment benefits but by creating jobs and getting people back to work. The fatal flaw in the job seeker's allowance—it is a revealing name for the benefit, which causes cynical, hollow laughs among unemployed people—is that it blames the victims of unemployment for their situation. It does nothing about demand in the economy and it almost blames people for being on the dole.
  On average, 22 people chase every vacancy. When the Secretary of State for Employment went into the job market after leaving university, there was a job for every person looking for one. The situation has since deteriorated
  1236
  markedly. Nobody would disagree with supply-side measures that make it easier for people to look for jobs, but behind the unwritten strategy is the assumption that jobs are there for them to take. Twenty-two people chasing every vacancy shows that the jobs are not there. Therefore, we must do something to stimulate demand.
  The Budget is predicated on several dubious assumptions. The first is that the rather modest growth rates that the Budget predicts will be unaffected by its deflationary aspects. After the Howe Budget, which was less deflationary than this, growth plummeted. This time, there is no credit boom to fuel economic recovery, as there is a mountain of debt caused by the deregulation of the financial institutions that the Government introduced in the
  early 1980s.
  Secondly, the Budget assumes that world trade will recover rapidly and grow, and possibly also that there will be a deal on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Both those assumptions are dubious and not a predictable enough basis for an entire Budget strategy.
  Thirdly, the Budget assumes that the public sector squeeze will stick, but there will be real troubles with that, and rightly so.
  The Budget punishes victims and makes the wrong choices. It has the wrong economic and political philosophies behind it. We shall condemn it and vote against it for those reasons.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I listened with care to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). She thought that the public sector deficit was far too high, but she did not want to put up taxes or cut public expenditure. She glided gently over public borrowing. Whatever his critics would say about the late Lord Ridley, they would never accuse him of intellectual incoherence, and the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends might do well to learn the lesson of intellectual coherence from the life and politics of Lord Ridley, rather than taking up one or two of his tactical hints, which they seem to have done successfully over the past few weeks.
  I wanted to begin my speech on a non-partisan note. One of the fruitful disciplines of having a unified Budget is that it provides an institutional discipline for Whitehall Departments to think carefully about priorities within the context of the Government's overall programme and to consider how the policies of each Department relate one to another. The example that I had in mind was transport.
  I was pleased that at the margins of the announcements of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was the decision to ring-fence money so that the crossrail project could proceed on its next stage. As my right hon. Friends know, I hope that that means that the Government are backing the project whole-heartedly and I look forward to the next stage and its eventual completion.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced measures that will affect transport policy. I welcome the decision to make it easier for the private sector to become involved in the planning and financing of infrastructure projects. That may have the beneficial side effect of making it more transparent to judge the cost and benefit of road schemes compared with rail schemes, which traditionally have been calculated using different analyses.

  1237
  I also welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's decisions on petrol duty and an experimental road-pricing scheme. Those decisions raise difficult questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) said that A roads or minor local roads might be swamped with traffic if a motorway toll charge were so high as to force traffic off that motorway. The road-pricing and petrol duty measures will reduce congestion and pollution, but they would have the inevitable effect of biting hardest on poorer drivers, the ones most likely to be forced off the road.
  The Budget provides us with a very welcome opportunity to develop a transport policy that is in line with the Government's environmental objectives. I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend, in announcing his measures for the financing of transport and taxes on transport, referred to the United Kingdom's international obligations to reduce emissions. I hope that the debate that has been initiated by the Budget statement will be fruitfully taken further, both in the House and in the country at large.
  I am aware from the controversy over the proposed A418 in my constituency of the difficulty that policy makers inevitably face in reconciling the competing demands of economic growth, the need for good communications, including good road communications, and the need to maintain a civilised environment in towns and cities and in the countryside, the beauties of which people can continue to enjoy.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Given that we accept a degree of hypothecation in the road tolling proposals, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the money raised by road tolls was not ploughed straight back into the motorway system but applied to transport infrastructure projects generally—with, of course, the assistance of the private sector?
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend has made a characteristically constructive proposal which I hope our right hon. Friends will take seriously.
  I was interested in the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) raised the question of hypothecation, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor also referred to it in his announcement. Another unintended consequence of a unified Budget, from the Treasury's point of view, is that Ministers collectively will be bound in future to consider the Government's priorities, not only on spending but on what is the best means of raising the revenue with which to finance those expenditure priorities. I know that to speak in such a way is to challenge one of the most hallowed doctrines of Treasury theology, but I confess to being a fully paid-up member of the heretics and blasphemers tendency when it comes to that belief. I have already referred to the tension that inevitably exists between the priority to be given to economic growth and environmental needs.
  Hon. Members have rightly spoken about the problem of unemployment. I welcome the Chancellor's Budget and agree with the plaudits given to my right hon. and learned Friend by Conservative Members by the business community and by observers in the media. When people look back on the Budget of autumn 1993, they will judge
  1238
  its effectiveness in terms of how far it was seen to promote the chances of more British men and women moving into productive employment in the medium term.
  In my constituency, unemployment is still way below the national average—for which my constituents and I are grateful—but it is still high by Aylesbury's historic experience. Although I welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen in recent months, it is still too high and needs to be further reduced.
  I welcome the initiatives in the Budget to foster and develop businesses, particularly small businesses. If every small family business could be enabled to take on one additional employee, that would make an enormous dent in the national unemployment level. My right hon. and learned Friend's announcement about late payments and statutory audit requirements will be warmly greeted by business men and women in my constituency.
  The tax changes to encourage investment and reinvestment in family enterprises are also welcome, particularly the tax concessions for investment in the proposed business link schemes announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  One lesson which we have learnt as a country during the past few years is that it is all well and good to encourage businesses to start up—it is healthy that we should do so—but a number of people go into business without equipping and training themselves for the difficulties and challenges that that will bring. The business link scheme promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry is an important way in which the Government will be able to focus support and advice on small businesses during the crucial early years and months of their development.
  I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will soon give approval to Thames Valley Enterprise's bid to set up business link offices in Aylesbury and in two other towns in the Thames Valley area.
  I welcome the measures that have been announced to improve the quality of the British work force and the priority to be given in the Government's public spending plans to education and training and to the apprenticeship scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. As that scheme develops, he will be able to draw on the good practices of the many Government, voluntary and business initiatives up and down the country, including the scheme run by the Aylesbury industrial training group, which is an active client of Thames Valley Enterprise.
  Despite the predictable criticism from the Opposition, there is everything to applaud about the principle of the job seeker's agreement. It is surely common sense that when an unemployed person presents himself or herself at a jobcentre, he or she should not only sign on and obtain a list of potential job vacancies or employers to approach but discuss a plan, tailored to individual experience and expectations, which he or she will be able to follow in his or her search for work.
  There are measures that can be taken to improve the effectiveness of the job seeker's agreement and to ensure that, when it is introduced, it will be positively welcomed by unemployed people. It is important to ensure that Employment Service staff are adequately trained in developing such agreements with their clients. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, like every other Minister, has a finite kitty from which to draw, but I urge

  1239
  him to look again at the time that we allow to elapse before such measures as job clubs are available to those who are unemployed.
  Constituents of mine who have been unemployed for a long period tell me that they were at their most enthusiastic, determined and creative about finding new work in the weeks and months immediately after they were made redundant. By the time unemployed people qualify for extra help of the kind that we have understandably targeted on the long-term unemployed, much of that initial drive, commitment and self-confidence has dissipated. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether there are ways of giving people some of that assistance at an earlier stage in their unemployment.
  Finally, I want to refer to the international scene. Despite what Opposition Members have said, the fact that the United Kingdom expects 2 per cent. growth at a time when our main continental markets are stuck deep in recession is something of which the Government and, more particularly, British industry, should be very proud. We should be looking not merely for a cyclical upturn in our main European markets but to long-term competitiveness in British industry and in industry throughout the European Community. We are talking about competing not just with Germany, America and France but with the fast-developing economies of the far east and, behind them, south Asia and Latin America.
  Too often, the rise of the far east tiger economies is seen simply as a challenge to our way of life. That challenge certainly exists and increases the need for a flexible labour market and for an economy in Britain and Europe that fosters innovation and efficiency. The rise of Asian prosperity also presents a tremendous opportunity because it means that hundreds of millions of people in the world are now beginning to have the opportunity, for the first time ever, to buy consumer goods and services that people in western Europe have generally taken for granted for many years. It would be an act of madness for the European Community to connive at policies of protection that would cut us off from those millions of customers precisely at a time when we should be able to sell them the goods and services that we produce.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in a celebrated recent article to some of the current preoccupations of the European Community as having all the quaintness and degree of efficacy of a tribal rain dance. The image that comes to my mind when I look at some of the goings-on in Brussels is one drawn from Galsworthy. It is of a group of elderly Forsyte aunts with a rather complacent view of past success and present wealth punctuated by the occasional querulous and disapproving comment about all those uncouth, self-made men in the new neighbourhood down the road who are rather getting ideas above their station. That is too often the reaction of EC civil servants and political leaders in some of our partners countries to the challenge and opportunity in the far east.
  The Budget will be of great benefit to Britain's recovery from recession. Clearly, too, the continued prosperity of the British people does not rest alone on the Budget and the measures that will follow it. It rests perhaps above all else on the success of my right hon. Friends in fighting a battle of economic ideas both in the United Kingdom, against the forces of reaction on the Opposition Benches, and on a European scale—a battle for deregulation, for free markets and for free trade. I wish them well and I wish them every
  1240
  success in that task, for the prosperity of our nation and of the entire European continent depends crucially on their success.
  8.34 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: It is with some pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—not because of the logical cohesion of his speech, but because of his disingenuousness in asking the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that job seekers will welcome an agreement chat will be imposed upon them, knowing that, if they refuse to sign it, they will not have their benefit reduced by six months but will receive no benefit at all.
  As a Member who represents a London constituency, I awaited this year's Budget with some anticipation, not least—despite initial difficulties in obtaining a copy—because of the consultation document produced by the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier this month, entitled "London, Making the Best Better". I had read with interest how the Government would deal with crime in our capital, raise standards in education, improve housing and the transport system and, in the words of the Secretary of State,
  "ensure a fair and open society for people of all backgrounds."
  It was therefore with some regret that I noted the difference between that document and the words uttered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  In my constituency—unlike that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury—unemployment is at heights that have never before been recorded. In some parts of London, unemployment is above not only the national but the European average, with 22, 26 and, in some parts of London, as many as 37 job seekers pursuing the same job.
  Earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State for Employment stated that the whole purpose behind the job seeker's agreement was to ensure that the job seeker pursued a job with all possible effort. As we are now a full member of the European Community, that presumably means that British job seekers will be expected to seek jobs on the continent of Europe. I wish that I had had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State whether the financial provision that would make that possible will be furnished even though unemployment benefit is to be reduced.
  Getting to the continent—indeed, getting around our capital city and these islands—is becoming increasingly difficult if one depends on public transport. The Chancellor pledged that British Rail and London Transport investment would be maintained at levels substantially higher than in the 1980s.
  I am sure that no hon. Member will need to be reminded of which Government were responsible for the scandalously low levels of investment to which the Chancellor referred; nor that investment in our rail network is lower than it was in the 1970s, the 1960s or the 1950s; nor of the response of London Underground to the Chancellor's announcement about their forthcoming levels of investment. London Underground stated:
  "There is not a limitless seam of self improvements to be mined and only so much can be achieved with an aged system, where many assets are way beyond their design life."
  Compare that with the words of the Secretary of State's glossy brochure:
  "London is developing to meet the challenges of the next century. Next year, Parisians will be able to get to London in around three hours using the Channel Tunnel."

  1241
  What fantasy world is it that the Secretary of State is thinking of in which chic Parisians are whisked to and around a modern vibrant London on a modern state-of-the-art transport system?
  Suppose that Parisians wished to visit London—and, following the kind and welcoming words that the Secretary of State for Social Security uttered at his party conference, what foreign national would not wish to visit this sceptred isle—what sight would greet them? Air that one can chew on, doorways that double as bedrooms and a transport system parts of which were designed not for the 21st century but in the 19th century.
  Were Ministers out of the country last Thursday and Friday? Did not they witness or were not they told of the chaos which was caused when a fault in a 70-year-old cable—a cable laid before most of the Government were even born—shorted out and plunged half the underground system of our capital city into chaos and darkness?
  Following that incident, I contacted officials of the Northern line, which serves my constituency. The officials informed me that that line has cables of a similar age and condition across their network. The officials added that, earlier in the previous month, a train had derailed near Balham, when more than 1,000 yd of track disintegrated. They added that, due to a lack of resources, the modernisation of a line that first opened in the 1890s would have to be shelved.
  Today, the British Tourist Authority stated in the Evening Standard that investment in the Northern line—because of its link with the new Waterloo terminus—was vital for tourism in the capital. What has been the response of the Government to those derailments, power failures and continously shelved projects? The response has been to underfund London's transport budget in 1994-95 by £400 million.
  How on earth can that be regarded as making the best better? Sixty per cent. of the signalling on Network SouthEast must be replaced within the next 10 years, and 2,000 miles of track must be renewed to avoid increased journey times. Over one quarter of the network's 6,000 coaches need to be replaced by 2002.
  What was the Chancellor's response to those requirements? He cut investment in the rail industry by £247 million. Yesterday, the Chancellor was referred to in a number of media broadcasts as "the magician". That is clearly because he has completed the feat of sawing in half Britain's railway investment. Unfortunately, this feat is no illusion, and the pieces do not come back together again.
  We heard a great deal yesterday about the burden that the nation is shouldering as a result of the public sector borrowing requirement. The Chancellor said that his overriding task was to place public finances on a sound footing. We heard nothing about the costs to the economy and to the Exchequer of allowing our transport system to decline to rack and ruin.
  Perhaps, when the Minister winds up, he will outline how much revenue the City of London loses every year as a result of traffic congestion. Perhaps he would like to outline how much it would cost London Underground if all those who were trapped during last week's failure claimed compensation under the citizens charter.
  Perhaps the Minister could estimate the attractiveness of the Central line to a foreign investor who is weighing up
  1242
  whether to sight his business in this country or in another European capital. Perhaps he could explain the environmental benefits of a road-building programme which will cost the taxpayer more than total expenditure on the railway industry, London Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority.
  On Tuesday, the Chancellor claimed that any critic of the Government's car tax who claimed also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions would be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy. I would respectfully suggest that any Chancellor who claims to support both public transport and the environment, and who then embarks on a £2 billion road programme, has sailed so far beyond hypocrisy as to be now watching it vanish below the horizon.
  The brochure "Making the best better" is littered with the phrase, "What is going on?" Probably that is the only phrase that is applicable both to that document and to the Budget. What indeed is going on in relation to the Government's transport strategy and their policy, such as it is, towards unemployment? I think that hon. Members and the people of this country have a right to be told.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will attempt to be brief. It is good to follow the erudite speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), but I suspect that in my remarks we shall part company.
  Any prudent Chancellor should set himself realistic objectives, and then expect to be judged by them. The present Chancellor set three key objectives—sustainable recovery, a climate for jobs and for growth, and low inflation. He said that the Budget would achive those, and would ensure sound public finances to secure a lasting recovery and rising living standards.
  The Chancellor is to be congratulated on delivering a Budget that is capable of delivering all of those objectives. The previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), left two important legacies. The first was the unified Budget, which combined spending and tax raising, and the second was the separation of revenue and capital expenditure. The first of those is important, because it has ensured that economic management is now more efficient.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is to be greatly congratulated on holding public expenditure at the level he has simply by tightening the use of the contingency reserve, which is normally available as a surplus to Departments at the end of each year. The second is important because for far too long this country has spent too much of its wealth on consumption and not enough on capital projects.
  In that connection, I warmly welcome the maintenance of the capital programme at £22 billion over the next three years. Unlike the Labour party, our Chancellor decides what is prudent to spend and then decides how to raise the funds. Labour does exactly the opposite. It thinks what it might like to spend, and then decides which taxes to raise to pay for that.
  I warmly welcome the fact that the PSBR will shrink as a proportion of GDP from 7·5 per cent. this year to almost zero by the end of the century. That will be a remarkable

  1243
  turnaround in the economy, which, when it is achieved, will take us to a situation similar to that which pertained in 1989–90. That can only be achieved by the fiscal responsibility shown by the Chancellor in the Budget and by holding public expenditure at a tight level.
  To the dismay of the Labour party, and contrary to all the speculation before the Budget, we have not increased or widened the scope of VAT, with the small exception of putting VAT on insurance premiums. At the same time, there is a generous package of measures to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves—the sick, disabled and unemployed. I did not notice the Opposition giving one cheer of welcome for any of the measures. I have not noticed one shred of welcome for the fact that the Government have managed to fully uprate all benefits for inflation.
  I was particularly pleased that the Chancellor announced a package of granny bonds, for which I have called for some time. I have constituents who have worked hard in fairly lowly jobs all their lives and who have saved a small amount which puts them above every benefit. They will take up these bonds with alacrity.
  My constituents will also welcome the environmental fiscal measures which the Chancellor introduced in the Budget. The doubling of the home energy efficiency scheme is particularly welcome. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is present. He and I, along with other hon. Members, have taken part in an energy efficiency inquiry by the Environment Select Committee. Our report said that, if we do not improve our housing stock, and particularly the energy efficiency of the stock, it will be like pouring carbon through a sieve. We must continue to ensure that our housing stock is more energy-efficient.
  The human element in this is more important. The fuel bills of people on low incomes will be cut, so they will have much more of their income from benefits, or wherever else they get their income, to spend on other things.
  I wished to concentrate my remarks on the measures for small and medium businesses. There are 1 million more small businesses today than in 1979. They have been the main contributor to the 1·3 million extra jobs to which the Secretary of State for Employment referred. Those businesses will continue to be the engine for growth in the economy.
  I warmly welcome the package of measures for small businesses. I particularly welcome the fiscal measures—the raising of the VAT thresholds, the exemption of small firms from corporation tax, enterprise investment schemes, venture capital trusts and the new apprenticeship scheme which was announced this afternoon by the Secretary of State.
  Businesses will be helped by the involvement of the private sector in large-scale public infrastructure projects. My constituents will particularly welcome the upgrading of the west coast main line, in which many firms in my constituency will hope to participate.
  Even more than the fiscal measures, I welcome the deregulation measures for small businesses. In that respect, my right hon. and learned Friend announced four major measures. First, he said that he will look carefully at harmonising the tax and national insurance arrangements for employers. I would go further than that, and have a Government agent as a link man between all Departments and businesses.
  1244
  When the VAT man came to inspect my books the other day, I told him of that idea, but he said that I could not expect a VAT man to be an expert on income tax, employment law and everything else. To which I replied that I was expected to be an expert on VAT as well as many other things. The costs to businesses could be cut by such an arrangement.
  Secondly, I warmly welcome the limited audit requirements. As my right hon. and learned Friend has already announced, they mean that, with turnover between £90,000 and £300,000, companies will require an independent accountant's report, and below £90,000 none at all.
  I have just one caveat which I hope my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will bear in mind this evening—that creditors could be at risk. When the measure is introduced, I hope that those businesses will be required to add a caveat on their invoices, letterheads and quotations so that all their creditors and customers know precisely with what type of businesses they are dealing.
  Thirdly, and most importantly, I warmly welcome the proposals on the late payment of debts. That will be difficult to achieve, but if a workable solution can be found, it will enormously improve the cash flow of many small and medium-sized businesses.
  Fourthly and finally on these deregulation measures, I welcome the self-declaration and assessment measures for paying income tax. I particularly ask my right hon. and learned Friend to study other models in the world. I fear that there is a danger of the new system becoming even more complicated than the present system. In particular, I ask him to look at the American model, which is relatively simple and which I believe collects most of the tax due, which is surely the test that the measure will have to pass.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has delivered a Budget to restore public finances and enterprise, which drove this economy during the 1980s to such success, and that against a background of low inflation, low interest rates and low unit wage costs. No wonder the markets have reacted so well during the past few days.
  Under this Government, the economy will go from strength to strength as it is the only growth economy predicted this year and next year in Europe.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I was particularly fortunate in having been given a sneak preview of the Chancellor's Budget speech about a week before it was delivered. I happened to be on a tour of a pools company at the time and we had reached the point where it kept its records of the major cock-ups in the industry.
  I was shown a picture of a spot-the-ball competition which was run in a regional newspaper where, inadvertently, the ball had not been deleted. Fortunately, some eagle-eyed person on the paper had spotted that and alerted the company. Right next to the advertisement was a huge disclaimer telling the readership and the punters that the promoters had made that cock-up, that they were terribly sorry, that they would not be running the competition that week and that they hoped that people would understand.
  In the following week's edition of the paper there was a story pointing out that, despite the disclaimer, 10,000

  1245
  coupons had been returned—all missing the ball. I realised that I was being given a preview of the Chancellor's Budget statement, one week later.
  The Chancellor was presented with a picture on which the ball was firmly planted. Not only that, but in large letters across the ball was written the word "jobs". In case the Chancellor missed that, one could see, hanging on the lips of the crowd behind the word "jobs". But he faced a dilemma because his party had already submitted its coupon and the crosses were all clustered on another part of the picture, so what was he to do? The Chancellor knew that those crosses would be the crosses that were cast in the future leadership election of the Conservative party. But the ball was somewhere else. It did not matter that his party was as disconnected from the game as they are from the real world outside; he had another agenda. So, like the magician that he is reputed to be, he put another ball in. He put it in the middle of the crosses that mattered, the crosses that belong on the Conservative Benches, and ignored the crosses that his Budget statement will impose on the backs of the British people.
  I wondered, if the Chancellor had had the vision or the courage to see where the ball was, what he would have said. What would he have said if he had really been prepared to deliver a Budget statement that addressed the issue of jobs?
  Well, today he would probably have insisted that we began the proceedings not with a debate which outlined how local authorities would face cuts and capping, but he would have been telling those local authorities, "Look, we are in a mess. I want you to go out and build and improve houses. I want you to go out and take the jobless off the dole so that we can take the homeless off the streets. That's what this country needs you to do. That's what I need you to do. We are going to build our way out of the recovery." That is what a Chancellor who was committed to jobs would have said.
  The Chancellor would then have told engineers and designers in manufacturing, "Do us a favour, will you? Build us some buses. I am fed up with these milk floats rattling round our cities, congesting the roads where we used to have decent integrated public transport systems, with buses that we used to build ourselves. We are a Government who are in the business of buying buses and we want a manufacturing industry in Britain that is in the business of building them." The Chancellor would then have gone to the mills and said, "We need some steel. We need rolling stock for the railways. We need rail investment to match that in France, Germany and Japan. That is what the future of a manufacturing base of a Britain fit for the 21st century must be built on."
  The Chancellor would have gone to the pensioners and said, not on a token basis but on a comprehensive basis, "We will come up with a plan to insulate your homes. It must be energy efficiency for all or none at all. We need such energy efficiency work because it is labour intensive. We can take people off the dole and give them skills and jobs as well as saving pensioners' lives. And while we are at it, you can forget about VAT on domestic fuel: it was a cock-up of our own, so let us ignore it if we can—least said, soonest mended."
  The Chancellor would have gone to parents around the country and said, "You were absolutely right to demand a
  1246
  nursery place for every child that wants one, because they found in America that juvenile crime was best deterred in those areas where they invested in pre-school nursery care and education for all children. That is what we know we need to be doing here". The Chancellor would have said, "I can guarantee a Budget that will put books in the classrooms, in schools with roofs that do not leak any more".
  As for the national health service, the Chancellor would have said, "We shall not be conducting this argument between the trusts or local hospitals and the district health authority, where they are left making decisions about shoving patients in critical states of health into the back of ambulances and sending them careering round local roads trying to find a bed that has a nurse to go with it. We shall be providing you with additional funding for the nursing staff that is needed to run our intensive care units properly within a properly staffed and resourced NHS."
  If the Chancellor had wanted to be an environmentalist and an internationalist, he would have gone to the miners and said, "Look, we are really worried in Britain. Only a month ago the Government of the Ukraine reversed a decision to close down the remaining three parts of the Chernobyl reactor. Why? Not because they thought that it had suddenly become safe, but because they knew that they could not survive the winter without energy from those reactors. They know that they face a major environmental catastrophe. We know that they face a major environmental catastrophe." Three or four more Chernobyls would come across national boundaries and show no respect for Governments who have said, "It's nothing to do with us." The Government should be saying to the miners, "For God's sake lads, get down the mines and dig them some coal." We can afford to give them the coal. We need to give it to them because the choices in relation to environmental catastrophe are also our choices. The Government should also say to the miners, "While you're digging that coal, if there's any left over, pass it out among the pensioners until we get round to insulating their houses."
  We did not get any of that in the Budget—instead, it took money out of the economy. Clearly, that will be deflationary and the problems of deflation will be borne by those who have least. It is a Budget under which the majority of people will pay for the recuperation of the rich. The period of unemployment benefit is to be halved, with no jobs at the end of it. The sick are to be taxed because they happen to be sick. Those with home insurance are to be taxed because they happen to have been burgled. Car owners will be taxed because they happen to have had their cars stolen. A Government who purport to be tough on crime will say "Tough" to an electorate who claim that the taxes are manifestly unfair. There is to be no strengthening of the position of the victims of household or car crime. Instead, they are to be punished for being the victims of the very crimes about which the Government wax lyrical when they talk of being tough and cracking down on crime.
  The Chancellor tried to pretend a sense of evenhandedness in the freezing of tax allowances, as though that was somehow neutral and there was no inflation in the economy. Life goes on and, unfortunately, such hidden taxes also go on. The idea of standing still and being neutral is absurd. It is a little like presuming that if we stood still on the deck of the Titanic we would all be fine. Sooner rather than later, someone would say to the person

  1247
  next to them, "It's still going down." That is precisely what is happening in the British economy—it is still going down.
  This part of the Budget amounts to little more than a series of windfall taxes for the Treasury. It would have been better if the Chancellor had said that. He will soon find himself the recipient of the deferred taxes that were provided for last year. They will soon start to roll into his coffers. The stand-still taxes will magically appear and fall in his lap. It is not magical, it is not divine and it is not an act of God; it is the act of a Chancellor who is not being honest about where and how he is raising his taxes. If nothing else, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has come close to resorting to the notion of immaculate taxation as a way of raising money.
  I want to be sure that the House is clear about the proposed public spending cuts. There is no fat left on the bone of local government spending. There will be service cuts, which will mean job cuts which will result in rising unemployment and further calls on the Exchequer to pay for that. Goods will be in the shops but there will be no money in people's pockets to purchase them. Even by Tory standards, this threatens to be the shortest so-called recovery on record.
  In response to criticism, many Conservative Members have asked, "What would Labour do?" It is not for me to offer a Labour manifesto, but I want to offer some ideas that this House and the Labour party should consider. We should not be apologetic about mentioning them. First, we should thank the Chancellor for the unified statement. It helps us to move forward and to deal with the areas on which we propose to spend money while identifying the areas from which to raise that money. It is not just about clearing deficits; it is about what we could do constructively with the wealth that the Government raise and use on behalf of the people.
  However, we must point out that the Government have been forced into that position because after 14 years of their being in power the country is in deep economic trouble. The main conclusion to be reached is that reliance on the free market has been a catastrophe. Inasmuch as it is about putting Britain back to work, it has not worked at all. The Labour party should not collude with the myth; it should not endorse it as a notion worth considering. Instead, it should point in a quite different direction.
  Labour should say quite simply that as a party it is unashamedly committed to progressive taxation. We should ask people to contribute on the basis that the more that they earn, the more they are able to pay. We should ask least from those who are least able to contribute. The progressive tax hand-outs to the wealthiest in society during the 1980s should be first among the targets of an incoming Labour Government. That source of revenue could be better deployed than being given to those at the top end of the income scale who have taken the money and done a runner.
  We should begin with the notion of a 50:50 tax. All those earning more than £50,000 a year should be asked to pay at least a 50 per cent. rate of tax. That would raise about £4 billion a year. We should also think about what to do with empty properties. The Government like to say that they forced local councils to use empty properties, but we never hear any mention of the empty offices that litter our cities. Their owners get away with writing off money that should be going to the public purse. They should pay 100 per cent. of the unified business rate in the first year.
  1248
  In the second, that would be multiplied by itself. In the third year, it would be multiplied to the power of three. There should be a premium on putting the office space in our cities into productive use. Those who are happy to sit on those empty properties and leave them unused while people are scratching around to find premises from which to operate businesses are acting against the public interest.
  Whenever the Government are in difficulty, they do not tackle the problem—they simply move the goalposts. A future Labour Government should study how the public sector borrowing requirement is defined. Rather than using local authorities as regulators of the economy, it is time that Britain embraced a different relationship between central and local government—something that is far better understood on the continent. Local government should have a degree of autonomy. Its borrowing should be based on its capital assets, with the requirement only that it balances its revenue accounts. It should function as a municipal enterprise. We should separate local and central Government borrowing and take those figures out of the PSBR.
  We should also recognise the commitments of our party conference and commit this country to a level of defence spending equivalent to the European average. That would mean a PSBR recycling of £8 billion. Germany, despite its reunification problems, is still the strongest economy within the European Community. Its defence spending is 1·9 per cent. of its gross domestic product. If this country recycled its defence spending in the way that Germany has done, that would release funds equivalent to the entirety of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom. A sum of £13 billion would be freed for productive investment in our manufacturing base. If Germany can do that from a position of strength, why cannot this country do it from the position of weakness?
  I thought that the Chancellor's tax on flights was a novel idea. Bill and Betty on their way to Benidorm will pay an extra fiver, or about 3 per cent. of the cost of their return flight. I thought that the idea had something to commend it. If flights by passengers can be taxed, why not also tax the flight of capital? I asked the Library how much a 3 per cent. tax on that would produce. I was told that it would produce a massive sum, so I scaled down my original figure.
  No less than £40,000 billion of speculative capital moves through the London foreign exchange market each year. If a tax of one eighth of 1 per cent. were levied on that amount, it would bring the Chancellor revenue of £50 billion. Even a Conservative Government would be hard-pressed to lose all that in one year. Why spoil the summer holidays of ordinary people but be terrified of spoiling the speculative holidays of the City of London?
  An incoming Labour Government would need to know that the biggest threat facing planned recovery is the permanently deregulated financial markets—markets which have the power to undermine any serious, sensible investment programme aimed at delivering economic recovery based on full employment. An incoming Labour Government would need to examine the ways in which capital has restructured itself on a European scale over the past 15 years, and to understand why a Conservative Government no longer needs to rely on finance from manufacturing. Their source of revenue and political support is international capital, which does not give two hoots about jobs in this country.

  1249
  The Secretary of State mentioned the concept of jobless growth. At best, that is what faces us now. So long as we rely on the financial markets in the City to determine the pace and direction of economic policy, there will be no jobs in any growth package that emerges from this Chamber.
  When the dust settles on this Budget, the British public will realise that the poor will be poorer, the homeless will still be homeless and this country will still be importing goods and exporting jobs. Far from having a Chancellor who is a magician, a one-in-a-million person and a visionary, we have a Chancellor who merely is one of the 10,000—a Chancellor who could not see the ball when it stared him in the face.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made a number of points that I would have mentioned, had I more time. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was referred to earlier as neanderthal man. He seemed to take pride in that and was right to do so. By comparison with the hon. Gentleman, neanderthal man was advanced. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South, if not neanderthal man, was certainly homo erectus.
  The failure of Oppposition Members to present any constructive ideas is the most distinguishing feature of the debate. We are used to them opposing Government policy, but they owe it to themselves and to their supporters to present a constructive view of their economic policies. We all have the message that they do not like the Budget—that is abundantly plain—but neither we nor the country know what are the Opposition's economic policies and how they would tackle the nation's deficit.
  We heard many complaints from Opposition Members about the deficit, but have they ever asked themselves how it was created? It is the result of Government spending in areas that matter deeply to millions of people, including substantially increased health spending and increased expenditure in real terms on education in recent years. The Opposition must come clean: would they rather that money had not been spent? If they wanted that money spent, how can they oppose the Budget? That poses the Opposition with a real problem, and that is why we have not been given their answer.
  I hope that in a moment we shall hear some constructive points from the Opposition, but the truth is that in their reaction to the Budget they have.shown that they are bankrupt of any ideas for dealing with the deficit.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has approached the problem in a balanced and sensible way. If there is a deficit, it is because the Government are spending too much money and therefore it is right that the burden of the Budget should fall on that Government spending. That is appropriate. It is also necessary to raise takes in order to create a balance and to sustain increased spending on important things such as health, education, and so on. I am sure that Opposition Members would agree with that. So why are we suddenly seeing the most massive volte face of modern political times with Opposition Members failing to approve the Chancellor's tax plans?
  I shall continue to live in hope that some Labour or Liberal Democrat Member will propose a positive plan for
  1250
  dealing with the economic situation in this country. They owe it to us, their supporters and to the country at large to do that. Conservative Members are the only politicians who have answers to the problems that Britain faces today, and the country understands that fact more and more as time goes by.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present. The Budget, as with every Tory Budget, was greeted with glee by Tory Back Benchers. It always reminds me of Walpole's statement that today they may be ringing the bells, but tomorrow they will be wringing their hands.
  This Budget, as with every preceding Tory Budget, unravels day by day and week by week. It is becoming increasingly clear that this Budget will force people to pay more and receive less in return. It certainly breaks yet more Tory election promises. Nowhere is that more true than in London. From April this year, London's 1 million pensioners will have to pay VAT on fuel and the Chancellor's compensation will not make up for that—50p is not enough. The cuts in funds for housing associations will mean that fewer houses are built in London so that more families will be left homeless or, almost as bad, left living with their in-laws. The cuts in Government funding for local councils announced today will mean that services will be reduced and council tax bills will rise. Many of London's 500,000 people who are out of work will face having their unemployment benefit stopped after six months having paid in for years on the understanding that they would be covered for a year. That is a case of the Government doing a Maxwell.
  Children in London's schools face losing teachers, books, equipment and school dinners as a result of the Government's reduced funding for London's desperate schools. The rents of tenants of councils and housing associations will be forced up. Londoners will pay more insurance tax than people in other parts of the country because the premiums for household insurance are so much higher in London.
  Those are all examples of people having to pay more and receiving less. It would appear that short changing the public is becoming official Tory policy.
  London Underground is becoming a sick joke. Every day passengers experience delays and disruption. Every day they climb emergency stairs because lifts and escalators are not working. Every day somewhere on the underground system the signalling goes on the blink and millions of gallons of water seep into the tunnels. Deep down, tube travellers fear that one day that water will gush in rather than seep in. Last week a cable failed and closed down a substantial part of the system. Parts of the cable were said to be 70 years old. The younger parts, if that is they way to describe a cable, had been there for at least half a century. The average London Transport train is 24 years old. A quarter of the signalling equipment was installed 40 years ago; and, if people want to put that into perspective, 40 years ago England had never lost to a foreign team at Wembley.
  The whole system is falling apart. Many passengers get a poor service. Staff are sick to death of taking the blame for all the inadequacies. With maintenance problems rising, fewer staff are being employed on vital maintenance work.

  1251
  Things are going from bad to worse, but what do we get in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement? The Sir Humphreys worked on it carefully. It was worded thus:
  "London Transport's investment programmes will be maintained at levels substantially higher than in the 1980s."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233 c. 25.]
  My only response to that is, "I should hope so," but that is a cut in what was most recently promised. It is also a cut in what was promised in the Conservative party election manifesto, which said that £3,500 million would be invested in the Underground over the next three years. The Chancellor has broken that promise.
  The most recent promise was to make £964 million available for investment in the tube system. The new figure is down to £900 million, but the real position is worse than that. Most of the money we have heard about will go on new projects. The money that is left to be invested in the existing system—the one that passengers have to use, which is falling apart—has been cut from about £525 million to £325 million. That represents a cut of £200 million, or 38 per cent.
  I emphasise that that is a cut in spending on the shambolic system that is in existence. Every pound that is removed from that total results in more misery on the misery line, more breakdowns, more delays and more people stuck in tunnels and labouring up emergency stairs. That is what tube travellers face, even if it is not experienced by Ministers going round in their chauffeur-driven cars.
  It may have been the fear that their chauffeur-driven cars might be delayed that caused even this Government to defer their proposal to deregulate London's buses. Bitter experience in other cities apparently revealed to them that bus deregulation could result in gridlock from Hackney to Hounslow, and would be unpopular with voters. Instead of fully abandoning that crackpot scheme, however, the Government say that they have just postponed it. Instead, they are to force London Transport to sell off its bus operations.
  Until now, London Buses has had to compete with private would-be franchisers for franchises on various routes, but apparently it has been too successful. In open competiton, it has been winning too many franchises for the routes. That public sector competitor is to be closed and forced to sell its assets. When that happens, assets are always sold off at knock-down prices. I remind the Chancellor that takings for the Treasury from privatisation have been roughly half the book value of the assets of each nationalised industry.
  It is worth reminding the Government, who say that they are promoting tourism, that today the British Tourist Authority has expressed concern about the possible disappearance of the red bus from London. It says that
  "it is a symbol of London, which is recognised all over the world and an immensely valuable promotional tool."
  Presumably, in future, brochures sent out by the authority to get people from around the world to come to London will contain photographs of buses of many colours instead of the red bus. Have the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport considered the impact on tourism and tourism promotion of getting rid of the red London bus?
  One thing does not come at a knock-down price—the cost of travelling, not only in London but throughout the country. From January, passengers on London Underground, London Buses and Network SouthEast face
  1252
  average fare increases of 6 per cent.—three times the rate of inflation. That is another example of people having to pay more in but getting less back. The same increases will apply to many other railway passengers.
  Will those other passengers get a better service? It seems unlikely. On some lines there has been a deliberate deterioration in the service following the introduction of the passengers charter. The journey times in some timetables have been lengthened so that a train that takes one hour 20 minutes for a journey is arriving on time; under the previous timetable, if it took one hour 20 minutes on that route, it would have meant that it was arriving 10 minutes late. It now meets the charter's requirement, so apparently everything is well.
  Somewhere in the Budget figures, the Government will have hidden away the cost to the taxpayer of rail privatisation. They have managed to hide it until now. but it will come out eventually, and it will be money from the taxpayer and passenger, not a penny of which will be spent on improving services. Instead, it will be diverted into the pockets of merchant bankers and motley crews of City consultants.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, this is yet another Budget for the City. People in the City have been the principal beneficiaries of the Government's privatisation programme, and they have also done rather well out of our usually abortive efforts to involve private sector finance in railway projects.
  All those projects have several things in common. They are announced with a fanfare of trumpets, and then they are re-announced time and again, by press conference, press briefings or official leaks. That is intended to achieve the impression that something is happening, and that Tory Ministers are skilled in negotiations. It would be hard to get further from the truth.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport were at it again yesterday and the: day before, about the west coast main line. When the Tories came to power, that line, which links London to the major industrial and commercial centres in the west midlands, the north-west and the west of Scotland, was the most modern electrified railway in Britain. Today it is a national disgrace. It needs to be upgraded, but nothing has been
  done.
  In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
  "the Government are today giving the go ahead to three substantial new transport projects…the refurbishment of the west coast main line…linking some of the biggest cities in the country—London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 930.]
  He carefully did not mention that not a penny piece of public money is going into the scheme, or that the improvements might well be confined to the line south of Crewe, or that nothing has been decided, no commitments have been entered into and no contracts have been let.
  The Secretary of State for Transport announced yesterday that Railtrack would be "inviting expressions of interest" and that, in late 1994, a competition would be held to select a private sector outfit to modernise the west coast main line, but from Euston to Crewe only. Even if it all goes ahead, therefore, it will be another two years before the work starts on the ground. It will probably be the 21st century before any passengers see any improvements, and the Transport Minister warned yesterday that it will lead to higher fares.

  1253
  All that was announced, with the usual fanfare of trumpets, as good news for the passengers, the railway supply industry and the taxpayer. There was the usual talk of its having top priority, competition's doing the work and a great commitment to driving it forward. Everyone who uses the line hopes that the project will succeed, but all this circus has happened before, and people will believe it when they see it.
  It really has happened before. Five years ago, in late 1988, the Government and British Rail announced what they called
  "first steps towards private sector investment in the Channel Tunnel rail link".
  They were "inviting expressions of interest" and they proposed to hold a competition, so that someone from the private sector would build the line.
  A year later, the then Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, said that a preferred partner had been chosen—Eurorail, made up of Trafalgar House and BICC. It still needed the Government's final agreement, but Mr. Parkinson said that he was
  "encouraged by the clear indications that the link could be financed commercially and brought into operation by 1998."
  As everyone knows, that scheme fell through. Nothing has been done, and the completion of the channel tunnel link will be delayed to the year 2003.
  When, two weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced that he was having another go at getting private investment in the channel tunnel link, we were back to expressions of interest and the idea that the Government might hold a competition.
  Five years ago, when Cecil Parkinson made that prediction, the development of the channel tunnel scheme was at exactly the same stage as that of the west coast main line yesterday. Five years later, not a damn thing has been done. To say the least, the Government's track record is poor. They may make that approach work this time, but they may not.
  The people, the industry and the commerce that depend on the west coast main line deserve better than that. That line is a major economic artery, and its future should not be decided by a private sector lottery. Strategic decisions are matters for Government. The work is needed and it must be done. How it is financed is secondary—just as the finance for the improvements in the east coast main line was secondary.
  Why should people who rely on the west coast line not get the same treatment as those who rely on the east coast line? Clearly a commitment is needed from the Government; the absence of their unswerving commitment adds the sort of uncertainty that private investors are desperate to avoid.
  Then there is the crossrail project for London. That is announced and reannounced with such regularity that it is rumoured that some Transport Ministers now believe that it has been built. But it has not, despite all the Budget promises to the contrary. The project is falling behind, not getting ahead.
  Next there is—hallelujah—the Jubilee line extension, which has been on and off for years. Its construction apparently depended on whether the property speculators at Canary Wharf came up with the £400 million that they had promised. That may have sounded generous of them, but we must bear in mind the fact that their speculative
  1254
  development at Canary Wharf had already received more than £350 million in subsidies from the pocket of the taxpayer.
  In the end, after long negotiations, the Government announced that the developers could manage to come up with a contribution of £300 million. However, that was not as good as it looked, because Ministers had not allowed for inflation. I am a simple soul, and I asked whether inflation had been allowed for.
  I found out that the figure of £300 million that the Government had trumpeted—the Chancellor ought to pay attention to this, because it could affect his calculations—is to be paid over a 20-year period, starting on the day that the Jubilee line extension comes into operation, whenever that may be.
  Its value will not be uprated for inflation, so if inflation averages 4 per cent.—the top of the Government's target range—over that 20-year period, the real value of the private sector contribution will have halved, to £150 million. If inflation averages what it has averaged over the past 20 years—9·7 per cent.—the private sector contribution will be worth about £70 million.
  If that inflation rate of 9·7 per cent. were to prevail for 20 years and, because of stupid negotiations by the Government, the money were to be paid in the final year of the 20-year period, the private sector contribution would be worth precisely £20 million of the £400 million originally promised. With that sort of track record, one would not want the Secretary of State for Transport even to sell one's used car.
  That is not the end of the story. One of the principal merits of the Jubilee line extension, in all the cost benefit analyses—[Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that I am being ridiculous. Apparently he believes that it is right for the taxpayer to have to pay for the project at current values when the money is invested, but does not believe that the private sector should have to match that. In that case, he is not fit to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Jubilee line extension is, of course, the first major investment in the tube since the Victoria line was built some years ago. We shall invest more than £1 billion in the core London Transport underground over the next three years, and another £1 billion-plus in the Jubilee line.
  That is about half as much again as we used to invest in the 1980s, and about seven or eight times as much as used to be spent by that ridiculous body, the Greater London council, which allowed the Underground to decay, and presided over the old wiring, the overmanning and the declining service. Supported by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the GLC preferred to spend its money on buying votes by keeping down bus fares. That was Labour's contribution to transport infrastructure in London.
  Mr. Dobson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his present role ought to know that the Greater London council asked to invest more money, but was prevented from doing so by the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury. Indeed, the Chancellor may have been one of the Ministers who refused to give the GLC the permission.
  One of the principal merits of the extension of the Jubilee line was to be a station at north Greenwich that would have allowed people from south-east London the

  1255
  access to the tube system that they are presently denied. Although the north Greenwich station was listed in the Secretary of State's press release, as one would imagine, and featured on the map published with the press release, there was no commitment to build the station. The line will go through north Greenwich, but the station will not be built because it is dependent on raising some other private sector money and the Government have not quite got round to it yet.
  There was another attempted con about transport in London in the Budget. The Chancellor said:
  "the Government are today giving the go ahead to … the extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham".—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 930.]
  That was partly true, but not the whole truth, because it is not the scheme that was originally announced. It is minus two important stations, which were left out for the most compelling of Tory reasons—they cannot get private sector help to build them. That brings the cost down, but reduces the usefulness of the line.
  Rail schemes are not the only example of the incompetence of the Department of Transport. Its biggest spending programme is the roads programme and thus where its greatest incompetence is to be found.
  The recent National Audit Office report shows that money from the roads programme that was spent on motorway widening has been squandered. Since 1989, the cost of motorway widening schemes has shot up by 46 per cent., and the National Audit Office estimates that it is likely to increase by over 78 per cent. by the time that the schemes are completed. Of the 18 schemes completed so far, 10 were investigated in detail by the National Audit Office and, on average, those 10 had cost double the original estimated cost. That is a disgrace.
  We welcome the belated decision to reduce spending on the road programme, but call for some changes in its priorities. There is an opportunity for Ministers to be both right and popular—a novelty on both counts at the moment—but they are still insisting that roads schemes go ahead all over the country in the face of desperate opposition from local people, and are not going ahead with some schemes that are vital for economic development, the safety of passengers and would be clearly welcomed by local people.
  Those vital schemes include converting the Al north of the Tyne into a dual carriageway and ending the constant deaths that occur there, and to make the final few miles of the road to Dover docks into a dual carriageway. That would be welcomed by virtually everybody concerned, it would be good for the economy of both places and it would be popular. I hope that the Ministers will not use the Budget reduction as an excuse for further delays in those vital road-building schemes.
  The Secretary of State for Transport announced today that he will be researching electronic road pricing for motorways. He has been seeing too many re-runs of "Doctor Who". That proposal has nothing to do with transport: it is just another Tory tax racket. I would not be surprised if they came up with a system that exempted Rolls-Royce drivers from having to pay. After all, the Chancellor's new airport tax exempts executive jets, as I am sure he will confirm.
  If the Chancellor's little friend introduces motorway tolls on the road network, it is worth noting the list of the advantages of coming to Britain that was issued today by the British Tourist Authority. Item four of the 15 strengths
  1256
  is the high-quality, toll-free road network. That proposal will not do a lot of good. Did the Department of Transport or the Treasury consult the tourist industry or anyone before they went ahead with these propositions?
  There is another aspect which the Chancellor did not mention in his Budget statement. He has raised tax on bus transport. Operators will have to pay the insurance tax, which will be passed on to the passengers. It does not stop there. The Chancellor put 3p a litre on road fuel duties and said that the duties would rise by 5 per cent. each year. What he did not mention—I cannot imagine why—was that the fuel duty rebate to local bus operators is not to be uprated, this year or any other year.
  Perhaps he did not consult the Bus and Coach Council on the likely effect of this scam. The council has been in touch with me to say that its members are up in arms. The operators will pay more and more duty. They say that that will hit disabled and elderly passengers, because work to install wheelchair lifts and low floors will become more expensive relative to takings. Services in rural areas will suffer, orders for new vehicles are likely to be put back or cancelled, and fares will rise. It is like putting 2 or 3 per cent. VAT on public transport by the back door. It is entirely typical of the way in which this Government behave.
  There is another transport aspect to the insurance tax. It is believed that about 1 million people do not insure their cars. A tax will be added to premiums that people do not want to pay in the first place. I freely acknowledge that such people are law breakers, but I know that we try to discourage and not to encourage law breaking. There is a danger that the imposition of that tax——
  Mr. David Hunt: This is feeble stuff.
  Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State says that this is feeble stuff. If he thinks that it is feeble to say that we are in danger of increasing rather than decreasing the number of people driving uninsured vehicles around Britain's roads, there is something wrong with his own feeble mind. But he is only a lawyer, so I suppose that he can be excused. That also excuses the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The Budget has done nothing for anybody in its impact on transport. It will increase the fares on trains, boats, aeroplanes and buses; I recognise that that does not rhyme, which is why the words were not used by Burt Bacharach.
  The Budget will increase the cost of moving round the country and, as ever, the bulk of the increase will fall on the people who are worst placed to meet that cost. Well-off people will not suffer from those increases. Badly-off people will suffer from the increases, and many very badly-off people will suffer from the transport aspects of the Budget, just as they have been singled out by the Chancellor to bear the brunt of the Government's incompetence to date.
  One of the most famous Tory Prime Ministers of all time, Benjamin Disraeli, was born in my constituency. He recognised—and convinced the 19th-century Tory party of this—that there was a danger of having a wholly alienated class of people who felt that they had no stake in the country. He said that it was vital that everyone was given a stake in the country.
  The present Tory party is increasingly creating an alienated group, especially an alienated group of young people who feel that they have no stake in the country and

  1257
  that the Government have no commitment to their future. We allow that group to grow at our peril, and at the peril of our democracy.
  9.33 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I reject entirely the vision of despair for this country described by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). His speech, which was a rumbustious conclusion to a debate that started with jobs and ended with tubes, was nevertheless an important contribution. I am the first to acknowledge the importance of railway services and transport services more generally to the people of London.
  Anyone who heard the hon. Gentleman talk would not have thought that we have a planned expenditure on transport of some £17 billion over the next three years; that we had a planned investment programme of £15½ billion; that there was a core London Transport investment of £1¾ billion; plus £1·3 billion on the Jubilee line, plus the docklands extension, plus the Heathrow express. One would not have thought that £3 billion was being spent on the railway, of which £2 billion was public money.
  What seems to besot the hon. Gentleman is the matter of who pays: if it is public money, it is good investment; if it is private investment, it is not on. What matters to rail users is the delivery of the services and the infrastructure. That is happening.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Echequer opened his Budget statement by saying that his priority was to develop and sustain the recovery and generate a climate in which investment, jobs and growth were sustained and increased. That is at the heart of what all Conservative Members have reiterated in their speeches on the Budget. The fact that he put up front the priority of jobs along with growth was a significant signal on a day that started with a speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  We all acknowledge the importance of getting people back to work and the unacceptability of the present high level of unemployment. Little mention was made, other than by my right hon. Friend, of the more positive effect—that there are 1·3 million more people in employment than there were 10 years ago. Nevertheless, it is important that we strive to create more job opportunities for those currently unemployed.
  That is what many of the programmes and changes proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor should bring about. It was therefore appropriate in the debate that the first Conservative contributor was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), who has taken such a long and abiding interest in employment issues. He raised several points during his speech, particularly with regard to the new heating arrangements, the new subsidies and grants that will be available to help people with insulation.
  My hon. Friend asked about windows, and we shall certainly take on board his point. As I understand it, the scheme was not intended to apply to that, but it should, because it may cover the whole cost and leave people with more resources to pay for other insulation methods. The importance of the scheme is that it will benefit half a
  1258
  million households and will be available not just to means-tested pensioners but to pensioners generally. That is a significant allocation of public money.
  My hon. Friend also raised the issue of Maxwell, and as the Minister with responsibility for financial services, I shall take careful note of what he said. We are all extremely concerned with the plight of those who have lost money. That is why the Government allocated moneys on a short-term temporary basis as bridging finance until the restitution of assets can be made available. I appreciate all that my hon. Friend has said today, as I did his comments on fuel duty, the apprenticeship scheme and venture capital trusts.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who has written to me a number of times, raised the interesting question of the Treasury model. He put forward, as on previous occasions, the need for policy optimisation and the need for the formulaic approach of the model to be changed to take account of the policy maximisation theories and approaches that he has expounded.
  We have reviewed many of the behavioural formulae that comprise the Treasury model and we have completed that process. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a regular process for re-examining that. We are open to suggestions. I have asked my officials to look carefully at his representations and I have offered him the opportunity to talk directly to Treasury officials. I hope that he will avail himself of that opportunity. I suspect that he and I may be in the minority of hon. Members who have taken the opportunity to use the Treasury model that was, and I hope still is, open to Members of Parliament. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of providing a service and a way to deliver indicators and statistics that can provide a firm foundation not just for Government economic policy but for Opposition parties, allowing them to attack and question the Government at any time.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not have an exchange rate policy and why there was no monetary policy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor spoke of monetary matters during his statement, but foreign exchange currency rates are not a prime objective of policy. They are undoubtedly an assumption that we have to build into the mechanism, and we do that.
  Dr. Bray: My central point was that if the Chancellor wants an efficient exchange rate and monetary policy—I was not questioning whether he has one—he needs to define it. That point was made by Sam Brittan in the Financial Times today. The Chancellor will find that if he does not deal with that issue now, he will have to do so at a later date, and I was offering him a way forward.
  Mr. Nelson: I am grateful, but, for the reasons which I have given, that is not our approach.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) gave a warm welcome to the Budget. That he is very much in touch with his constituents was shown by the examples and representations that he quoted. I am grateful for his firm support of most of Tuesday's Budget statement. I particularly noted what he said about small businesses and about the package of benefits available, especially to elderly people. Like other hon. Friends, he mentioned the pensioner's guaranteed income bond. That is an important new facility available to those who want a regular monthly income.

  1259
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke about the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital scheme. I regret the fact that he called it a confidence trick——
  Mr. Alex Carlile: No, I did not.
  Mr. Nelson: I immediately withdraw that accusation if that is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Carlile: I was speaking about the pensioner's bond.
  Mr. Nelson: I shall be dealing with the pensioner's bond in more detail in a moment.
  The two vehicles for investment should be important contributors to the liquidity of new businesses and we shall provide front-end tax relief for the enterprise investment scheme, but it will be at 20 per cent. instead of 40 per cent. One of the problems with offering the higher marginal rate for the EIS was that it would have facilitated round-tripping for business angels—those who take an interest in the business of the company and pay themselves a salary out of it. We hope that by instead allowing relief against losses, the lower rate of relief on capital will prove to be extremely attractive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) raised an interesting but much wider issue—the short-termism of our financial institutions, of Government and of investors generally. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has asked me to conduct an inquiry into that issue over the next seven months. The industrial finance initiative is two months under way, and the objective is to look at the financing of industry by all institutions and at the liability side of the balance sheet to see whether there is the short-termism to which my hon. Friend referred and whether supply changes can be made to increase the liquidity of capital to the manufacturing base, to help to start up companies and to ensure the reinvestment of capital.
  I suspect that part of the answer will be that when one has a plateau of much lower levels of inflation and interest rates, there will be much more longer-term investment and one of the key components of the extent of overdraft finance and short-term investment interest has been the seeking of quick returns against rising and high levels of inflation. If we can deliver what the Government are determined to deliver—not just lower interest rates and lower inflation but a sustaining of those low levels—there is a real prospect of behavioural changes in the attitude of investors as well as of many others.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) spoke about massive tax rises. She got very excited and referred to Treasury Ministers as rampant lunatics at the driving wheel of the economy. We in the Treasury are modest men, cautious and conservative, and I did not recognise her description of us. However, when she picked up the autobiography of my late noble Friend Lord Ridley, I realised that she had been reading too many autobiographies, which perhaps accounted for her rather colourful description of us and of others.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary acknowledged yesterday that the Budget announced some tax increases above those that were announced earlier this year.
  Mr. Prescott: Shock, horror.
  Mr. Nelson: It is a matter of fact. There is no revelation in that. It is a serious Budget to address a serious situation. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said to the people of the country, unless we face up to our prime responsibility of addressing the state of the public finances, there is little prospect of sustaining the same level of personal prosperity or public services in the future. It is because of our desire to do both that we are determined to address the state of our public finances now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) spoke about transport policy—about the A418 in his constituency and about many other local and national issues that affect it. I particularly appreciate what he said about publicly financed projects such as the west coast project, the air traffic control project in Scotland and the docklands light railway. Those will be important projects, not recycled ones, and together with many other projects will bring real jobs, massive investment and lasting improvements to infrastructure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury also welcomed the small business package of measures. He made telling points about the issue of free trade and about the importance of Europe's adopting a free trade stance and not becoming protectionist against the free trade occurring in the Pacific basin and elsewhere in the world.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—who cannot be with us this evening—raised some points about London transport. I have already touched on those matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made important suggestions, particularly with regard to small businesses. I am grateful for the welcome that he gave to the package of measures that my right hon. and learned Friend announced. We will look carefully at the detailed points that he made and I will write to him about those matters.
  It was left to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) to do what no one else on the Opposition Benches has done. Despite our pleadings and challenges to come clean, not once has any Labour Member given the true alternative Budget strategy of the Labour party, other than the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him, and I appreciate his honesty and his coming forward with some ideas. Are those ideas the official Labour party policy?
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South said that he was in favour of a 50 per cent. tax rate for those earning more than £50,000 a year, and that that would raise some £4 billion. He was in favour of the top whack of rates and taxes on empty commercial properties, which would raise an indeterminate amount. He said that he was in favour of slashing the defence budget—not down to the European average, which would slash £8 billion off that budget, but down to the German level, which would slash £13 billion off our defence budget. It is at least honest. The hon. Gentleman at least made a suggestion, which is more than can be said for any Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I want to know whether that policy is more widely held.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South said that there should be a tax not only on the flights of people on holiday but on the flight of capital. That sounds as though he is urging the reintroduction of exchange controls. Is that the official stance of the Opposition? If so, we want to know. We want to know what the Opposition estimate the effect of that would be on inward investment and the creation of jobs, for which they so often call.

  1261
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) said that the deficit had built up because the Government had accepted their responsibility to the most vulnerable in our community. Goodness knows, there have been enough calls for that from the Opposition. We have delivered it to those who voted for it and have stood by them in difficult times. We are not ashamed of having fulfilled that commitment, any more than we are of saying, in improving times, that we have to address these problems.
  In response to that, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made an interesting but derisive speech about the Government's motives behind the Budget. He said that the Budget would do nothing for jobs. He described it as a Budget for the City casino. He derided it, holding up announcements about the success with which my right hon. and learned Friend's strategy has been received outside the House. It is good news if my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget enjoys the confidence of international and domestic investors. The fact that the stock market has risen by 150-odd points in the last week and that long-term bond yields have come down is very good news indeed. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that, and I entirely reject his approach to the City and business, which usually comes out of the closet when he is pressed.
  Opposition Members' true colours shine through in the deep prejudice that they bear towards business and enterprise and the financial services institutions. A recent remark by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went to the heart of the matter. This is what he said about business and company directors:
  "Yes, it's the politics of envy. We're envious of their wealth. These people are stinking, lousy, thieving incompetent scum."
  That is the attitude of one of the Opposition spokesman——
  Mr. Dobson: As a man who generally pursues the truth, may I put the record straight? In the newspaper piece, of which that was a snippet, I was referring to people who were very rich, had very large houses and very big cars and went on fancy holidays, but who paid their staff poverty level wages and supported the abolition of wages councils. I still regard those people as thieving scumbags.
  Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman must take up his argument with The Sun rather than with me, but the words are typical and descriptive.
  The theme running through much of the debate has been the importance of business as the generator of jobs and employment. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that, if we are to create greater prosperity through employment and through business, three things are essential: first, we need that elusive ephemeral trait of confidence and stability that has been lacking; secondly, we need low inflation and low interest rates, both of which have now been delivered; and, thirdly, we need as little taxation and as little regulation as possible on the income and employment-generating sector of the economy. The Budget delivers all three.
  What of the Opposition's response to the Budget? What was the response of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on television last night? The hon. Gentleman went, as usual, as the disciple of despair—an ambassador for Armageddon. He stood up bleakly in front
  1262
  of the British people and trotted out figures that brought the country down again. He brought out a colourful bar chart showing selective dates and figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Oh, yes, they were very selective figures to show manufacturing output in Britain over 14 years. What the hon. Gentleman did not tell us was that had he taken figures from a comparable period from 1982 to 1992—from trough to trough—the picture would have been entirely different. Over that period, this country has had much higher manufacturing output than Germany, France or Italy. But the Opposition do not want to know the good news. They want to run British industry and British manufacturing down.
  The business package announced in the Budget was an essential generator of prosperity and hope for the small and medium-sized enterprises at this stage of recovery. Let me reiterate some parts of that package: the increase in the corporation tax thresholds of the smallest companies will benefit some 30,000 companies and the foreign income dividends scheme, depending upon the behavioural habits of income retained in companies, will be worth some £100 million.
  Mr. Prescott: What about jobs?
  Mr. Nelson: I will come to jobs—the profitability and cash flow of British industry are important for jobs. The uniform business rate concession will be worth some £105 million. National insurance contributions will bring a net benefit, even after the additional cost of statutory sick pay changes. The late payment proposals will have a significant impact on the cash flow of industry.
  The importance of the changes is that they will add to the liquidity of, and the investment in, British industry and business. That will create jobs in large and in small companies.
  Mr. Prescott: How many jobs?
  Mr. Nelson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are 2·7 million businesses, two thirds of which are small businesses. Three quarters of the employment in this country is in small to medium-sized enterprises. The combination of a reduction in interest rates and that package of measures will feed directly through to cash flow and give employment opportunities. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman going on about it—it is good news for British business. If he does not think so, British business does.
  The Budget will not only promote enterprise and encourage investment but seek to reduce the red tape on business.
  Mr. Prescott: That is waffle.
  Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman may think that it is waffle. I tell him to ask business men, who welcome the changes which will make a big difference to them. The changes with regard to audit requirements will benefit about 500,000 companies and will significantly reduce costs and provide employment-creating resources.
  The increase in the VAT threshold to £45,000 will benefit 75,000 businesses. In addition—this has not received much comment—there is the change in arrangements for assessing national insurance contributions and income tax, which companies and businesses now have to work out laboriously; those arrangements will

  1263
  be streamlined to make that work easier. I have referred to those costs to industry that prevent jobs. Our measures will release resources that will help employment.
  In the final two or three minutes available, I will return to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who spoke for the Liberal Democrat party. At least his party came up with an alternative Budget in November, but it seems that the Liberal Democrats have got away unscathed from a lot of the criticism which has been rightly heaped on the Labour party.
  The Liberal Democrats seem to face all ways. They will promise the earth to whatever audience they speak to, and they are a soft touch for every lobby. The party will not come clean on the fact that its alternative Budget proposes 1p extra on the standard rate of income tax and 4p extra on the upper rate. The party would impose a payroll tax which would be levied at 2 per cent. There would be increases in national insurance contributions. The Liberal Democrats promise higher taxes—we know where we stand and what impact that would have on businesses. Certainly, we know that that would not help employment.
  We know that, as well as being a higher-taxing party, the Liberal Democrats are also a higher spending party. One issue that party totally forgets is the amount of the deficit. It simply will not face up to the responsibility of tackling the deficit. Perhaps that is not wholly surprising in view of a speech by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in Torquay in September. He said that there was no point in being mesmerised by debt, and that there was a strong case for limiting and targeting additional borrowing. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that, he is financially and economically illiterate. He is also irresponsible with regard to the affairs of the nation.
  Like his party, the right hon. Gentleman does not have a clue about how to run the finances of the country. The party has no prudence and no responsibility when it comes to face up to the high and rising deficit. It is not prepared to announce how to deal with it.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Nelson: I am not giving way. The hon. and learned Gentleman had his innings earlier.
  The Liberal Democrats go up and down the country promulgating every policy which the party thinks will appeal to whichever audience it is speaking to at any one time. It would have us believe that, on the one hand, it will face up to the responsibility of sound husbandry of public finances and, on the other hand, it will not put up taxes. In addition, it has a magic way of increasing Government spending.
  The Liberal Democrats have a fraudulent policy, a confidence trick and a stance which is wholy untenable.
  1264
  The electorate will look at them and examine the paucity of their proposals. The electorate will look at the black hole of the Liberal Democrats' economic policy and will understand that the party does not offer an alternative. Far from it—it offers the prospect of further job losses and a much higher tax burden. The party's preferences for second-guessing on public expenditure do not offer a way forward.
  The Budget addresses the state of public finances. It does not take an easy or opportunist way out by seeking to please all opinions with money which the country cannot afford.
  My right hon. and learned Friend knew when he framed the Budget judgment that, unless we were prepared to face up to tackling that deficit, we would run into the problems of a credit crunch at some stage in the future, when markets simply would not be prepared to finance a rate of borrowing of £1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. He knew that unless we faced up to that, our public sector borrowing requirement would be an increasing proportion of our gross national product.
  The vote of confidence, the money that has flowed into Britain and the jobs that will come from it come from people who recognise that we are on the right track, that we are addressing the issues and that we are living up to the necessity of reducing the amount of loans as a proportion of GNP. That is the responsible way forward. That is the way in which the Conservative party will ensure not only that we have electoral support——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    ESTIMATES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
    That this House agrees with the Report [25th November] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    Question agreed to.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Friday 17th December, this House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
    Ordered,
    That European Community Documents Nos. 7665/93 and 8012/93, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by HM Treasury on 18th October, 5th and 22nd November 1993, relating to the draft general budget for 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 2nd November 1993, relating to a revision of the financial perspective, and European Community Document No. 7194/93, relating to the internal market, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.–[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

  Child Support Agency
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10 pm
  Mr. John Spellar: This debate is about massive injustice being inflicted on families throughout Britain. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are being deluged with complaints about the Child Support Agency. That is clear from business questions and questions to Ministers, and many of the cases are extremely disturbing, with havoc being created in the lives of thousands of ordinary families, more than 200 of whom were here today in the Grand Committee Room. It was unfortunate that the Department could not send along even one representative to address their grievances.
  The national and local press have been active in campaigning on the issue and I pay tribute to the way in which they have highlighted the impact of the agency on families. I shall give examples of some of the worrying cases, but the important thing tonight is to concentrate on the principles involved.
  The first thing to establish is that the agency is designed primarily to help not children, but the Exchequer. Parliamentary answers show that only about 10 per cent. of the money collected will go to the children. The other 90 per cent. will go to the Exchequer. Therefore, CSA does not stand for Child Support Agency but for Chancellor Support Agency.
  We shall probably be told, rightly, by the Minister that with a £50 billion deficit the Government must be more careful than usual with public money. But in that case they must be honest with the public and describe the charge for what it is—a tax. It is a tax that is dramatically falling on certain groups of people in society and in the majority of cases it is, in effect, a divorce tax. Furthermore, the tax is retrospective, tearing up previous agreements and even court orders. It is interesting that, in the past, retrospective legislation has been looked on doubtfully by the House. But in this case we have retrospective legislation with a vengeance.
  The tax will have immediate effect. When the Chancellor, who has just departed, introduced the increase in wine duty he left it until the beginning of next year before it came into effect, and similarly with other Budget measures. When the Government introduced the unified business rate, the ill-fated poll tax or the council tax, they built in transitional arrangements for individuals and local authorities. But there is no such transition for parents under this scheme. The full weight of it falls on them at once, often with dramatic increases in their obligations and often with a considerable debt arising from the delay between initial notification and the final assessment that comes through from the agency.
  Nor does the agency seem to take account of payments made to the spouse during that period, so payment can be made twice over. Stopping payments in that period naturally causes enormous hardship and friction with the ex-spouse. Yet such debts can run into hundreds, even thousands of pounds in some cases, and impose a major burden on the individual and his second family. Even those who believe in the fundamental objectives of the Child Support Agency would, I am sure, accept the need for phasing in the increase because decent hard-working families, who have carefully worked out their budgets and
  1266
  been prudent in taking account of their obligations, find themselves faced with a dramatic change in their circumstance which threatens to plunge them into debt.
  One of the arguments, or rather alibis, put forward by the Government and some of their apologists is that the Child Support Act 1991 supposedly received general support when it was introduced and that unforeseen problems arose only later. That mythology has formed the basis of a number of articles in the quality press.
  The reality is rather different. It is true that there was general support for the principle of parents supporting their children. I am sure that that view is shared by all hon. Members here tonight. However, on Second Reading of the Bill the Opposition moved an amendment declining to give it a Second Reading. More important were the perceptive reasons given for that view. The amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who said that the Bill
  "leaves lone parents on Income Support not one penny better off, makes lone parents worse off where they receive maintenance just above Income Support levels and thus lose access to passported benefits, allows maintenance payments to be disrupted if the absent parent defaults, does not take account of property settlements which could lead to an increase in orders for the home to be sold"—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 194.]
  and so on. Many of those problems have come back to haunt us.
  Those points were reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). In winding up the debate, she said:
  "Many separated or divorced women have negotiated with their former partners, without rancour, an arrangement whereby they forgo any maintenance but are allowed to keep the family home for themselves and their children. We must bear that in mind when we consider figures on the number of people who do not receive maintenance. The Bill could undermine that principle."
  My hon. Friend referred to the question of shared access, saying:
  "The child may spend weekends and school holidays with its father … In such cases that is seen as the father's contributon to the child's maintenance, although no formal handing over of money is involved. Are we saying that that arrangement must change—that a formal maintenance order must be made, disrupting and undermining the understanding way in which the couple may have dealt with separation or divorce?"
  My hon. Friend also said, perceptively:
  "I fear that we are in danger of impoverishing the second family to provide for the first."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 236.]
  That last point has been made to me time and again, in letters and at meetings, by second wives from across the country.
  It was not just the Opposition who pointed out the flaws in the Bill. The Law Society—the body for England and Wales and that for Scotland—warned against a formula that it said was too rigid and would produce harsh and arbitrary results. It also argued for the need for a transitional phase and a more flexible system. It also said that the agency was inconsistent with the principles of the Children Act 1989, which was designed to ensure that all proceedings relating to one family could be heard in the same court. The point about that is that the court can look at the wide range of different individual circumstances that do not fit into the straitjacket of a national formula administered by a faceless bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the Government did not listen and the current chaos is the result of that.
  I would argue that the agency is also misdirected in its priorities. The Second Reading debate included a number

  1267
  of references to targeting those fathers who had abandoned partners and children and were paying nothing. However, it appears that those are not the first priority of the agency—that is for new cases. They are not the second priority—that seems to be where the mother is on benefit and the father is already paying maintenance. In other words, he is in a job, is fulfilling his obligations and is easily traceable. Such fathers are the soft, easily identifiable targets where the agency can show some quick and easy results and possibly earn bonuses. Those fathers evading payment appear to be only the third priority and there is already anecdotal evidence that a number of them are finding ways to get round the system.
  What about the actual operation of the rigid formula, especially the way that old, clean-break orders are being ignored? As I said, that is where retrospection really comes in with a vengeance. It has caused enormous problems because no account is being taken of the transfer of the matrimonial home and, in particular, the payment of the mortgage on it. In those instances, the parent is faced with an appalling dilemma. He could pay maintenance, default on the mortgage and risk making his children homeless. One person who came to see me could not even default on his mortgage because it was with his employer and he would have lost his job. Alternatively, the father could pay the mortgage but not the maintenance and risk imprisonment. Of course, if he were a police officer, he would not have even those options as he would lose his job for being in breach of his conditions of service. That is the stark prospect facing many serving officers, a number of whom were at the meeting today and have been at other meetings around the country.
  The formula does not take account of debts, many of which could have arisen as a result of the divorce, or the cost of contact—particularly when the ex-partners live some distance from each other. If for financial reasons parents will see less of their children, how will that benefit the children or the country? How will that help to produce the better citizens of the next generation? The formula also does not allow for the cost of travelling to work. One couple was told that the husband did not need a car, but the wife rightly pointed out that her husband, who would have to pay the support, had to be at work by 4 o'clock in the morning because he was a long-distance lorry driver.
  The agency takes account of only 50 per cent. of pension contributions. A number of categories of workers, such as those in the emergency services, make mandatory contributions, but only 50 per cent. of their value can be taken into account.
  All of that shows that the agency does not live in the real world. Its monthly-paid bureaucrats have difficulty understanding that overtime is often an erratic element in a worker's pay packet. An individual may be assessed during a period when his employer is doing well and has a number of orders. When that period has ended, the worker goes back on ordinary pay but still has to contribute a substantial sum at the higher assessment.
  There seems to be no understanding of the effect of assessments on second families, especially when they are caught out by the transitional provisions. A father will have to pay for the children by his first marriage, but the children that he looks after in his second marriage may not be the subject of any support. That wife, because her new husband is employed and not on benefit, is not considered a priority case for support from her first husband. Real
  1268
  presure and crisis is forced on such families. The phrase used in hundreds of letters to me is, "Our world has been turned upside down". That is a real cry of misery.
  In the past, courts could examine individual cases and circumstances and make judgments accordingly. They did not always reach the right decisions and there were often variations across the country. The Government would have done better, however, to set broader national priorities and categories subject to the broader wisdom of the courts—rather than have that overridden and be replaced by the CSA's rigid national formula, which is a dramatic assertion of the doctrine that the man or women in Whitehall always knows best.
  There is special resentment at the £78 charge made for the agency's unwanted intrusion into family affairs. It is probably a precedent for future Government fund raising, and is about as insensitive as the policy of the Chinese who, after shooting a person, charges his or her family the price of the bullet.
  Families throughout the country are facing a bleak Christmas as a result of the agency's activities. Only 56,000 families have been assessed; a further 500,000 are in the pipeline. We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg, but we already know the anguish that the agency is causing among thousands of families throughout the country. The CSA threatens second families and places them under enormous financial pressure. It reopens old wounds between divorced couples, in respect not only of financial arrangements but of access and the disposal of the former matrimonial home. The agency's activities run counter to the law on clean-break divorce and penalise those in work who are trying to build a new family life. It is unfair, and the problems are growing by the day.
  The Government acknowledged public concern about the agency by establishing their own review. The Minister must accept that the CSA needs a fundamental rethink. The Government should suspend the agency's operations until it can be given fairer and better guidelines or the work returned to properly resourced courts which can deal with the problems in one go. That way we could bring hope before Christmas to thousands of despairing families not only in my constituency but throughout the country.
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Speller) on securing the debate and providing the House with an opportunity to debate this important issue. I know that it is an area in which he has great interest and I look forward to further dialogue with him on the subject on Monday.
  The hon. Gentleman made a number of valuable comments with which I shall deal shortly. I am aware of the lobby this afternoon. It is not always possible for Ministers to attend, but the hon. Gentleman was kind enough in his letter to me to suggest that we sent someone along. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) who went along to that meeting and put a case. It was slightly churlish of him not to mention her contribution to the proceedings.
  Mr. Spellar: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Burt: I am sorry, but no. Before I deal with the detailed matter, I should like to say a few words about

  1269
  some of the fundamental issues that are at stake. It might be helpful if I were to remind the House of the purpose of the child support scheme and its provisions.
  The purpose of the Child Support Agency and the Child Support Act 1991 is to obtain maintenance for children and to improve on a discretionary court-based system, which had failed to stem a decline in the payment of maintenance. The scheme is designed to ensure that, wherever possible, parents pay for the maintenance of their own children, rather than making other people, including other parents, do so through their taxes. This principle was widely welcomed, as was the move away from the courts, by hon. Members from all parties and by the relevant lobby groups when the Child Support Act was introduced in 1991, and is unchanged.
  The principle is not a new one. Parental responsibility for children has long been enshrined in the law of this country. However, before 1991 fewer than one third of lone parents received maintenance from the child's other parent. By 1997 our aim is to have raised that proportion to half. Maintenance payments are a valuable income which lone parents can take with them when they return to work—which many wish to do. It will ensure that many will no longer have to rely on income support as their main source of income.
  The Child Support Agency has figured prominently in the media in recent weeks. However, much of the coverage has been misleading and one-sided. The majority of comments have centred around the amounts of maintenance that absent parents are being asked to pay. Little attention has been paid to the substantial benefits for children to be derived from regular payments of maintenance.
  We said in the White Paper, "Children Come First", that the new scheme was expected to increase the amounts of maintenance paid by absent parents. We repeated this in debates on the Child Support Bill and the regulations and continued to make the point on numerous other occasions. We recognised that there would be concerns expressed by absent parents, which we are now seeing as the measures begin to bite. We must, however, remember that there are two sides to every coin: yes, absent parents are being asked to pay more, but parents with care are now receiving realistic amounts of maintenance for the first time.
  It is understandable that absent parents, some of whom have previously paid little or nothing towards the maintenance of their children, and others who may have paid less than the formula now requires, would not welcome being made to pay more—I understand that—but many of those absent parents, wittingly or unwittingly, made settlements which involved any maintenance that they paid being supplemented by the taxpayer. It is clearly reasonable that those absent parents who can afford to do so should make a more realistic contribution towards the cost of maintaining their children, without such taxpayers' interest.
  Contrary to some media reports, the amount of maintenance to be paid is determined not on an arbitrary basis by the Child Support Agency or by faceless bureaucrats, but by a formula which was extensively discussed both inside and outside Parliament and put into legislation. It ensures that both parents, where they can afford to do so, contribute to the maintenance of their child.
  1270
  It produces predictable and realistic levels of maintenance for children, taking account of the fact that they do not look after themselves, and at the same time ensuring the children share in their parents' increasing income. This important principle has not been brought out in media stories.
  Another crucial factor rarely mentioned is that the vast majority of absent parents will be left with 70 to 85 per cent. of net income after paying maintenance, and those with low incomes will usually be left with an even higher percentage. In fact, it has to be said that some of the media coverage has been unbalanced, with journalists being selective, to say the least, with their presentation of the facts, very rarely taking the trouble to research fully the true circumstances of the parents with care and their children.
  In the vast majority of cases in the papers, such research would reveal a parent with care and a child on benefit. One particular documentary, ITV's "World in Action", presented a series of cases, subsequently researched by The Sunday Times, which was heavily critical of the programme. The Sunday Times reporter who spoke to the ex-wives said that "World in Action" had made little effort to examine the full circumstances of the absent parents interviewed. The producer admitted to the newspaper that he had not contacted former partners.
  In sensitive matters such as these—I appreciate the sensitivities on both sides—a greater willingness to present both sides of a difficult case would be better for everyone than merely putting a partial case. It would please me immensely if other sections of the media were to follow the lead of The Sunday Times so that the public could see some of the true benefits to children that are being derived from the scheme.
  I recognise that people have genuine concerns about how the detail of the scheme has affected them, and I do not minimise the effect that this must have, but I have undertaken, as have my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, to examine those concerns and we are continuing to do so. I remain convinced, however, that the basic principles of the new scheme are sound and stand up to scrutiny and are supported by the vast majority of people in the country. If it is apparent that the scheme can be improved further, I will obviously ensure that that is done.
  The hon. Gentleman made some specific points and I shall do my best to cover as many as possible. He said a lot, however, and I may not be able to cover it all.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the take-on strategy. Given the number of families involved and the need to ensure that each case is handled fairly and accurately, it was not possible to implement the new arrangements for all families overnight—but it was never our intention to do so. The agency aims to take on its full work load by the end of March 1997, but until then we have to prioritise the cases that it handles.
  This year, the agency is giving the highest priority to all new cases, which have nowhere else to go. Newly divorced or separated parents who have care but do not have a court order or written maintenance agreement and who are not on benefits are no longer able to seek maintenance through the courts.
  The second priority is parents with care who make a new claim to income support, family credit or disability working allowance. After these cases, the agency will cover, over the next three years of operation, cases where

  1271
  the parent with care was already getting income support in April. Less than a quarter of such cases are receiving maintenance. The agency has always made it clear that, within this group, priority would be given to the parents with care receiving maintenance, and this strategy was set out in the leaflet, "Parents Who Live Apart", which was published in January 1993 and sent to all hon. Members.
  The agency will also consider sympathetically, in the light of individual circumstances, any existing benefit client who seeks to be taken on early, including those where the absent parent has been avoiding paying maintenance.
  The hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned targeting, which has caused much concern. It is simply not true that the agency is concentrating solely on absent parents who are already paying maintenance. We have always made it clear that all types of cases would be dealt with. The agency expects to deal with just over 1 million cases during the year, almost 640,000 of which will involve absent parents who do not currently pay any maintenance.
  In the seven months up to 31 October, the agency took on 616,000 cases and estimates that more than 50 per cent.—some 330,000—were not receiving maintenance. This proportion will increase as the year progresses. I advise the hon. Gentleman that in nearly a third of assessments the absent parent has been assessed as either not liable to pay maintenance or to pay a nominal amount. That is hardly commensurate with targeting payers.
  The agency has had considerable early success, which has not received the publicity that it should have, in finding missing absent parents—those parents who, unlike many others, have shirked their responsibilities and, in many cases, disappeared without trace. In the cases completed so far, it has managed to trace more than 9,000 absent parents where the parent with care did not know their whereabouts—a success rate of more than 90 per cent., which was unmatched by the previous court system.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of clean-break settlements. Much attention has been paid to what are widely known as clean breaks. There can be no clean break between parents and children, and there never has been under the court system. It has always been possible for the parent with care to return to the court to reopen the need for child maintenance if circumstances changed.
  Where a parent with care has gained sizeable equity in a property, the true effect in most cases being dealt with has been that she has acquired a material asset while the taxpayer has supported her children's basic living costs. It must be remembered that for many parents with care this transfer of property is not one of a free-standing asset but one with an associated level of debt through the mortgage. In those cases where the parent with care is reliant on income support, the interest on this debt falls to be paid by the taxpayer.
  Advocates of that approach overlook a real problem. In the vast majority of such cases, there is insufficient information to determine what proportion of any settlement was attributable to spousal maintenance, which is not dealt with by the agency, and what is attributable to child maintenance, which is dealt with by the agency.
  It should be emphasised that the child support formula provides for the practical consequences of a clean break settlement because it allows for the absent parent's housing costs. For example, in not taking any equity from the family home the absent parent may well incur greater
  1272
  expenses in re-establishing himself in a new home. The formula allows for those costs, and the amount of maintenance that he will be asked to pay will thus be reduced.
  The hon. Gentleman made the allegation that the Child Support Agency only benefits the Treasury. That is not the case. I emphasise, first, that the services of the agency are available to parents who are not in receipt of any benefit, so it is wrong to suggest that the scheme is purely a money-saving measure. The question which should be asked is not, "Should we have introduced an Act to save the taxpayer money?" but rather, "Should the taxpayer have been involved in the first place?" Where the absent parent can afford to pay, I think that the answer should be no.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject of second families and the difficulties caused to them. I understand his worries. The formula includes, as he is aware, a protected income calculation, which is designed to ensure that absent parents are not asked to pay maintenance at a rate which would take them down to income support levels. That is an especially important safeguard for absent parents with second families. The calculation takes account of the expenses, not only of the absent parent, but of his new partner and any stepchildren. It is in that part of the calculation that the absent parent's new partner's income is taken into account, because the entire household's income and expenses are compared to ensure that they keep a margin of income above income support levels. That calculation can only reduce the amount of maintenance that an absent parent is required to pay. Absent parents will never be required to pay full maintenance to the first family if it would reduce the living standards of the second family below the protected level. To that extent the second family takes precedence over the first.
  The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the issue of phasing. As he is aware, some absent parents will have the formula amount introduced in two steps to help them adjust. He is aware of the provisions. It has been said that that matter could be reconsidered and that is one of the subjects that the current Select Committee is considering.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the important issue of policemen, service men and others and I am anxious to make a comment about that. We have spoken to the Home Office and the Minstry of Defence about that issue. They are quite categorical. Policemen and service men will not lose their jobs because of increased liability for child maintenance. Counselling will be available for individuals who experience difficulty in managing debts and help will be given in dealing with creditors. The police force and the services are well aware of the problems that can arise from an unexpected debt and it is not fair to suggest that in all those cases, or in any of those cases necessarily, people will lose their jobs solely because of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned expenses. It has been suggested that the assessment formula should take account of the absent parent's expenses, such as the costs of travel to work, contact with children and debts. The formula does make provision for essential living expenses and, additionally, absent parents are left with a significant proportion of their net income after paying maintenance. That ensures that they have choices about how to spend their disposable income.
  However, as I put as strongly as I could to the Select Committee, we do not think it right to allow for other

  1273
  expenses in the formula, as that gives them precedence over the basic needs of their children. To do so would create pressure for more and more expenses to be defined as essential and for child maintenance to be pushed further and further down the list of priorities. The ultimate result would be a return to the unrealistically low sums which were common under the previous system and indeed the conditions that inspired the House to make a change from the previous system, because it did not adequately deal with the situation affecting the children.
  The hon. Member has again called for the suspension of the operations of the Child Support Agency, as he did last week. Even if it were warranted—which it is not—to suspend the operations of the Child Support Agency, it completely ignores the impact of such action on many thousands of children, often in situations in which no maintenance had previously been paid. If the hon. Gentleman thought through the consequences of such a suggestion, he would realise that it would result in great hardship. Many parents with care would find that established maintenance payments would suddenly cease, and many would, therefore, be forced back to benefits. I am afraid that only a failure to understand both sides of the issue could have led the hon. Gentleman to make such a call.
  I shall briefly make two or three final points. First, as to
  1274
  shared access, where an absent parent looks after a child for a period, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is catered for in the formula. Secondly, in relation to the question of overtime, the agency well understands that earnings can fluctuate and it can take account of that. Indeed, one of the benefits of the previous system was that it was difficult to go back to court to deal with variation orders. Under the new system, that can be done and it can be done without any increase in fees. If one went near a court in the past and one was charged new fees by a lawyer, it would turn out an awful lot more expensive than the fees charged by the agency.
  Lastly, the hon. Gentleman made arguments about the support offered by his party, in one way or another, for the principle of the Child Support Act 1991. As far as I am aware, the Third Reading of the Act was not opposed by the Opposition. The Labour party conference of 1992 urged repeal; the Labour party conference of 1993 did not urge repeal. I am still not quite sure whether the Labour party has now changed its view in any way.
  The hon. Gentleman has advocated a return to a court-based system in what he said at the end of his speech. If that is now the view of Opposition Front Benchers, I would be very interested to hear it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Pensions
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much of the total amount of money raised by measures to restrict the amount of tax which can be reclaimed by a pension fund introduced in the last Budget will be paid by members of money purchase occupational schemes in the form of a reduction in the assets available to purchase a pension;

  (2) how much of the total amount of money raised by measures introduced in the last Budget, to restrict the amount of tax which can be reclaimed by a pension fund, will be paid by employers in the form of additional contributions;

  (3) how much of the total amount of money raised by measures to restrict the amount of tax which can be reclaimed by a pension fund introduced in the last Budget will be paid by individuals paying additional voluntary contributions into occupational schemes in the form of a reduction in assets available to purchase a pension;

  (4) how much of the total amount of money raised by measures introduced in the last Budget, to restrict the amount of tax which can be reclaimed by a pension fund, will be paid by pension funds in the form of a reduction in assets;

  (5) how much of the total amount of money raised by measures to restrict the amount of tax which can be reclaimed by a pension fund introduced in the last Budget will be paid by holders of personal pensions in the form of a reduction in the assets available to purchase a pension.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The impact of the changes in the taxation of dividends announced in the March Budget on contributions to, and the assets of, pension funds will depend upon a wide range of factors including future rates of return on investments, earning levels and the existing levels of assets and liabilities.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax will be raised in a full tax year by the measure introduced in the March Budget restricting the amount of tax which can be reclaimed by a pension fund.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The overall Exchequer yield from the changes in the taxation of dividends announced in the March Budget is estimated to be £900 million in 1995–96 and about £1 billion a year subsequently.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions his officials have had with officials in the Department of Social Security on the extent to which the tax changes affecting pension funds introduced in the March Budget are likely to affect the number of people relying on various forms of private pension provision;

  (2) what discussions his officials have had with officials in the Department of Social Security on the extent
  640
  to which the tax changes affecting pension funds introduced in the March Budget are likely to affect the numbers contracting out of SERPS.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regular discussions take place between officials of my Department and Department of Social Security officials on a wide range of topics affecting pension funds.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his officials had with officials of the Department of Social Security before changing the taxation of the income of pension funds in the March Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The potential effects of changes to the taxation of dividends announced in the March Budget were taken fully into account in developing the proposals. Issues affecting pensions are the subject of regular discussions between my officials and those of the Department of Social Security.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the current cost threshold for answering parliamentary questions is calculated.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The threshold is set at a level which is eight times the average direct cost of staff involved in answering written parliamentary questions. The average direct cost is updated annually by indexation. The cost threshold is increased in £50 steps, rounded upwards.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the National Association of Pension Funds about the effects of further reductions in the value of tax credits on dividends payable by United Kingdom companies to United Kingdom resident or other non-resident shareholders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Association of Pension Funds has written to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I met representatives of the association on 27 October.

  Corporate Tax Fraud
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase penalties for corporate tax fraud.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have no such plans. We believe the existing system of tax-geared penalties to be quite adequate.

  Value Added Tax
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 November on payments by the VAT commissioners, what was the value of the VAT payable orders gone astray since 1 July 1988 subsequently recovered.

  Sir John Cope
  Of the total sum of £360,638, reported as gone astray in the previous answer £237,624·11 had been recovered as at 30 November 1993. The sums still outstanding continue to be subject to any possible further recovery action.
  641
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 273, what inquiries he has instituted as to why traders do not take advantage of electronic transfer; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs ask traders to provide bank account details on first registration, by an annual mailshot to verify registration details and when officers carry out visits to their premises.

  The option of payment by electronic transfer or by payable order can be helpful to business, but the choice of method is a commercial decision for the trader.

  Inquiries and general feedback to Customs indicate that a proportion of those who choose to receive payable orders do so to enable them to retain control over the sum, both as to destination and timing.

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

  Sir John Cope
  The annual cost to the Treasury for use of Government car service cars by its Ministers in financial year 1992–93 was £270,282. Five cars were allocated to Treasury Ministers on long-term hire and are available for other official use within the Treasury when not required by Ministers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has regarding future arrangements for the grant of criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Decisions on the grant or refusal of legal aid in criminal cases brought in the approximately 600 magistrates' courts in England and Wales are an integral part of procedures which, in the interests of the liberty of the subject, have to be as expeditious as possible. The Legal Aid Act 1988 vests the function of deciding in the courts themselves, but gives me the power to transfer it to the Legal Aid Board.

  The evidence continues to indicate that, under the present arrangements, the Lord Chancellor cannot be certain that the existing regulations governing the grant of legal aid are being applied sufficiently rigorously, in particular in determining the financial eligibility of applicants. This has led the Comptroller and Auditor General repeatedly to qualify my Department's appropriation account because of material doubt whether this category of legal aid spending is regular.

  In no circumstances can any irregularity in dispensing public money be acceptable, and the Lord Chancellor will take every available step to ensure proper safeguards consistent with the due administration of justice. In addition to the guidance issued last year, the Lord Chancellor has made changes in the regulations, with effect from September 1993, to clarify and strengthen the duty on justices clerks to satisfy themselves of an applicant's means before granting legal aid. In addition,
  642
  with the help of the Justices Clerks Society and the Legal Aid Board, the Lord Chancellor is considering whether the previous guidance on the "interests of justice" criteria requires to be revised. The impact of these measures will be closely monitored.

  In January 1992, the Lord Chancellor invited the Legal Aid Board to consider whether, in the interests of making decisions on the grant of criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts more uniform and systematic, I should transfer this function from the courts to the board. The board reported earlier this year that it would be ready to assume responsibility if certain changes were made in the present scheme, but that it could not do so until 1995 at the earliest. In consultations on the board's report, reservations were expressed about some of the details, while other aspects commanded widespread support.

  Transferring responsibility for the grant of criminal legal aid to the Legal Aid Board offers the advantage of greater consistency in decision-making. However, there could be countervailing risks to the speed and efficiency of criminal procedures. As a matter of policy, I feel bound to take these risks seriously, and I am not at present satisfied that they are outweighed by the advantage.

  However, if the current measures do not achieve an acceptable result, I will give further consideration to a transfer to the board. At the same time, I will consider any identifiable alternative measures, with a view to achieving the best practicable balance between speed of decision-making and assured regularity in the handling of public money.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground (Power Failures)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table listing the number of occasions on which the London Underground service has been affected by a power failure in the past five years in each case indicating the number of lines, train services and passengers affected and the length of time during which the service was interrupted; and whether or not passengers had to be evacuated from any part of the system.

  Mr. Norris
  Over the past five years London Underground has experienced one other significant power failure, at Charing Cross station on the morning of 19 October 1992. As a result of the failure of the local station power supply, the station was evacuated and remained closed for the rest of the day, reopening at the start of service on 20 October. All Jubilee line trains were terminated at Green Park, and Bakerloo and Northern line trains did not stop at Charing Cross. There are no figures available for the number of passengers directly affected.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has been given of the theoretical risk of simultaneous failure of all power supplies to the London Underground system.

  Mr. Norris
  An independent risk analysis report has estimated the risk of simultaneous loss of Lots Road and Greenwich generating stations and the Neasden bulk supply point to be one in 3,378 years.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers on the London
  643
  Underground were affected by the power failure on 24 November; and what proportion of the total number of daily users of the underground service this represents.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground has provided the following information:300,000 passengers were affected by the morning failure, representing 12 per cent. of daily users.
  20,000 passengers were evacuated from trains stalled between stations—in tunnel or in the open—due to the morning failure, representing ·8 per cent. of daily users.
  150,000 passengers were affected by the evening failure, representing 6 per cent. of daily users.
  2,000 passengers were evacuated from trains stalled between stations—in tunnel or in the open—due to the evening failure, representing 0·08 per cent. of daily users.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) the Lots Road or (b) Greenwich power station reserve for London Underground were called upon on 24 November; and whether either failed.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from London Underground that there was no failure of the basic power supply system from the two generating stations. I am informed that the incident on 24 November was caused by the malfunctioning of equipment designed to protect the high-voltage system from thermal danger in the event of a fault.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the lines affected and estimate the number of train services delayed as a consequence of the power failure on the London Underground on 24 November.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest information from London Underground on lines and train services affected as a consequence of the power failure on 24 November is as follows:

  Central Line
  08:00—16:15. No service east of Marble Arch; 80 per cent. of services affected.

  Circle and Hammersmith and City Lines
  08:00—13:30. No service between Edgeware Road and Moorgate; 50 per cent. of services affected.

  District Line
  07:45—13:30. No service between Embankment and Barking; 20 per cent. of services affected.

  East London Line
  08:00—11:00. No service.

  Metropolitan Line
  08:00—13:30. No service between Baker Street and Moorgate; 10 per cent. of services affected.

  At 17:33, following restoration of eastern Central line services there was a further power failure affecting both the Central and the District lines. Twenty per cent. of District line services were affected and 80 per cent. of Central line services. Normal service was not resumed on the Central line until the morning of 30 November. Between 25 and 29 November the Central line was able to achieve an average of 38 per cent. of its normal scheduled mileage.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the age and state of repair of the cable used to transmit power to the London underground; and what advice he has received about the likelihood of any future repetition of the power failure which occurred on the underground on 24 November.
  644
  Mr. Norris
  I have asked London Transport for a full report on the cause of the power failure on 24 November. Until I have received that report, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

  Maritime Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding a draft resolution on the application of the competition rules to maritime transport proposed by the President of the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I received representations on the proposed draft resolution on competition and maritime transport both from individual United Kingdom shippers and from organisations representing shippers and shipowners; those representations were carefully considered. The Council of Ministers meeting on 29 November decided not to proceed with the resolution.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the management of Railtrack to discuss levels of investment need in track and infrastructure in the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I last met the chairman of Railtrack yesterday when it was announced that the modernisation of the west coast main line will be taken forward as a privately managed and financed investment as part of the private finance initiative.

  Nuclear Waste
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the transport implications of the United Kingdom Government's abstention on the vote for a permanent world-wide ban on nuclear waste dumping at sea at the London convention meeting in November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom is currently considering what declarations may need to be made to the International Maritime Organisation in respect of the resolution prohibiting the sea disposal of radioactive waste. The transport of radioactive materials, including radioactive waste, is a separate issue, subject to stringent international safety standards.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the management of the west coast main line to discuss issues relating to investment.

  Mr. Freeman
  I last met the director of the west coast main line at the end of October.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding investment in the west coast main line during the last year; and if he can give a breakdown as to the sources of such representations.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a large number of representations from hon. Members, local authorities and others on the need to modernise the west coast main line.
  645
  The Government announced on 30 November that the modernisation of the west coast main line will be taken forward as a privately managed and financed investment as part of the private finance initiative.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Government's biodiversity action plan will include an objective to avoid the loss of important biodiversity sites to transport developments.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government will consider the implications for biodiversity when formulating and reviewing transport policies and will ensure that biodiversity objectives are fully taken into account in the assessment of new transport infrastructure.

  We have a long-standing policy of keeping transport infrastructure away from protected areas such as sites of special scientific interest, wherever possible.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the biodiversity action plan will allow for the re-routing of ships to avoid marine areas of special interest for wildlife.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have already agreed with the International Maritime Organisation a number of routing measures to reduce the risk of oil pollution around the United Kingdom coast.

  An amended "Area to be Avoided" off the Shetland islands and new "Areas to be Avoided" off Orkney and around Fair Isle came into force on 28 November. Specific recommendations, most of which include prescribed routes, also came into force covering the Pentland firth, the Isles of Scilly, the Minch, the North channel, off Smalls and Grassholme channel, the Needles channel, the English channel and Dover strait and the Firth of Forth.

  The European Community is currently identifying sensitive areas which are at high risk from maritime traffic and further measures may be proposed by the Commission to protect these areas.

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

  Mr. MacGregor
  The annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers is £286,000 for the financial year 1993–94. Five vehicles are involved.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be responsible for(a) setting targets and (b) paying compensation for non-fulfilment, in terms of the passengers charter, in the event of rail privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]:
  Each rail franchise agreement will set out the operating standards which franchisees will have to deliver and the incentives and penalties which will apply if performance exceeds or falls short of those standards. The setting of standards and the related incentive and penalty arrangements will be the responsibility of the franchising director acting within guidelines laid down by my right hon. Friend.

  M11
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to provide a motorway service station on the M11; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has secured planning clearance for a motorway service area at Birchanger adjacent to junction 8 of the M11 and has appointed Forte Welcome Break to construct it. Building work is now under way and the service area is due to open early in 1995.

  Kingston upon Hull City Transport
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the ownership of Kingston upon Hull City Transport.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of Kingston upon Hull City Transport Ltd.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State has given formal consent to the sale of Kingston-upon-Hull City Transport Ltd, the bus company owned by the Hull city council, to Cleveland Transit Ltd. The new owners are to offer a 49 per cent. shareholding in the company to the employees.

  Change of ownership takes place under the terms of section 75(3) of the Transport Act 1985, which allows authorities to sell their public transport companies with the consent of the Secretary of State.

  I wish the company success in the private sector.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  Figures are £,000s

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1985–86

  1979–80

  (a) TV

  15,155

  5,467

  70

  4,141

  (b) Radio

  —

  566

  858

  62

  (c) Press

  115

  131

  834

  105

  1Figures for 1993–94 are provisional

  Motorway Charging
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's plans for taking forward motorway charging.

  Mr. Macgregor
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that I would shortly be making a statement about motorway charging in the light of responses to the Green Paper, "Paying For Better Motorways", which I published last May with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. The Green Paper considered how the introduction of direct charging for the use of our most important inter-urban roads could provide another source of finance to expand the network more quickly; and how it could help to ensure that we make more efficient use of the network.
  647
  Our aim was to stimulate an informed, wide-ranging debate. By far the most striking feature of the responses was the widespread acknowledgement among bodies representing industry and road users of the potential benefits of direct charging. An important effect of charging would be to provide another source of finance for improving the motorway network, so avoiding the congestion that will otherwise come with economic growth and increasing traffic. The motorway network carries 15 per cent. of all road traffic and 30 per cent. of heavy goods vehicle traffic. An effective network is an important contributor to our continued economic prosperity.

  As many respondents recognised, motorway charging could have other important advantages. It would provide the key to increasing private sector investment in the operation and expansion of the motorway network. It would make more efficient use of the network, for example by the use of pricing structures designed to spread peak period congestion. It would put the charges on those who actually use motorways rather than the near-50 per cent. of road users who rarely or never travel on the network. And it would improve the competitive position of rail and other forms of public transport for which users are already charged directly.

  The Green Paper described three options for direct charging. The first was conventional tolling with toll plazas and booths of the sort found on estuarial crossings in this country and on motorways in a number of other countries. The Green Paper said that this option should be ruled out for existing motorways because of the land that would be required and the traffic delays which conventional tolling would itself cause. There was almost unanimous agreement with that decision.

  The second option, suggested as a possible interim measure, was charging by means of a permit system of the sort currently used in Switzerland. The Government have decided that the benefits of such permits would not be sufficient to justify the likely costs of introducing them as an interim measure. We shall not therefore pursue this option.

  The third option discussed in the Green Paper was fully electronic tolling, where vehicles using the motorway network would carry an electronic tag which would react to signals as the vehicles passed roadside beacons. Vehicles would not have to stop. The toll would be worked out automatically and would either be charged to the road user's account or deducted from a pre-paid smart card on the vehicle. It is clear from responses to the Green Paper that this is widely seen as the best way of introducing motorway charging in this country.

  The technology for electronic tolling on the scale necessary for the British motorway network needs further development. The electronic tolling systems currently operating or being tested in the United States and in Europe would not fully meet the requirements here. In the light of the responses to the Green Paper, we have decided to launch immediately a major programme of research, development and trials to identify the capabilities of the existing technology and to draw up a specification for a motorway charging system. The first step will be to invite industry to demonstrate available technology. We shall then assess in detail the most promising systems, with trials on a specific stretch of motorway. On the basis of the many discussions I have had with manufacturers and organisations involved in electronic road charging here and abroad, I am convinced that there is a great deal of work being
  648
  undertaken internationally, and it would be feasible technologically to install motorway charging here within about five years.

  The assessment of the available technology and systems will provide the basis on which to decide when to go ahead with motorway charging and at an appropriate time bring forward the necessary legislation for Parliament to consider.

  The Green Paper also invited views on the best ways of involving private finance in the operation and expansion of the motorway network. We announced a year ago that, as a possible transitional step to motorway charging, the private sector might be invited to bid for contracts under which they would design, build, finance and operate roads for which they would receive payment from Government in relation to the use of those roads. There is strong support for DBFO contracts from the construction industry and the City. Accordingly, we shall enter into early discussions with the construction industry and others to identify a list of potential DBFO schemes which could provide for substantial transfer of risk to the private sector. Our aim would be to let DBFO contracts on schemes which have already been taken through public inquiry. I therefore hope that the first contracts could be let and work started within 18 months.

  The Green Paper made it clear that this was not the only option for increasing the role of private finance in the provision of roads. We have decided that the DBFO approach offers the best way forward for the present, whilst we develop for the future more extensive use of private finance and expertise.

  I shall be appointing as soon as possible financial advisers to assist in preparing DBFO contracts and to work up further private finance options for the future.

  Concerns were expressed in the responses to the Green Paper about the possible side-effect of charging on diversion of vehicles from motorways to other roads. I recognise that concern and devoted a whole chapter of the Green Paper to this question. Charging across the network at levels well below those used in other countries—as was proposed in the Green Paper—is unlikely to cause much diversion, and the Government are very conscious of the need to avoid this. It also has to be taken into account that, without improvement of the motorways, congestion on them will grow, and such congestion would itself cause diversion on to alternative routes. So doing nothing is not a realistic option.

  Many respondents indicated that their support for charging was dependent on the resources being used to fund additional road capacity. The Green Paper gave two important assurances. First, that it would be the Government's intention to ensure that the revenue and expenditure on roads subject to charges would be transparent, and that the proceeds of charges would be applied only to the construction and operation of the charged network. Secondly, that the Government would take into account the relationship between the charges and existing motoring taxes in setting their respective levels. The Government reaffirm these assurances.

  Many issues, such as the precise definition of the network to be charged and the level of charges require further exploration, which we shall undertake in parallel with the technology trial. Until these detailed decisions are taken, there is no case for amending our national road traffic forecasts and our traffic forecasting methodology to

  649
  take account of the contingent effect of tolling, any more than there is for anticipating the possible introduction of city congestion charging.

  M20 (Services)
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what motorway service facilities open 24 hours a day will be available on the M20 motorway in time for the opening of the channel tunnel to passenger traffic.

  Mr. Key
  Planning consent has been granted for motorway service areas—MSAs—on the M20 at Hollingbourne and Westenhanger. Neither is expected to open by May 1994. On completion, both will be required to guarantee 24-hour access, fuel availability, free parking and toilet facilities.

ENVIRONMENT

  Gulf War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many scientists from his Department participated in the study by the United Nations Environment Programme, document UNEP/GC.17/NF.9 into the long-term environmental effects of the Gulf war; and if he will arrange for a copy of the study to be put in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  The document was prepared by the United Nations Enviroment Programme—UNEP; scientists in the Department were not involved in its preparation. As well as summarising the latest information on the effects of the conflict, the document refers to studies by 12 United Nations agencies to which the United Kingdom contributed. A copy of the document is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Special Needs Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to employ a special needs adviser with a specific remit of developing United Kingdom-wide standard for wheelchair housing.

  Sir George Young
  The Government recognise the desirability of providing accessible housing for disabled people. However, the development of a national standard for wheelchair housing is more appropriate to the work of the British Standards Institution than that of a special needs adviser within my Department. There is a British standard, BS5619, "Design of housing for the convenience of disabled people". The revision of this standard, which does not currently address the special needs of wheelchair users, is being considered and my Department would be willing to play a full part, alongside organisations which provide housing for special needs, in discussions on incorporating improved provisions for wheelchair users in any such revision.

  Housing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of cutting the Housing Corporation's approved development programme by £300 million on the total number of housing association homes produced for 1994–95.
  650
  Sir George Young
  Following the changes to Housing Corporation expenditure in 1994–95 announced in the Budget, we estimate that 53,000 new homes will be provided with Housing Corporation funding in 1994–95.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of the number of homes which will be produced in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 by maintaining the Housing Corporation's approved development programme at its current level.

  Sir George Young
  Under this year's approved development programme — ADP — the Housing Corporation estimated in January that the number of homes produced would be 54,500 in 1993–94, 49,400 in 1994–95, and 50,100 in 1995–96. Despite the changes in Housing Corporation expenditure made in the Budget, it still expects to achieve 154,000 new homes over this period. No estimate has been made of the number of new homes which would have been provided had the ADP been held at its current level.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his Department's latest estimate of the number of housing association homes which will be produced in 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  Following the expenditure plans announced in the Budget we estimate that the Housing Corporation's capital programme will provide for some 53,000 new homes in 1994–95.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total number of new housing association units which will be produced in 1994–95 if the Housing Corporation's approved development programme is reduced by(a) £300 million, (b) £400 million and (c) £500 million.

  Sir George Young
  Following the Budget announcement that the Housing Corporation's capital expenditure programme has been reduced by some £300 million in 1994–95, we estimate that this will nevertheless provide for some 53,000 housing association homes in 1994–95. No estimate has been made of the effect that the greater reductions identified would have had on total units produced. Any such figure would depend not only on the overall size of the approved development programme, but on the likely balance between sub-programmes.

  Water Quality
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how many laboratories in the north-west exist for testing the quality of water.

  Mr. Yeo
  North West Water currently has eight laboratories for testing drinking water supplies or waste water. The National Rivers Authority has one chemical and three biological laboratories in the north-west. Both North West Water and the NRA are in the process of rationalising their laboratory facilities.

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the ratification of the biodiversity convention by the United Kingdom; whether
  651
  he intends to qualify the act of ratification in any way; whether he intends to lodge an interpretative declaration alongside the United Kingdom's signature; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  It remains our intention to ratify the convention on biological diversity given satisfactory progress towards securing safeguards regarding our concerns on the financial provisions of the convention. We intend to reaffirm on ratification the interpretative statements we made on signature.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of payments to landowners in respect of sites of special scientific interest; how many landowners received such grants in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Details of the cost of management agreements entered into with landowners in such circumstances and of grants paid in respect of SSSIs are published in the annual reports of English Nature and of the former Nature Conservancy Council, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Community Care Homes
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to undertake an inter-departmental review of the funding of community care homes managed by housing associations to ensure their viability, prior to reinstating certification 10 and the consequential withdrawal of the housing revenue funding provided via the Housing Corporation from those individuals sponsored by social services departments under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Sir George Young
  My Department is consulting other Government Departments before a decision is taken on the arrangements for the Housing Corporation's revenue funding of housing association special needs schemes beyond the current financial year.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures are available to show the number of bed spaces which will be lost if proposals to withdraw funding from registered care homes managed by housing associations providing community care schemes under sponsorship arrangements are carried out.

  Sir George Young
  Revenue grants paid by the Housing Corporation are just one element in the income stream of housing associations which run schemes for clients with special needs. It is not possible, therefore, to quantify the effects of any changes in the level of that particular contribution in terms of the number of bed-spaces that associations are able to make available. Representations have been made to my Department about the effect which any reductions in the corporation's revenue support might have on individual schemes and those representations will be taken into account before a decision is taken on the arrangements for that support beyond the current financial year.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which houses, designated as defective under defective housing legislation, are now capable of having those defects rectified; which houses are awaiting a system of treatment to be discovered; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985 eligible owners of all 24 designated house types can have their homes reinstated by substantial demolition and reconstruction if the local authority determines this is a practicable and cost effective solution. Repair schemes meeting the requirements of the legislation are available for all designated house types except Boswell, Dyke, Stonecrete, Underdown, and Waller.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the types of houses currently designated under defective housing legislation.

  Sir George Young
  The following 24 types of dwellings have been designated defective under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985:

  Airey

  Boot

  Boswell

  Cornish Unit

  Dorran

  Dyke

  Gregory

  Myton

  Newland

  Orlit

  Parkinson

  Reema Hollow Panel

  Schindler and Hawksley SGS

  Smith

  Stent

  Stonecrete

  Tarran

  Underdown

  Unity and Butterley

  Waller

  Wates

  Wessex

  Winget

  Woolaway

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will publish their strategy for sustainable development.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have almost completed our preparation of a sustainable development strategy for the United Kingdom and now propose to publish it after the House returns in January. We will publish the United Kingdom's climate change programme, biodiversity action plan and forestry programme at the same time.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will explain the basis of his calculations of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 1994–95.

  Mr. Curry
  As my right hon. Friend announced in his reply to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) on 30 November 1993, at column 496, the

  653
  distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 1994–95 will be £10,685 million. This is based on a non-domestic rate multiplier of 0·423 and includes an allowance of £464 million for an Exchequer payment to the non-domestic rates pool to compensate for the shortfall which would otherwise occur as a result of the Non-Domestic Rating Acts 1992 and 1993. The basis of th calculation is set out in the table:

  Calculation of distributable amount 1994–95

  £ million

  1. Income from Local Lists in 1994–95

  Total Local List RV x multiplier (£29,745x0·423)

  12,582

  (i) Reliefs

  (a) Less transitional decrease

  (487)

  (b) Less reliefs on (i) empty properties

  (1,280)

  (ii) partially empty properties

  (18)

  (c) Less reliefs to charities

  (353)

  (d) Less discretionary reliefs

  (19)

  Net Yield

  10,425

  (ii) Collection Costs/Reductions to Contributions

  (a) Less costs of collection

  (70)

  (b) Less losses on collection

  (220)

  (c) Less offset for City of London

  (8)

  Contribution in respect of year

  10,147

  (iii) Adjustments and Additions

  (a) Less Net Repayments and interest

  (670)

  (b) Less outturn adjustments in respect of prior years

  (875)

  Net Local Contribution

  8,602

  2. Income from Central List in 1994–95

  Total Central List RVxmultiplier (and after transition)=(2,672mx0·423)

  1,130

  3. Income from Crown Contributions in Aid in 1994–95

  (a) Add Net Crown Yield (after transition)

  463

  (b) Less relief

  (7)

  (c) Add Metropolitan Police contribution

  33

  Net Crown yield

  489

  Total NDR Yield (1+2+3)

  10,221

  4. Exchequer Contributions

  (a) Add income foregone in 1993–94 due to revised transitional arrangements

  37

  (b) Add income foregone in 1994–95

  427

  Total contribution

  464

  Total NNDR pool payments (1+2+3+4)

  10,685

  Total NNDR Distributable amount for 1994–95:

  10,685

  Notes:

  1. Item 1: the estimated total local list rateable value (RV) represents the average value of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists, taking into account the effect of appeals decided during 1994–95.

  2. Item 1(i)(a): the adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped locally due to the revised transitional arrangements under the provisions of the Non-Domestic Rating Acts 1992 and 1993.

  3. Item 1(i)(b): adjustments based on estimated mandatory reliefs for empty property in 1994–95 and earlier years not taken into account in the calculation of the distributable amount for 1993–94.

  4. Item 1(i)(d): discretionary relief granted to charities, non-profit making organisations and for other reasons.

  5. Item 1(ii)(a): the allowance for the costs incurred by local authorities in collecting non-domestic rates from ratepayers.

  6. Item l(ii)(c): a preliminary estimate of the reduction in the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool on account of the local rate in the City. It
  654
  is the amount which will be retained by the authority to meet its own expenditure.

  7. Item 1(iii)(a): net adjustments in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous year's rates settled in 1994–95.

  8. Item l(iii)(b): Outturn adjustment based on outturn for 1992–93 and estimates for 1993–94. Much of the adjustments relate to reduced yield as a result of the number of appeals expected to be decided during 1993–94.

  9. Item 2: the rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list after adjustments for appeals and adjustments in respect of previous years.

  10. Item 4(a) and (b): the contribution from central government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income foregone arising from the provisions of the Non-Domestic Rating Acts 1992 and 1993. The amount in respect of 1993–94 takes into account the contribution which was made in the distributable amount for that financial year.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of(a) local authority and (b) housing association tenants were receiving rate rebates or community charge benefit in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Complete information on the numbers of local authority tenancies receiving rate rebate was not collected prior to 1988–89. The available information is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1988–89

  56

  1989–90

  56

  Note: Figure for 1988–89: England, Wales and Scotland Figure for 1989–90: England and Wales.

  Sources: Caseload figures taken from the Housing Benefit Management Information System and local authority tenancies in "Housing and Construction Statistics".

  Comparable information concerning housing association tenancies is not avaialble.

  From 1989 in Scotland, and 1990 in England and Wales, domestic rates were replaced by the community charge. As community charge was a personal charge it would not be appropriate to analyse community charge benefit recipients by tenure type.

  Housing Benefit
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of(a) local authority and (b) housing association tenants were receiving housing benefit in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The percentages, which should be used as a general guide only, of local authority tenancies in receipt of housing benefit rent rebates are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1979–80

  18

  1980–81

  20

  1981–82

  25

  1982–83

  49

  1983–84

  62

  1984–85

  63

  1985–86

  64

  1986–87

  65

  1987–88

  65

  1988–89

  58

  655

  Year

  Percentage

  1989–90

  57

  1990–91

  58

  1991–92

  60

  1992–93

  64

  Notes:

  Unified Housing benefit scheme introduced in 1982–83.

  Housing Benefit affected by Reform of Social Security 1988.

  Sources: Caseload statistics underlying information in "The Growth of Social Security" and the number of local authority tenancies in "Housing and Construction Statistics". Due to considerable changes in housing benefit schemes since 1979, the underlying figures are subject to some estimation.

  Comparable information concerning housing associations tenancies is not available, having been collected only from 1992.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Unemployment
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of unemployment in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 14 October there were 102,842 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, representing a decrease of 3,594 over the year.

  The Union
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the future of the Union.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government's policy is to uphold the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; this is recognised in national and international law. There will be no change to that position unless or until that is the wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

  Stormont
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual cost of maintaining the Stormont building.

  Mr. Atkins
  The cost of maintaining the Stormont building in 1992–93 was £225,000.

  Terrorism
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with which political parties in Northern Ireland he has discussed a policy of opposing terrorist violence.
  656
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My colleagues and I regularly meet representatives of the Northern Ireland constitutional parties to discuss a wide range of issues, including the Government's security policy. The first priority of that policy is the eradication of terrorism, from wherever it originates.

  Peace Talks
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress towards peace in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace initiative.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government's objective for Northern Ireland is peace, properly attained. All the Government's policies have this objective. The people who can deliver an end to violence are the paramilitaries and they should do so immediately. But enduring peace will be assisted by a political settlement, which we continue to seek with the constitutional parties and, where appropriate, the Irish Government.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what prospects he sees for further peace talks in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) earlier today.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his dialogue with the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) earlier today.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what number and percentage of families with children receive income support and family credit.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is estimated that at 29 May 1992, 77,725 families were receiving these benefits, representing 35 per cent. of all families receiving child benefit.

  Irish Government (Talks)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions he has had with the Irish Government on the future of Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I most recently met Mr. Dick Spring, the Irish Foreign Minister and Tanaiste, at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference on 3 November. We noted the support of the Prime Minister and Taoiseach for the objectives of the political talks process and expressed our determination to pursue those objectives within the framework of the statement of 26 March 1991.

  Employment Law
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of the Irish trade unions and the Trades Union Congress to discuss Northern Ireland's employment law, and industrial and economic prospects.

  Mr. Atkins
  I met representatives of the Northern Ireland Committee of Trade Unions to discuss employment and economic issues on 13 May. There are no plans at present for any further meeting but any such request would be accorded favourable consideration.

  Security Forces
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure that the security forces in the Province have equipment appropriate to their needs.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The equipment requirements of the police and army are kept under constant review. The Government are fully committed to providing the security forces with the resources they need to defeat terrorism.

  Investment
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made for the prospects for increased industrial and commercial investments in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government do not carry out formal assessments of the prospects for increased industrial and commercial investment in Northern Ireland. However, the most recent independent surveys of business prospects show that both business confidence and companies' investment intentions are rising. This suggests that recovery from the recession is well underway in Northern Ireland and that investment prospects are good.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of inward investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  So far this year the Industrial Development Board has secured four new inward investment projects involving a total investment of approximately £163 million and I am confident that there will be further announcements during the remainder of the financial year.

  Northern Ireland (Consultation)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to include the people living on the mainland of the United Kingdom in any consultation over the status of Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The status of each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom is a matter for Parliament and, to that extent, the people living on the mainland of the United Kingdom already participate in consultation over the status of Northern Ireland. The Government's policy is that the status of Northern Ireland should be determined in accordance with the democratic wishes of its own people, and I have no plans to broaden the consultation.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he or his officials have had with Sinn Fein.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There have been no negotiations with Sinn Fein on political matters at either ministerial or official level. As I
  told the House on Monday, there has been an exchange of documents through a channel of communication since February—and these are in the Library of the House. It is also a matter of record that Ministers and officials have met council delegations, which from time to time have included Sinn Fein members, to discuss constituency matters.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the current average time between referral to a cardiac surgeon in Northern Ireland and the first appointment with that surgeon;

  (2) what was the longest interval in Northern Ireland for waiting time between referral to a cardiac surgeon and the first appointment with that surgeon for the most recent available period.

  Mr. Ancram
  During the quarter ending September 1993, the medium waiting time between the date of referral to a cardiac surgeon and first appointment was 0-3 months.

  Records for the same quarter indicate that the longest a patient waited between referral and first appointment with a cardiac surgeon was 21 months and 20 days. The unusual delay in this case appears to have arisen as a result of an administrative oversight. The Royal Victoria hospital is undertaking a validation of the records of those waiting for appointment with a cardiac surgeon which should ensure that similar oversights do not occur in future.

  Community Care
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken towards the implementation of the Government's community care policy in the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Eastern and South health and social services boards, in common with the other two boards in Northern Ireland, have in place the following arrangements for the implementation of the community care reforms from April 1993:care management and assessment procedures;
  arrangements for purchasing community care services;
  procedures for financial assessment, charge collection, and payment of providers;
  arrangements for the dissemination, to the public and to user, carer and professional interests, of information on procedures and services; and procedures for dialogue with independent sector providers.

  In addition, since 1991, community care complaints procedures have been functional in each board area, and registration and inspection units have been set up to monitor the standards and operation of all residential and nursing homes.

  All these arrangements are being refined and developed in the light of experience of the operation of the new community care procedures.

  Banagher Glen
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the average number of vehicles which presently use the road in Banagher glen each day; what is his estimate of the average number which will use it when the glen is reopened to the public; and what are the present and projected figures of(a) winter and (b) summer months and for (i) weekdays and (ii) weekends.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of vehicles which presently use the road in Banagher glen is estimated at 14 per weekday. No estimate is available for weekends. When the road up to the nature reserve is opened to the public, it is estimated that at peak times the average number of vehicles using it will be 45 per weekday. Estimates for other times have not been made.

  Ulster Painters
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Arts Council for Northern Ireland concerning its decision for the sale in London of the work of leading Ulster painters.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Youth Training
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the policy of the Northern Ireland Training and Employment Agency regarding the future of community training organisations and the provision of youth training in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what is the strategy for the provision of youth training in (a) north Belfast, (b) south Belfast, (c) east Belfast and (d) Lagan valley;

  (3) how many young people are currently employed in community workshops; and if he will make a statement on the future of the workshops;

  (4) what is the strategy for the provision of youth training in west Belfast;

  (5) what plans he has to change the policy of block funding for community training organisations;

  (6) what plans he has to assist young people leaving school without any recognised academic qualification.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Julian Crozier.

  I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Dr. J. Hendron, dated 1 December 1993:
  Parliamentary Questions Nos. 1377 to 1382: 3 December 1993
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your questions about:—
  (a) what is the policy of the Training and Employment Agency regarding the future of Community Training Organisations and the provision of Youth Training in Northern Ireland;
  (b) how many young people are currently employed in Community Workshops; and if he will make a statement on the future of workshops;
  (c) what plans he has to change the policy of blockfunding for Community Training Organisations;
  (d) what is the strategy for the provision of youth training in West Belfast;
  (e) what is the strategy for the provision of youth training in North, South, East Belfast and Lagan Valley; and
  660
  (f) what plans he has to assist young people leaving school without any recognised academic qualifications.

  The responses to your questions are:—
  (a) The Agency would wish to maintain a community sector element within the Youth Training Programme (YTP) as part of the range of provision which is available to young people. As you are aware some workshops are facing financial difficulties caused mainly by fewer young people in the population more of whom are staying on at school. The introduction of a single school leaving date has exacerbated the difficulties. Given this background some community-based training organisations are finding it difficult to remain viable given the diminishing number of trainees and some rationalisation is inevitable; preferably through mergers although some closures may be difficult to avoid. The Agency has recently written to Workshop Chairmen proposing a package of assistance. Where mergers take place full redundancy costs will be paid by the Agency which will also meet the cost of consultancy help. Fifty per cent. of redundancy costs will be paid to workshops which choose to close.
  As to youth training in NI the Agency remains committed to providing a Youth Training place for all 16 and 17 year olds who desire it. Arrangements will be made for all those young people affected by a rationalisation to be offered a training place with an alternative provider.
  (b) Young people in Community Workshops are not employed by them but are in the Youth Training Programme. At the end of October 1993 there were 3,046 young people in training in Community Workshops. The future of workshops is dealt with in the preceding paragraphs.
  (c) There are currently no plans to change the policy of blockfunding for community workshops. The present levels of blockfunding within YTP compare more than favourably with funding elsewhere in the United Kingdom and with that available within the education system in Northern Ireland. However the Agency is currently piloting a single, integrated scheme called Jobskills which may replace both YTP and the Job Training Programme (JTP) and which would have a different system of funding.
  (d & e) The Agency's objective is to maintain a network of training organisations across all areas of the Province, including Belfast and Lagan Valley which will enable the Agency to continue to meet the Government guarantee of a training place for all 16 and 17 year olds who want one.
  (f) Every school leaver aged 16 or 17 is guaranteed a training place within the Youth Training Programme (YTP). YTP offers a structured programme of training leading to a recognised vocational qualification to help participants compete for suitable jobs.
  I hope that you find this information helpful.

  Works of Art (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether public bodies holding works of art relating to Northern Ireland are required to consult the Ulster museum or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before disposing of such works outside Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  No.

  Hospitals, Downpatrick
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to visit hospitals in Downpatrick to discuss reorganisation.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend Lord Arran visited Downe hospital and maternity unit last month. He recently received the Eastern health and social services board's strategy for general (acute) hospital services which
  661
  includes proposals concerning both those facilities. He intends to take until the end of February to consider any views which hon. Members and health and personal social services interests wish to put to him before taking final decisions on the strategy.

  Documents
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any correction to make to the text of any document placed in the Library and the Vote Office at the time when he made his statement on 29 November.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In rechecking the documentation some transcription and typing errors have come to light in the dossier of messages between the IRA and the Government which I placed in the Library and Vote Office on 29 November. I have placed in the Library and the Vote Office the corrected version of the dossier. A list of the necessary corrections appears at the beginning of the corrected versions of the dossier.

  These errors do not change the sense of the messages, but nonetheless they should be corrected. Parliament must have fully authentic documents. The errors arose from the speed with which the dossier had to be completed and checked in Northern Ireland on Sunday, after the decision that day that it should be published in Parliament the following day. The relevant corrections also apply to the quotations from the documents in my statement on 29 November.

  The corrections cast no doubt whatsoever upon the authenticity of the original message of 22 February from the IRA leadership, which I read out in my statement and which said
  "The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close".

  As I said in my statement, this came from Martin McGuinness. Equally, the Government—notwithstanding allegations by Sinn Fein to the contrary—has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the message sent by the IRA leadership on 2 November, which I also read to the House together with the Government's reply of 5 November.

  Nor does the need for corrections of the transcription errors in paragraph 3 of the nine paragraph note sent on 19 March carry any implication that it was the Government rather than the IRA leadership which was seeking advice. The advice referred to in that paragraph is the advice sought in the IRA message of 22 February. The speaking note accompanying the nine paragraph note, published in the dossier and first printed in the Observer, makes it entirely clear that the British message gives "substantive advice in response to the initial message", which is indeed the case.

  Although they do not carry the implications claimed, I very much regret that those corrections need to be made. I naturally accept full ministerial responsibility for the inaccuracies.

  The corrections have been notified to the House at the earliest opportunity. Copies of a letter to all Northern Ireland MPs and spokesmen, enclosing the list of corrections and the text, thus corrected, of the nine paragraph message from the British Government despatched on 19 March, were placed last night in the Library of the Vote Office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what studies the Sheehy inquiry employed(a) Ernst and Young and (b) Towers Perrin; and what was the cost thereof;

  (2) what budget limits were placed on the Sheehy inquiry;

  (3) if he will list in respect of the visits by the secretary to the Sheehy inquiry, Miss Jenny Rumble, to (a) Australia, (b) New Zealand, (c) the United States of America, (i) the dates of departure and return to the United Kingdom, (ii) the airline and seat class funded and used, (iii) the dates and police forces visited, (iv) the subjects studied, (v) the travel cost, (vi) the subsistence costs and (vii) other costs;

  (4) if he will list in respect of Mr. Caines's Sheehy inquiry trip to Australia, (a) the dates of departure and return to the United Kingdom, (b) the airline and seat class funded and used, (c) the dates and police forces visited, (d) the subjects studied, (e) the travel cost, (t) the subsistence costs and (g) other costs.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards spent £580,000 in 1992–93. Financial provision for the inquiry is £459,000 for 1993–94. The management of expenditure within these sums was the responsibility of the inquiry. The use made by the inquiry of consultancies is described in paragraphs 2.5 and 2.8 of its report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Kickstart Clubs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution his Department has made to the kickstart programme of Legal and General; and if he will promote moves towards a national network of kickstart clubs, in an attempt to steer youngsters away from crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office is providing £500,000 this year to the core running costs of Crime Concern, the national crime prevention organisation which has established the kickstart youth activity clubs, with funding from Legal and General. Crime Concern was specifically set up by the Government to seek sponsorship from the private sector for crime prevention projects.

  The kickstart scheme was launched nationally by Crime Concern on 14 May 1993. We fully support the work of Crime Concern in this area, and generally, to steer young people away from crime.

  South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit south Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no plans to visit south Yorkshire at present.

  Stolen Property
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total value of property recorded by police as stolen in 1991; what percentage of this was not recovered; and if he will make a statement.
  663
  Mr. Maclean
  The total value of property stolen recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1991 was £3·6 billion, of which 66 per cent. was not recovered.

  Crime
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded in Britain in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 5,591,717 notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1992. The figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent in 1991–92(a) in the criminal justice system on crime and (b) by the Home Office to prevent crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Public expenditure on the criminal justice system in England and Wales in 1991–92 was £8·7 billion. Of that sum, £5·4 billion was expenditure on the police, one of whose key functions is crime prevention. Estimated expenditure on all aspects of crime prevention was £167 million in that year, of which Home Office expenditure was £15·6 million.

  Strip Searching
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners in Great Britain have been subjected to forcible strip searching since March 1992.

  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 D. Lewis to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 2 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the forcible strip-searching of women prisoners.
  Prisons are not required to maintain statistics of the number of strip searches carried out.
  Strip-searching is a routine security measure carried out under the provisions of Rule 39 of the Prisons Rules 1964. The action that would follow a refusal to be searched would depend on the circumstances but in some situations there might be no alternative to the use of force.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who decides whether a convicted prisoner is placed in an open or closed prison.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 December 1993;
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about who decides whether a convicted prisoner is placed in an open or closed prison.
  Decisions about security category, including whether or not to place a prisoner in open conditions, are taken by the governor
  664
  holding the prisoner except in the case of category A prisoners and transfer of life sentence prisoners to open conditions. Decisions about category A prisoners are made at Prison Service headquarters. Life sentence prisoners may be moved to open prisons as part of their pre-discharge preparation. The decision to make a recommendation for such a transfer is taken at Prison Service headquarters and then referred for decision to Ministers.
  The criteria and procedures to be used in reaching decisions are set out in Circular Instructions 7/1988 and 2/1991, copies of which I recently sent to you and which are also available in the House of Commons Library.

  Male Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make male rape a formal legal offence.

  Mr. Maclean
  Non-consensual buggery of a male is already an offence under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, as qualified by the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce fines for the victims of car crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government have no such plans.

  While we shall continue to encourage car owners to take all reasonable security precautions, if their vehicles are stolen it must be the thieves who are held fully responsible for their crimes.

  Visas
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each country whose nationals will need a visa to enter the European Union under the proposals put forward on 24 November by the European Commission.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The European Commission has not yet published its proposals in respect of the list of countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the member states. When it does so, they will be made available to Parliament in accordance with the normal scrutiny arrangements.

  Mr. Tony Lundy
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis giving the total cost of investigating allegations made against ex-Detective Superintendent Tony Lundy by both the Metropolitan police and the South Yorkshire police; and if he will make a statement giving the reasons for the time taken to complete the investigations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These are matters for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the reported number of cases of vandalism in each of the police divisions covering the South Yorkshire area in each of the last four years, and the current year to date.
  665
  Mr. Maclean
  The available information by division relates to offences of arson and criminal damage and is published annually in the report of the chief constable of South Yorkshire. Copies of this publication are available in the Library.

  James Bulger Murder
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the length of time the two boys sentenced for the murder of James Bulger will be detained.

  Mr. Howard
  I have not yet received the views of the judiciary on this case. When I do, each offender will be informed, as soon as is reasonably practicable, of the substance of the judicial recommendations. The boys, or those acting on their behalf, will then be given the opportunity to submit written representations before I decide the period to be served for retribution and deterrence. My decision will be conveyed to the two boys —or their representatives—and, if it differs from the period recommended by the judiciary, reasons will be given.

  The arrangements for determining the period of custody which those convicted of murder are required to serve in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence were set out in my replies of 27 July, Official
  666
  Report, columns 863-65, and 4 November, Official Report, columns 376-78, to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).

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

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

  Males (Convictions)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of males have a conviction before the age of 35 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is estimated from the offenders index that 35 per cent. of males1 born in 1953 had a conviction for at least one offence on the "standard list"2 by the age of 35. Further information is published in "Digest 2: Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales", which is available in the Library.
  1Estimates from the Home Office offenders index covering all convictions for "standard list" offences since 1963. Results from the 1953 birth cohort sample.
  2 Mainly indictable offences but includes some summary offences such as assault on a constable and cruelty to or neglect of children.

  Custody
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total number of persons in custody in 1990, 1991 and 1992 who were(a) awaiting trial or (b) imprisoned in default of payment of fines.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 2 December 1993:
  Receptions of untried prisoners and fine defaulters
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the total number of persons in custody in 1990, 1991 and 1992 who were (a) awaiting trial or (b) imprisoned in default of payment of a fine.
  Information for 1990 and 1991 was published in the 1991 edition of "Prison statistics England and Wales" (Table 1.14 of the 1991 edition, Cm 2157) a copy of which is in the library. Information for 1992 is only currently available from 1 January to 31 August 1992. During this period 35,689 untried prisoners and 13,308 sentenced fine defaulters were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of hospital beds at each of the London prisons as of 22 November; and what was the number of prison inmates being held in each of these prison hospital wings on that date.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of available hospital beds at each of the London prisons on 22 November and the number of occupied on that date. The information requested is as follows:

  Number of beds

  Number of beds occupied

  HMP Belmarsh

  73

  47

  HMP Brixton

  66

  62

  HMYOI Feltham

  30

  26

  HMP Holloway

  86

  85

  HMP Pentonville

  26

  18

  HMP Wandsworth

  39

  36

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  51

  48

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to increase funding of(a) the victims support scheme in general and (b) Lewisham victim support scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Additional funding for Victim Support was included in the public expenditure plans presented to Parliament by my right hon. and learned Friend the 668
  Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30 November. The Home Office grant to Victim Support in 1994–95 is being increased by 20 per cent. to just over £10 million. Two further annual increases of 8 per cent. are planned, taking projected funding for 1995–96 and 1996–97 to £10·8 million and £11·7 million respectively.

  The allocation of the Home Office grant to local schemes and branches and the priorities which guide that allocation are matters for the Victim Support local funding panel, a sub-committee of Victim Support's national council.

  Deaths (Fires)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in(a) south-east London and (b) in the London borough of Lewisham died as a result of a fire in a bed-sitter or multi-tenant flats in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available centrally.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will carry out a review of licensing procedures in those cases where a lessee of a public house passes the lease and the licence to a holding company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Swansea Prison
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes are planned in prisoner numbers at Swansea prison over the next five years.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Alan Williams, dated 2 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether any changes are planned in prisoner numbers at Swansea prison over the next five years.
  The present certified normal accommodation of Swansea prison is 232 with an operational capacity of 285.
  Current plans for Swansea include an extension to D Wing and the building of a new houseblock.
  It is planned to close D Wing in March 1994 to enable work to commence on the redevelopment. Although there will be an initial loss of 78 operational capacity places, this is part of a wider plan to increase the overall operational capacity to 125. This work should be completed by June 1996.
  Work should then commence on the building of a new houseblock, providing an additional 70 single cells by March 1998.
  B Wing is programmed to close in December 1994 with a loss of 60 operational places.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the provision of modesty screening for Swansea prison; and if he will make a statement.
  669
  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Alan Williams, dated 2 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about representations he received about the provision of modesty screening for Swansea prison.
  Provision of 24 hour access to sanitation for prisoners at Swansea is part of the overall sanitation programme set out in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice". Given the high population and extensive refurbishment programme at Swansea, it was decided that simple sanitation would be the most appropriate system to install. This involves the installation of a toilet and washbasin in each two person cell, but without any modesty screening. Sixty cells, each accommodating two prisoners, have been converted to date. The bunk bed in the cell is positioned on the same side of the cell as the toilet.
  No representations have been received about the lack of modesty screening. It is understood that prisoners are generally content with the arrangement.

  Siemion Serafimowicz
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of the status of Siemion Serafimowicz as a resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not our practice to make public information from immigration records relating to individuals.

  Fraud Trials
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his response to the recommendations of Lord Roskill about the handling of fraud trials.

  Mr. Maclean
  The majority of the recommendations made by the Fraud Trials Committee, chaired by Lord Roskill, were accepted by the Government and implemented in the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

  The operation of that Act, and the handling of fraud trials generally, is kept under review. In particular, in June 1993, the Lord Chancellor's Department produced the interim report of the working group on long criminal trials, which examined ways of shortening and simplifying such trials, including fraud trials. The recommendations in that report are being considered alongside those made by the Royal Commission on criminal justice relating to the investigation, pre-trial arrangements and conduct of fraud trials. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General announced a review of the Serious Fraud Office and the fraud investigation group of the Crown Prosecution Service on 18 October.

  Sentences
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988 so that sentences in all cases can be referred to the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have already announced an intention to extend the scope of the Attorney-General's power to refer unduly lenient 670
  sentences to the Court of Appeal to incorporate the most serious sexual and violent offences that are triable either way. There are no plans to bring sentences in all cases within the scope of section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Refugees
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many refugees have been admitted to Britain from former Yugoslavia over the past year;

  (2) how many women from former Yugoslavia have been allowed into the United Kingdom as refugees (a) in their own right and (b) as dependants over the past year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the 12 months October 1992 to September 1993 inclusive around 4,500 nationals of the former Yugoslavia —excluding dependants—applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. The large majority of these applications are still under consideration and the applicants are being allowed to remain here in the meantime. Comprehensive data on the gender of these principal applicants are not yet available, but provisional data suggest that about 45 per cent. were female.

  Reliable information on dependants of these applicants is not yet available.

  In addition, we have announced that the United Kingdom is willing to accept 1,000 particularly vulnerable individuals—including ex-detainees—from Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia, together with their dependants, totalling perhaps 4,000 in all. As of 30 November 1993, around 450 particularly vulnerable individuals and 650 of their dependants have arrived since my initial announcement of these arrangements on 30 November 1992. Most dependants are wives and children. Also a small proportion of vulnerable individuals are women.

EMPLOYMENT

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 November to the hon. Member for Chingford, (Mr. Duncan Smith),Official Report, column 72, what was the voting record of member states at the meeting of the European Community's Social Affairs Council held on 23 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were no formal votes at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 23 November. However:on the draft directive on working time, the council reached final agreement with the United Kingdom abstaining;
  on the draft directive on young workers, the council agreed to a common position with Spain and Italy abstaining;
  on the draft directive on the protection of workers on board fishing vessels, the Council reached final agreement, with the United Kingdom and France abstaining; and
  a declaration to end the European Year of the Elderly and of solidarity between generations was agreed unanimously.

  Workstart
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed have taken up the workstart pilot scheme in Cornwall and Devon.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the period to 23 November, three long-term unemployed people had been placed in workstart supported employment. Originally Devon and Cornwall training and enterprise council, which is managing this pilot, used its own staff to identify suitable people from the target group for workstart jobs, but this has not worked well. There are difficulties in matching individuals to vacancies in an area as large as Devon and Cornwall.

  Following a discussion with Employment Department officials, the TEC has now agreed to work more closely with the employment service's wider network of local offices. This should improve performance in matching individual unemployed people to specific vacancies, which will in future identify suitable clients and match them with vacancies.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people living in(a) York travel-to-work area and (b) York parliamentary constituency who were registered unemployed at the most recent date for which data is available had been unemployed for (i) less than six months, (ii) between six and 12 months and (iii) more than 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Claimant Unemployment in York, by Duration (October 1993)

  Duration of Unemployment

  Travel-to-work area

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Up to 6 months

  3,688

  2,204

  Over 6 and up to 12 months

  1,351

  808

  Over 12 months

  2,043

  1,431

  Note—Claimant unemployment figures by duration are available on a quarterly basis for the months of January, April, July and October and are not adjusted for seasonal influences.

  Employment Service
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the outcome of interviews carried out by the Employment Service for (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94, showing the(a) number of adviser new claims taken, (b) number of administrative officers new claims taken, (c) total new claims not pursued, (d) first letters sent for main restart interview, (e) contact rate with restart interview client group, (f) main restart interviews carried out, (g) other interviews carried out, (h) caseload interviews carried out, (i) offers not made, (j) offers not accepted, (k) job placings, (l) EAS—business start-up—starts, (m) ET/TFW starts, (n) employment action starts, (o) other benefit starts, (p) sign offs as a direct result of client adviser action, (q) restart course starts, (r) jobplan workshop starts, (s) joblclub starts, (t) job interview guarantee starts, (u) job search seminar starts, (v) attended job referral service interviews and (w) job review workshop starts.
  672
  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 2 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 Questions to him about the outcome of interviews carried out by the Employment Service for (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94, showing the (a) number of adviser new claims taken, (b) number of administrative officers new claims taken, (c) total new claims not pursued, (d) first letters sent for main Restart interview, (e) contact rate with Restart interview client group, (f) main Restart interviews, (g) other interviews, (h) caseload interviews, (i) offers not made, (j) offers not accepted, (k) job placings, (l) EAS (Business Start Up) starts, (m) ET/TFW starts, (n) Employment Action starts, (o) other benefit starts, (p) sign offs as a direct result of client adviser action, (q) Restart Course starts, (r) Jobplan Workshop starts, (s) Jobclub starts, (t) Job Interview Guarantee starts, (u) Job Search Seminar starts, (v) attended Job Referral Service interviews and (w) Job Review Workshops starts. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It is important to recognise that these figures are only a partial indication of the effectiveness of advisory interviews. Equally important is the effect they have in causing people to leave the register earlier than they would otherwise have done.
  The attached table contains the information you requested. During the 1992–93 operational year all the information you asked for was collected and is represented in column 1 of the table. The Employment Service has changed its performance monitoring at national level for 1993–94 and the information for this year cannot be given in exactly the same format as the previous year. Information for April 1993 to October 1993 is shown in column 2 of the table.
  Notes at the foot of the table explain the differences in the information collected for each year.
  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.

  1

  2

  1992–93

  1993–94 (to October)

  EO New Claims Taken

  4·2 million

  1·3 million

  AO New Claims Taken

  270,000

  1·3 million

  Total New Claims Not Pursued

  481,000

  237,000

  1st Letters Sent (main Restart int)

  3·2 million

  2 million

  Contact Rate

  99 per cent.

  99 per cent.

  Main Restart interviews

  2·4 million

  1·6 million

  Other Restart Interviews1

  364,000

  302,400

  Caseload Restart Interviews

  87,000

  —

  Offers Not Made2

  419,000

  —

  Offers Not Accepted2

  438,000

  —

  Outcomes—All Advisory Interviews:3

  —

  —

  Job Placings

  112,000

  65,300

  EAS (Business Start Up) Starts

  12,300

  —

  ET/TFW Starts

  115,000

  —

  Employment Action Starts

  29,000

  —

  ED Programme Starts—client left register

  —

  85,000

  Other Benefit Starts

  104,000

  59,400

  Sign Offs—Result of CA Action

  78,300

  54,000

  Restart Course Starts

  116,460

  —

  Jobclub Starts

  142,617

  —

  JIG Starts

  50,340

  —

  Job Search Seminar Starts

  66,046

  —

  Attended Job Referral Service

  118,002

  —

  673

  1

  2

  1992–93

  1993–94 (to October)

  Job Review Workshop Starts

  32,755

  —

  ED Programme Starts—client remains on register

  —

  423,173

  1For 1993–94 this category includes Follow-Up and Caseload Restart Interviews.

  2Not Collected in 1993–94.

  3For 1993–94 starts on programmes are not collected individually but included in one of two categories.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Grace and Favour Apartments
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grace and favour apartments there are in(a) St. James's palace, (b) Kensington palace and (c) Windsor castle; to whom they are awarded; and which members of the royal family have apartments at each palace.

  Mr. Sproat
  There are 22 grace and favour residences at St. James's palace, 37 at Kensington palace and 122 at Windsor castle and the home park. Grace and favour apartments are awarded to royal household staff for the better performance of their duties.

  Members of the royal family have apartments or residences at each palace as follows:

  Windsor Castle

  - Her Majesty the Queen

  - His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh

  Royal Lodge, Windsor

  - Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

  St. James's Palace (including Clarence House and York House)

  - Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

  - The Prince of Wales

  - The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  - Princess Alexandra

  Kensington Palace

  - The Princess of Wales

  - Princess Margaret

  - Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

  - The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  - Prince and Princess Michael of Kent

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

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

  BBC Contracting
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will establish a public inquiry into BBC contracting.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. I am satisfied that the management of the BBC is well seized of the need for effective financial controls in all its areas of activity, and is able and willing to investigate and rectify any irregularities which may come to light.

  EC Cultural Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin),Official Report, column 57, what was the voting record of member states at the meeting of the European Community's Cultural Affairs Council held on 5 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  At the Cultural Affairs Council on 5 November, decisions and conclusions were reached by consensus. No votes were taken.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Official transport for Ministers is provided by the Government car service at an annual cost in 1992–93 of £453,917.

  Six vehicles are provided.

  Manchester United Supporters
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department received about the treatment by the Turkish police of supporters of Manchester United football club at the time of the club's recent European cup match in Turkey; what replies were given; what subsequent action was taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to complaints of violence used by Turkish police officers against the club's supporters and some of its players; how many people from Manchester complained of maltreatment by Turkish police officers and how many of them were charged with an offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs first raised our concern over events surrounding the football match, particularly those leading to British fans being detained, with the Turkish ambassador on 8 November. Our ambassador in Ankara also pressed the Turkish authorities for an early report. We have now sent the Turkish ambassador detailed allegations of mistreatment of British fans and tourists and asked for the Turkish authorities' comments.

  I am glad to say that the six fans who were detained were unconditionally released on 30 November and that the Turkish authorities are to hold a judicial inquiry into the events.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on when he expects a referendum will be held on the future of the western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Secretary-General states in his latest report dated 24 November that he hopes that the referendum will take place in mid-1994 subject to the co-operation of both parties.
  675
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Government of Morocco are co-operating with United Nations attempts to hold a free and fair referendum in the western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Secretary-General's latest report makes no criticism of the co-operation he has received from either Morocco or the Polisario Front, but he has stressed that their continued co-operation is essential if the referendum is to be held next year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco about the future government of the western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have used our contacts with both sides to this dispute to urge full co-operation with the United Nations Secretary-General in the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the United Nations Special Representative to the western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative reports to Mr. Boutros Ghali. The Secretary-General's latest report was issued on 24 November.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the number of Moroccan troops in western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no information on the precise numbers of Moroccan troops in the western Sahara.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about recent settlement in western Sahara by Moroccans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no reliable information about recent settlement in the western Sahara by Moroccans.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether United Nations troops in western Sahara have the necessary freedom to undertake their mission successfully.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary-General's latest report pays tribute to the military personnel of the United Nations mission for the referendum in the western Sahara —MINURSO—for the contribution they have made to the maintenance of the ceasefire in western Sahara. It contains no suggestion that they lack the necessary freedom to undertake their duties successfully.

  European Community and Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the use of the terms(a) European Community and (b) European Union.
  676
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Community—which was formerly the European Economic Community —continues in being and also includes the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Together, these Communities constitute one of the "pillars" of the Union. Government policy is to use the term "European Community" when describing matters specific to that pillar and to use the term "European Union" when referring to all three pillars collectively or to matters specific to the two intergovernmental pillars outside the Community.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what recent international meetings he has raised the crisis in Nigeria; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have been consulting closely our partners in the European Union, and in the wider international community. The European Union has decided to press the new regime to take urgent steps to restore democratic rule, unhindered by the military, and has reached agreement on measures to add to those imposed by the European Community last June.

  We fully support the position of the European Union. The new measures will be implemented nationally as follows:
  the movement of Nigerian defence staff outside London will in future be restricted without prior permission;
  new export licence applications for defence equipment to Nigeria will be reviewed; on a case-by-case basis, with the presumption of denial;
  those Nigerian military students still on courses in the United Kingdom will be asked to leave;
  the offer by ODA of a £23 million grant for the power sector will be withdrawn.

  The measures imposed by the United Kingdom on 24 June will remain in place.

  We will keep the situation in Nigeria under close review and will modify these measures, or add to them, in the light of progress towards the establishment of democratic civilian rule.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1993,Official Report, column 79, (1) if he will consult widely with interested bodies concerned with human rights before writing and submitting the United Kingdom's next report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in August 1994;

  (2) what opportunities are available for nongovernmental organisations and hon. Members to submit evidence to his Department prior to the writing and submission of the United Kingdom's next report to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in August 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Periodic reports in the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which are submitted in accordance with article 40 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, are a factual account of the measures taken by the Government to give effect to the rights recognised in the covenant. As such, we do not look to those outside Government to submit evidence or otherwise contribute to

  677
  the writing of the reports. But non-governmental organisations, hon. Members and others are consulted widely in the formulation of the policies recorded in these reports.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 November,Official Report, column 79, if he will place in the Library a draft of the United Kingdom's next report to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations prior to its submission in August 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with our usual practice, a copy of the United Kingdom's fourth report will be placed in the Library on the day that it is submitted to the Committee.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress under the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for people of ethnic minority origin.

  Mr. David Davis
  There has been further progress this year; the proportion of ethnic minority staff in the civil service continues to rise. A report summarising progress during 1992–93 is being published today. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Council for Science and Technology
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many social scientists are members of the Council for Science and Technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No social scientists are members of the Council for Science and Technology. Council members were chosen in their personal capacities to provide a top-level overview of science and technology issues, rather than for expertise in specific areas, or as representatives of particular sectors.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Westminster Customer Care
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the expected cost of teaching staff at Westminster Customer Care.

  Mr. Beith
  I have been asked to reply as the Member answering for the House of Commons Commission.

  The cost of the customer care training programme for the Serjeant at Arms Department was met from that Department's training budget for which the overall figure was £20,000 in 1993–94. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to write to the hon. Member with the details.

  Palace of Westminster
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will itemise the changes made within the Palace of Westminster during 678
  the summer recess with the precise cost of each and the names of those who authorised them and agreed to their cost.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 27 October,Official Report, column 667.

  Members' Rooms
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many of the rooms available to hon. Members are available to office holders; and which office holders are so accommodated.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Deputy Speakers, Government Ministers, the Government Whips, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Cabinet, the Opposition Whips, the leader of the third party, the third-party Whips and the Whips of other parliamentary parties occupy a total of 93 rooms or suites of rooms.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money the Government have saved by not conducting any nuclear tests at the Nevada test site in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish costs associated with the testing of British nuclear weapons.

  Polaris
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the figure given for the annual operation and maintenance costs of Polaris to the Defence Committee on 30 January 1985, HC 37 (1984–85), p159, 935, included(a) the cost of refits, (b) a share of the running costs of the Clyde submarine base, Faslane, (c) manpower and related costs of the crew and associated civilian staff, (d) a share of the intramural and extramural running costs of the atomic weapons establishments and (e) the cost of stores, personnel and the transport of stores.

  Mr. Hanley
  It would not be possible to carry out a detailed examination of the basis for the figure given in 1985 without incurring disproportionate cost.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident that occurred at AWE Aldermaston recently involving a leak of uranium contaminated oil from a machine used for manufacturing weapons components.

  Mr. Aitken
  During routine operations in a workshop at AWE Aldermaston, a small quantity of coolant spilled from a machine used for making weapons components. The coolant, which was contaminated with uranium from normal machining operations, was immediately contained and safely disposed of. There was no release of material beyond the immediate area surrounding the machine and no contamination of personnel occurred. There was no risk to the public or the environment from the incident.
  679
  In the interests of safety the machine, and a small number of similar machines, were immediately isolated and taken out of service. Remedial action to remove the contaminated material to safe storage has now been completed. The Health and Safety Executive was informed about the incident and issued two prohibition notices. The machines concerned will not be brouġht back into use until the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that adequate
  safety arrangements are in place.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the sludge solidification plant at AWE Aldermaston to become fully operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  We expect the plant to be fully operational in 1997.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident that occurred at AWE Aldermaston on 11 November in the liquid treatment plant.

  Mr. Aitken
  During routine monitoring operations a higher than normal level of radioactive material was detected in a storage tank in the liquid effluent treatment plant, at AWE Aldermaston. The material has been disposed of in a safe and controlled manner, but as a precaution, employees and contractors' personnel were temporarily excluded from the immediate vicinity of the effluent plant. The remainder of the site continued to operate normally and there was no risk to personnel, the public or the environment.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects red commissioning of the A90 plant at AWE Aldermaston to commence.

  Mr. Aitken
  White commissioning is progressing well. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on red commissioning in the next few months.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what form and quantity barium is used by the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  Elemental barium is not used at AWE Aldermaston; varying quantities of barium compounds are used for experimental and analytical purposes.

  Trident
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technical difficulties are involved in adapting the Trident missile system so it may carry anything between one and eight nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much liquid radioactive waste was dealt with by the present liquid radioactive waste treatment plant at AWE Aldermaston during 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  The amount of liquid radioactive waste treated at AWE Aldermaston during 1992 was 12,450 m3.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much liquid radioactive waste is expected to be dealt with by the new A91 building at Aldermaston when it becomes fully operational.
  680
  Mr. Aitken
  The specification for the A91 plant is based upon an annual throughput of 15,000 m3 per annum. However, it is expected that waste minimisation initiatives will reduce the annual throughput to 10,000 m3 per annum by the time the plant becomes operational.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown for(a) Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment, (b) Burghfield atomic weapons establishment, (c) Cardiff atomic weapons establishment, (d) Devonport dockyard, (e) Rosyth dockyard, (f) CSB Faslane and (g) RNAD Coulport of individual radiation dose exposures for workers in the bands (i) 0 to 10, (ii) 10 to 15, (iii) 15 to 20, (iv) 20 to 30, (v) 30 to 40 and (vi) greater than 40 mSv for the year 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is given in the following tables. It is not possible to split the band 0 to 15 into 0 to 10 and 10 to 15 in respect of Devonport and Rosyth dockyards, CSB Faslane and RNAD Coulport. There are no workers who have received doses greater than 10 or 15 mSv respectively.

  Atomic weapons establishment sites

  Exposure (mSv) 0 to 10

  AWE (A)

  3,132

  AWE (B)

  220

  AWE (C)

  157

  Other sites

  Exposure (mSv) 0 to 15

  Devonport dockyard

  1,188

  Rosyth dockyard

  1,153

  CSB Faslane

  309

  RNAD Coulport

  272

  Al Yamamah Contract
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Al Yamamah contract in relation to the future of Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd.

  Mr. Aitken
  Sub-contracts under the Al-Yamamah programme are a matter for British Aerospace as prime contractor to the Ministry of Defence.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice about protection was offered to service personnel exposed to radiation during British nuclear tests since 1963; what additional or different advice is given by his Department to service pesonnel in the same circumstances today; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Stringent safety regulations were published by, or on behalf of, the Ministry of Supply and were promulgated in HM Forces orders for each atmospheric nuclear test. These were strictly enforced under normal HM forces command and disciplinary arrangements. The successful implementation of these
  681
  regulations is shown by MOD records which demonstrate that test participants were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. This is confirmed by the lack of any excess of death or malignant disease among nuclear test veterans subsequently.

  As the United Kingdom no longer conducts atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and has not done so since 1958, the MOD no longer has a need to promulgate such advice to service personnel.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why there is a discrepancy between his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 291-92, on the date unrestricted access to the Department's archives in the Public Records Office in Hayes will be possible and the reply sent to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) by the Benefits Agency war pensions directorate based on information from the war pension disablement liaison officer to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  While the date for unrestricted access to the whole of the Hayes archive was correctly stated by the War Pensions Directorate as February, now slipped to March 1994, priority is being given to the section holding service documents to which full access will be possible in December.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when additional cold weather personal equipment was sent to British forces in the former Yugoslavia; when the stores were received at Split; how many truck loads they represent; what prioritisation for this equipment was sought by BRITFOR HQ; when the equipment will be delivered to personnel in central Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Additional cold weather clothing was issued from the United Kingdom on 29 October and 1 November. It arrived in Croatia on 5 November and was cleared by Croatian customs on 8 November. The clothing consignment consisted of three 20 ft containers and was accorded due priority by BRITFOR HQ, consistent with other operational requirements at the time. The equipment was delivered to central Bosnia on 27 November.

  Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes (NAAFI)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) serving officers and (b) other ranks serve on the board of NAAFI.

  Mr. Hanley
  The board of NAAFI includes three serving officers, one for each service who are appointed in a non-executive capacity to represent the interests of the services. There are no other ranks on the board.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with James Rucker, the managing director of NAAFI, about his letter to Aims of Industry of 14 March 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will dismiss James Rucker as managing director of NAAFI.
  682
  Mr. Hanley
  There are no grounds for doing so.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants from his Department serve on the board of NAAFI.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Customer Hospitality (Guidelines)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines are given to civil servants in his Department in accepting hospitality from defence industry customers.

  Mr. Aitken
  Guidelines are given in staff regulations and in instructions issued annually. They explain that crown servants should not be placed in a position where their actions might give the impression that they may have been or might be influenced to show favour or disfavour to any person or organisation.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of his Department to next steps agencies joining Aims of Industry.

  Mr. Aitken
  Next steps agencies remain part of their parent Department and it would be inappropriate therefore for them to join organisations which promote particular developments in Government policies.

  Vickers Defence Systems
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his civil servants accepted invitations from Vickers Defence Systems to attend Twickenham on Saturday 27 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  From time to time companies invite members of staff to attend a variety of functions. Acceptance of such invitations is covered by official guidelines. A total of one civilian and four military members of Ministry of Defence staff attended Twickenham on Saturday 27 November as guests of Vickers Defence Systems.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Cambodia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the funds that the British Government have committed to Cambodia in 1993–94 through the United Nations have actually been released; and how the funds have been disbursed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government have committed $1·2 million of financial assistance through the United Nations in 1993–94. We provided $1 million of budgetary aid to the United Nations Secrtary-General's fund to help meet the costs of civil administration in the interim period prior to the establishment of a constitutional Government. We have pledged $0·2 million to a United Nations
  683
  development programme trust fund to enable the Cambodia mine action centre—CMAC— to continue mine clearance operations; expenditure arrangements are being finalised with the United Nations development programme.

  We are also co-financing two on-going health projects with the United Nations through' UNDP. These are concerned with strengthening Cambodia's health systems, and controlling malaria and will cost an estimated £450,000 in 1993–94.

  In addition, the United Kingdom contributes 6·373 per cent. on the United Nations scale of assessment to United Nations peacekeeping operations. The final calls for payment for the liquidation phase of UNTAC have yet to issue, but for the financial year 1993–94 the total United Kingdom assessed contribution is expected to be £17·59 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield were discussed in his recent meetings with(a) Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway and (b) Chancellor Kohl of Germany.

  The Prime Minister
  In my recent meetings with Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway and Chancellor Kohl of Germany, we discussed a range of issues.

  Iraq (Weapons)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the evidence given to the Scott inquiry in relation to the former Prime Minister's answer of 21 April 1989,Official Report, column 311.

  The Prime Minister
  No. While Lord Justice Scott's inquiry continues, it would not be right to comment on any of the evidence that has so far been taken.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Food Labelling
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding EC food labelling for products made and sold solely in Scotland; what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts regarding the subject; if his Department will investigate the effect of EC food labelling on the Scottish market; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations on this matter. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department works closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in EC discussions on food labelling; and interested parties in Scotland are consulted on all EC food labelling issues prior to any legislation being made.

  Scottish Nuclear
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations underlay his decision to discourage Scottish Nuclear from providing issue specific information to the public on its operations.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend does not discourage Scottish Nuclear from providing information to the public.

  Ethnic Minority Grant
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his Department's criteria for the allocation of the annual ethnic minority grant of £100,000; and who the advisers are on the eligibility of the applicants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The decision on which projects should be awarded ethnic minority grant is taken by Ministers following consideration of the applications. Competitions are held regularly and any voluntary organisation can submit a project which meets the scheme's objectives of reducing racial disadvantage and promoting racial equality.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the rules regarding succession of tenancy for discount purposes in the purchase of council houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The legislative provisions governing the succession of a tenancy and the calculation of discount for the purchase of a council house are set out in sections 52 and 61 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 as amended.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his consideration of the remaining third wave NHS trust applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Following the announcement by my noble and learned Friend, the Minister of State, on 15 October nine applications for trust status have been under consideration. These involve the Glasgow Royal infirmary, Western infirmary and Gartnavel hospitals, Stobhill, Inverclyde Royal, Renfrewshire Healthcare, Queen Margaret hospital Dunfermline, Kirkcaldly Acute hospitals, Angus unit and the Highland Communities unit.

  My right hon. Friend has considered the applications very carefully, taking into account the comments made during the public consultations. He has concluded that they meet the published criteria and should be approved. Orders establishing the trusts are being signed today and the new trusts will become operational on 1 April 1994. This will bring the total number of trusts in Scotland at that date to 39.

  Operating within the national health service, the trusts, between them, will be responsible for approximately 90 per cent. of hospital and community health services in Scotland. As the longer established trusts have already demonstrated, they will be able to develop services of a more local character and better adapted to meet patient needs. This augurs well for the health service in Scotland.
  685
  The latest batch of trust approvals also means that four health boards will join Grampian and Ayrshire and Arran in no longer having day-to-day operational responsibilities for hospitals in their areas. This will allow these boards to concentrate on their crucial role of determining the health needs of those in their area, securing services to meet those needs, and monitoring the services provided.

  Urology Contract
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on contracts between the Ayrshire and Arran health board and the Dumfries and Galloway health board before the award by the former board of a contract for urology services;

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]: There is no contract between Ayrshire and Arran health board and Dumfries and Galloway health board for urology—or any other service—for services to Dumfries and Galloway residents. Any contract for services to residents of Dumfries and Galloway is a matter for Dumfries and Galloway health board in conjuction with whichever NHS trust, directly managed unit or other provider from which that board chooses to purchase services.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the re-submitted bids tendered for the urology contract in Ayrshire and Arran were amended by the Ayrshire and Arran health board before a final decision on the bids.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]: Prior to consideration by the health board, the evaluation panel re-arranged figures in both bids, to ensure a "like for like" comparison in the preparation of its evaluation report. There was no question, however, of the health board itself amending any of the bids before a final decision was taken.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: I have made four overseas visits during 1993:

  Destination

  Date

  Cost£

  Brussels

  25 January

  389

  United States

  25-27 March

  4,690

  Brussels

  20-21 September

  480

  Far East (Hong Kong, Korea and Japan)

  14-23 October

  8,860

  The visits to the United States and the far east involved inward investment and trade promotion. The visits to Brussels were to attend the Joint Foreign Affairs and Agriculture Council and the Transport and Environmental Council. Costs include travel, accommodation, local transportation and interpreting service, where applicable.

  Golf
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Golf Union to discuss the role of golf in Scotland;686
  what is his most recent estimate of the revenue that golf in Scotland attracts from inward investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: My right hon. Friend and I have no immediate plans to meet any representatives of the Scottish Golf Union to discuss any aspect of the game of golf. I would, of course, be only too willing to meet with the Scottish Golf Union to discuss any matters of mutual interest if a request for a meeting was made to me. It is not possible to quantify the revenue that golf in Scotland attracts from inward investment, but it is obviously a very considerable sum.

  Motorways
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last assessed the level of disruption caused by unmanned roadworks on the main motorway routes between London and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: My right hon. Friend is responsible for the trunk road network in Scotland, where roadworks are subject to the code of practice set out in "The Reduction of Delays of Roadworks" issued by the Scottish Office in 1992. The operational effect of all roadworks on the trunk road network, including motorways, in Scotland is monitored on the basis of fortnightly reports provided by the regional councils, as agent authorities, for the roads directorate of the Scottish Office Industry Department.

  A key element in the efforts to reduce delays has been the introduction of lane rental on major maintenance contracts on the strategic core network. Under lane rental the contractor pays for the length of time traffic lanes or carriageways are closed and effectively receives a bonus for early completion or conversely incurs a penalty if the contract overruns. This has led to significant reductions in the time taken to complete roadworks and has minimised delays and inconvenience to road users.

  Disabled Employees
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many disabled people in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde currently benefit from the special aids to employment scheme; and how many disabled people he expects to lose their jobs once employers have to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of special aids in the work place.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: The numbers of disabled people receiving benefit from the special aids to employment scheme in Inverclyde and Strathclyde respectively are: (a) 2; (b) 68. Changes to the Employment Service's current special schemes for helping people with disabilities, and which include the introduction of a limited employers' contribution, to provide help for existing employees who have worked for them for more than six months, are aimed at helping more people with disabilities to get and retain jobs and at making a much wider range of help available. The Employment Service is currently finalising details of these changes with these aims in mind.

  NHS Land
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of acres owned by the national health service for each of the past 14 years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: Figures for each of the past 14 years are not held centrally in the form requested. The available information, excluding the state hospital and the health education board for Scotland, is as follows:

  Period

  Acres

  December 1989

  10,009

  July 1990

  9,415

  December 1990

  9,503

  March 1992

  8,766

  September 1992

  8,840

  This information is taken from reports on national health service vacant and surplus property by the Scottish health management efficiency group.

  Earnings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average weekly earnings for(a) full-time male workers and (b) full-time female workers in (i) Inverclyde, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: Information relating to average gross weekly earnings for full-time male employees and full-time female employees in Strathclyde and Scotland is shown in the table. Information relating to average earnings is not available below the level of Scottish regions.

  Table 1

  Of which:

  Proposals lodged 1 April 1993–30 September 1993

  Withdrawn by appellant

  List adjusted by assessor

  Still to be dealt with

  Proceeding as appeals to valuation appeal committee

  Proposals

  a. Strathclyde

  32,975

  1,704

  7,507

  23,764

  0

  b. Scotland

  75,629

  3,255

  10,863

  60,774

  737

  Table 2

  Of which:

  Appeals cited to be heard

  Withdrawn by appellant before hearing

  List adjusted by assessor before hearing

  Heard and resolved

  Still to be dealt with

  Appeals

  a. Strathclyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  b. Scotland

  737

  152

  145

  16

  424

  Table 3

  Analysis of proposals/appeals settled: time taken from date of lodgement of proposal until settlement

  Within 1 month

  Within 1-2 months

  Within 2-3 months

  Within 3-4 months

  Within 4-5 months

  Within 5-6 months

  Total

  Proposals/Appeals resolved without hearing

  a. Strathclyde

  1,019

  1,874

  2,541

  2,683

  1,054

  40

  9,211

  b. Scotland

  1,394

  2,352

  3,491

  4,248

  2,485

  445

  14,415

  688

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates

  Males £

  Females £

  Strathclyde

  326·6

  240·6

  Scotland

  333·0

  237·4

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1993

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals against banding under the council tax have been made in the current year in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland; what is the average length of time taken to hear such appeals; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The process of requesting a change to the council tax valuation list involves two stages. First, a proposal is lodged with the assessor's department. If the proposal cannot be resolved it proceeds as an appeal to the Valuation Appeal Committee. Proposals unresolved after six months are automatically cited for appeal. The tables set out the relevant available information supplied by assessors to the Scottish Office on proposals and appeals up to end-September 1993. Tables 1 and 2 show the outcome of proposals lodged. Table 3 shows the time taken to settle those proposals and appeals that have been settled; this includes cases where proposals are withdrawn by the appellant or the valuation list is adjusted by the assessor as well as cases decided by an appeal committee.

  No information is collected centrally as to how many appeals are successful since it is not clear what that would mean in each case. It must be assumed that in all cases where an appellant withdraws his or her proposal or the assessor adjusts the valuation list then an agreed outcome has been reached.
  689

  Within 1 month

  Within 1-2 months

  Within 2-3 months

  Within 3-4 months

  Within 4-5 months

  Within 5-6 months

  Total

  Appeals cited and heard:

  a. Strathclyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  b. Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  14

  16

  "Scotland's Children"
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which elements of the White Paper, "Scotland's Children" he intends to bring forward into legislation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]: The care of children calls for a clear and coherent legislative framework and a Bill which takes forward the proposals in the White Paper should be seen as an important first step towards a consolidation of law relating to children, besides including such important subjects as the emergency protection of children including the proposed exclusion order; the extension of local authorities' existing social welfare duties; the revision of the statutory authority for the transfer of parental rights; the duties of local authorities towards children in their care; and various provisions to strengthen the children's hearings system. Work is proceeding on these topics and others which involve central guidance. They will be the subject of further consultation, as appropriate.

HEALTH

  Prescriptions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a general practitioner may prescribe a substance on a private prescription where to do so would be cheaper for a patient than getting the same prescription on an NHS prescription.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A general practitioner can offer patients the choice of between receiving a prescription on the national health service or purchasing an over the counter product themselves if the cost of the product is cheaper than the NHS prescription charge. Of course, many people are exempt from prescription charges and the GP could be regarded in breach of his terms of service if this point were overlooked. If an NHS patient requests a private prescription the GP is not precluded from providing one but may not charge a fee. The costs of dispensing a private prescription would have to be met by the patients.

  Suicide
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to the relationship between anti-depressants and suicide deaths broken down by individual drug.

  Mr. Bowis
  Suicide deaths and undetermined deaths involving poisoning by an anti-depressant drug are shown in the tables, which are derived from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Mortality Statistics: Injury and Poisoning for England and Wales" (Series DH4 No. 17), copies of which are available in the Library. In many cases the anti-depressant was taken in combination with or in addition to another type of drug.690

  Deaths by Poisoning-Suicide-England and Wales 1991 by Anti-depressant Drugs (Anti-depressant shown in bold)

  Drug

  Number of Persons

  Aftershave dettol lofepramine

  11

  Amitriptyline

  36(51)

  Amitriptyline chloral hydrate

  1(11)

  Amitriptyline chloral hydrate chlorpromazine

  1

  Amitriptyline chlorpromazine

  1

  Amitriptyline chlorpromazine procyclidine

  1

  Amitriptyline codeine

  1

  Amitriptyline desmethyldothiepin dothiepin nortriptyline

  1

  Amitriptyline diazepam dothiepin

  1

  Amitriptyline dihydrocodeine

  1

  Amitriptyline lofepramine

  1

  Amitriptyline nortriptyline

  1

  Amitriptyline paracetamol

  1

  Amitriptyline paracetamol salicylate (Nos)2

  1(11)

  Amitriptyline temazapam

  5(11)

  Amitriptyline theophylline

  1

  Amitriptyline thioridazine

  2

  Amitriptyline trifluoperazine

  1

  Amitriptyline oxazepam

  1

  Amitriptyline Soldapeine

  1

  Amoxapine

  1(11)

  Amoxapine chlorpromazine

  1

  Amoxapine tranylcypromine

  1

  Amylobarbitone dothiepin quinalbarbitone

  1

  Anadin extra co-proxamol lofepramine Prothiaden

  1(11)

  Benzodiazepine (Nos) dothiepin temazepam

  1(11)

  Benzodiazepine (Nos) opiate (Nos) paracetamol propoxyphene tricyclic antidepressant(Nos)

  1

  1 Benzodiazepine (Nos) tricyclic antidepressant(Nos)

  1(11)

  Butriptyline desalkyflurazepam paracetamol Prothiaden

  1

  Caffeine Prothiaden paracetamol salicylate (Nos) temazepam

  1(11)

  Chlormethiazole dothiepin trimipramine

  1

  Chlorpromazine dothiepin procyclidine

  1

  Chlorpromazine imipramine

  1

  Clomipramine

  1

  Clomipramine dextropropoxyphene paracetamol

  1

  Co-proxamol dothiepin

  2

  Co-proxarnol imipramine

  1

  Codeine dothiepin salicylate (Nos.)

  1

  Desipramine imipramine terodiline

  1

  Desmethyldothiepin dothiepin temazapam

  1

  Dextropropoxyphene Fluoxetine norfluoxetine paracetamol thioridazine

  1

  Dextropropoxyphene paracetamol Prothiaden

  1

  Diazepam diothiepin

  3

  Diazepam imipramine

  1

  Diazepam Prothiaden

  1(11)

  Dicamba Herbicide dothiepin

  1

  Dihydrocodeine dothiepin

  1

  Distalgesic dothiepin

  1

  Disulfiram dothiepin nitrazepam thioridazine

  1

  Dothiepin (Prothiaden-31)

  87(71)

  Dothiepin desmethyldothiepin norpropoxyphene paracetamol propoxyphene temazepam

  1

  Dothiepin doxepin thioridazine Veganin

  1

  Dothiepin naftidrofuryl temazepam terodiline trimethoprim

  1

  Dothiepin nortriptyline

  1

  Dothiepin paracetamol

  2

  Dothiepin paracetamol temazepam

  1

  Dothiepin prochlorperazine

  1

  Dothiepin propoxyphene

  1

  Dothiepin temazepam

  2

  691

  Drug

  Number of Persons

  Dothiepin Eltroxin

  1

  Doxepin

  3

  Faverin temazepam

  1

  Fluoxetine

  1

  Gamanil

  1

  Imipramine

  10(11)

  Imipramine paracetamol temazapam

  1

  Impramine temazapan

  1

  Ludiomil

  1

  Morphine Prothiaden

  1

  Motival

  1

  Nitrazepam Tryptizol

  1(11)

  Nortriptyline

  1

  Nortriptyline Stelazine

  1

  Paracetamol trycyclic antidepressant (Nos.)

  1

  Paracetamol Prothiaden

  2

  Phenothiazine Prothiaden

  1

  Prothiaden sinequan

  1

  Salicylate (Nos.) trimipramine

  1

  Sertraline

  1(11)

  Trazodone

  1

  Tricyclic Antidepressant (Nos.)

  1

  Trimipramine (Surmontil-1)

  4(11)

  Triptafen

  1

  Tryprizol

  1

  Viloxazine

  1

  Total

  230(261)

  1 Number of deaths with mention of alcohol.

  2 Nos=Not otherwise stated ie refers to drugs within a particular sub-group— eg tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, salicyclates, etc., which are not separately identified in the table.

  Deaths by Poisoning—Undetermined whether Accidentally or Purposely 1nflicted —England and Wales 1991 by Anti-Depressant Drugs (Anti-Depressant shown in bold)

  Drug

  Number of Persons

  Amitriptyline

  25(31)

  Amitriptyline aspirin benzodiazepine (Nos) codeine temazapam

  1

  Amitriptyline carbomazepine

  1

  Amitriptyline chlorpromazine

  2

  Amitriptyline codeine

  1

  Amitriptyline dextropropoxyphene paracetamol

  1

  Amitriptyline diazepam

  2

  Amitriptyline diazepam methadone thioridazine

  1(11)

  Amitriptyline dihydrocodeine

  2

  Amitriptyline lithium temazepam

  1

  Amitriptyline methadone thioridazine

  1

  Amitriptyline nortriptyline

  2

  Amitriptyline paracetamol

  2(11)

  Amoxapine

  2

  Amphetamine dothiepin

  1

  Artane Piportil Prothiaden

  1

  Aspirin dothiepin

  1

  Baclofen buprenorphine Celevac clomiparine indomethacin nitrazepam

  1

  Benzodiazepine (Nos) dihydrocodeine dothiepin

  1

  Carbamazepine dothiepin

  1

  Carbamazepine phenothiazine Prothiaden

  1(11)

  Chloral Hydrate chlordiazepoxide trazodone

  1

  Chlordiazepoxide Parnate propranolol

  1

  Chlormethiazole Prothiaden

  1(11)

  Chlorpromazine clomipramine paracetamol procyclidine

  1

  Clomipramine

  1

  692

  Drug

  Number of persons

  Clomipramine diazepam paracetamol temazepam

  1(11)

  Clomipramine procyclidine

  1

  Co-proxamol dothiepin

  1

  Codeine dothiepin paracetamol

  1

  Desipramine

  1

  Desipramine ibuprofen paracetamol procyclidine temazepam

  1

  Dextropropoxyphene dothiepin

  1

  Diazepam doxepin

  1(11)

  Dihydrocodeine dothiepin

  1

  Distalgic Prothiaden

  1

  Dothiepin (Prothiaden-31)

  62(51)

  Dothiepin haloperidol Modecate procyclidine

  1

  Dothiepin paracetamol

  2(11)

  Dothiepin propoxyphene

  1

  Dothiepin thioridazine

  1

  Fluoxetine Prothiaden

  1

  Imipramine

  9(11)

  Imipramine paracetamol

  1

  Imipramine salicylate (nos)

  1

  Imipramine temazapam

  1

  Nortriptyline

  1

  Prothiaden temazepam

  1

  Sulpiride trimipramine

  1

  Trimipramine

  1(11)

  Trimiparine trimiparzine

  1

  Total

  151(171)

  1 Number of deaths with mention of alcohol.

  Nos=Not otherwise stated i.e. refers to drugs within a particular sub-group—eg tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, salicyclates, etc., which are not separately identified in the table.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what point a complaint under the patients charter concerning the right of a patient to a clear explanation of a proposed treatment, including any risks or alternatives, becomes a complaint concerning clinical judgment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  If there is a complaint that a health professional in the exercise of clinical judgment did not provide an explanation of a proposed treatment, including risks or alternatives, then it is a complaint concerning clinical judgment from the moment it is made, since the decision on how much information to provide to a patient, and the terms in which any warning of any risks is given prior to treatment is a clinical decision.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients and other mentally ill people(a) under 65 and (b) over 65 years are provided with beds or places in each type of accommodation illustrated in figure 2 of the Yates report by short and long stay.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally for all the types of accommodation shown in figure 2 of the Yates report. The information forstaffed residential care homes is shown in the table.
  693

  Residents in Staffed Residential Homes Caring Primarily for Mentally Ill People By Sector, Age and Length of Stay: 31 March 1987 to 31 March 1992

  England

  Local Authority

  Voluntary Homes

  Private Homes

  All Homes

  Under 65

  65 and over

  Under 65

  65 and over

  Under 65

  65 and over

  Under 65

  65 and over

  Long Stay

  1987

  1,452

  2,558

  686

  261

  1,260

  1,805

  3,398

  4,624

  1988

  1,585

  2,607

  1,009

  537

  1,941

  3,814

  4,535

  6,958

  1989

  1,574

  2,907

  1,308

  574

  2,557

  4,103

  5,439

  7,584

  1990

  1,610

  2,870

  1,632

  733

  3,102

  4,732

  6,344

  8,335

  1991

  1,603

  2,819

  2,051

  820

  3,506

  4,804

  7,160

  8,443

  1992

  1,529

  2,569

  2,408

  1,079

  3,865

  5,247

  7,802

  8,895

  Short Stay

  1987

  183

  145

  146

  27

  58

  30

  385

  202

  1988

  283

  148

  189

  20

  91

  100

  563

  266

  1989

  269

  199

  245

  10

  105

  27

  619

  236

  1990

  230

  173

  254

  8

  143

  14

  627

  195

  1991

  259

  219

  157

  10

  108

  18

  524

  247

  1992

  271

  182

  285

  27

  142

  16

  698

  225

  Source: DH Return RAC5.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the figures are for the different types of provision illustrated in figure
  3 of the Yates report.

  Mental illness available beds—places: England

  Local Authority mentally ill and elderly mentally ill places

  Voluntary mentally ill and elderly mentally ill places

  Private-mentally ill and elderly mentally ill places

  Private hospital beds

  NHS other beds

  NHS main hospital beds

  1982

  4,173

  1,603

  764

  1,994

  15,145

  68,555

  1983

  4,242

  1,693

  865

  2,394

  16,276

  65,362

  1984

  4,363

  1,952

  1,219

  2,176

  16,969

  61,795

  1985

  4,470

  2,134

  1,731

  2,340

  17,730

  57,967

  1986

  7,549

  2,377

  4,151

  3,165

  18,771

  53,434

  1987–88

  7,568

  2,640

  6,959

  4,507

  22,657

  44,470

  1988–89

  7,916

  2,648

  7,680

  5,862

  19,712

  43,287

  1989–90

  7,584

  3,080

  9,066

  7,693

  20,415

  38,875

  1990–91

  7,715

  3,508

  9,724

  10,772

  21,246

  33,993

  1991–92

  7,552

  4,303

  10,382

  12,653

  21,285

  28,993

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the source of the information about private hospital provision for mentally ill people given in the Yates report, published by her Department.

  Mr. Bowis
  The source of this information is in the Korner return K036, "Private Hospitals, Homes and Clinics registered under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what redress, under the patients charter patients, or their family, have if they are not given a clear explanation of the treatment proposed, including any risks and any alternatives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the patients charter, patients have a general right to have complaints thoroughly investigated. If the patient is still unhappy about the way in which a complaint has been investigated then the patient may take the matter up with the Health Service Commissioner.

  The patients charter has introduced the additional provision that if a patient believes that they have been denied a specific charter right, the patient or their family may write to the chief executive of the national health service who will arrange for the matter to be investigated.
  694
  Mr. Bowis
  The figures are shown in the table.

  Paediatric Intensive Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has as to the number of children in each English region who did not receive paediatric intensive care owing to the shortage of such beds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on which to base such an estimate is not available centrally. Decisions on the referral of critically ill children are taken by clinicians in the light of the condition of the child and the proximity of available treatment facilities. A survey carried out by the British Paediatric Association in connection with preparation of the report, "The Care of Critically Ill Children" showed that, in 1991, 51 per cent. of children receiving intensive care were treated in dedicated paediatric intensive care units, 29 per cent. in high dependency beds in children's wards and 20 per cent. in adult intensive care units. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  The Department, in collaboration with appropriate professional bodies, will act on the recommendation in the report, for outcomes for children requiring paediatric intensive care to be audited to provide this information for the future.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to set targets for the number of paediatric intensive care unit beds in each of the next five years.
  695
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The recently published report from the British Paediatric Association, "The Care of Critically Ill Children", copies of which are available in the Library, offers recommendations on the number and distribution of paediatric intensive care beds required to take account of developments in this highly specialised area of child health care. Health authorities will be asked to draw up plans for an effective and co-ordinated response to this report and these may include locally determined targets.

  Leptospirosis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the risk of contracting leptospirosis from drinking direct from bottles or cans.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responses she has had to the Department of Health consultation paper "De-monopolising the Provision of Secure Accommodation"; and if she will place them in the Library.

  Mr. Bowis
  Forty-two written responses were received from local authority associations, voluntary organisations and private sector companies. There was no understanding that the responses would be made public and so I do not think it would be appropriate to place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals her Department has put forward to privatise secure accommodation for juvenile offenders; and what arrangements will be made to advertise the contracts.

  Mr. Bowis
  Proposals for legislative changes to enable the voluntary and private sectors to provide secure accommodation will be introduced to Parliament in due course.

  Medical Alert
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what written notices are routinely issued to .patients who are the subjects of any medical alert or warning indicating they are subject to the information contained in the alert; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not routinely issue written notices to patients concerning alerts or warnings relating to problems involving medical devices. The Department's policy in such cases is to issue safety warnings to aid clinicians in making informed decisions with respect to individual patients.

  Pacemakers
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what sources her Department arrives at a figure for deaths of patients implanted with pacemaker lead models 1010T, 1050T and Prototype 93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data relating to the number of patient deaths for individuals implanted with the pacemaker leads are obtained from the national pacemaker database located at the Royal Brompton National heart and lung hospital, London.
  696
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how implant centres and follow-up centres are informed that pacemaker lead model 1010T includes prototype 93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Centres were informed of a fault in the Siemens pacemaker lead model 1010T by the Department of Health pacemaker technical note No. 48, which included the Siemens medical advisory as an attachment. Paragraph 5 of the attachment identified all associated leads and their prototypes, including the T93 prototype. Copies of the technical note are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been implanted with pacemaker lead models 1010T, 1050T and prototype 93.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to the National Pacemaker Registry a total of 4,675 pacemaker leads of models 1010T, 1050T and prototype T93 have been implanted in patients within the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the identification of pacemaker lead prototype 93 in Pacemaker note No. 48.

  Mr. Sackville
  Attention was drawn to the prototype T93 in two separate communications to all relevant clinicians. The details were contained in the manufacturer's advisory notice which was attached to the Department of Health technical note No. 48, and which had been issued previously by the company. Copies of the technical note are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance her Department has issued in respect of the identification of those deaths in patients fitted with pacemakers which may be due to faulty pacemaker leads.

  Mr. Sackville
  No guidance has been issued by the Department of Health. Identification of the cause of death is made by the relevant medical practitioner.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to NHS trust hospitals on the practice of publicity advertising the private use of such hospitals on behalf of commercial organisations.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been issued on the role and objectives of trust non-executive directors;

  (2) what training non-executive directors receive on corporate governance on joining trust boards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Non-executive directors of national health service trusts are appointed by regional health authority chairmen and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They are provided, on appointment, with guidance produced by the NHS Management Executive on their role and functions. It is for individual trust chairmen to ensure that non-executive directors receive any necessary induction and training. The corporate governance task force is expected to make recommendations before the end of the
  697
  year to the chief executive of the Management Executive on the role and functions and induction-continuing development of chairmen and non-executive directors. Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Medical Devices Directorate
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals she has to ensure the medical devices directorate has the power to require a response to a medical alert from those to whom it is issued;

  (2) whether she will issue guidelines to the medical devices directorate on monitoring of centres receiving alerts;

  (3) what monitoring the medical devices directorate carries out to ensure that all hospitals comply with medical alerts.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to issue guidelines to the medical devices directorate on monitoring of centres which receive alerts. The medical devices directorate currently has no powers to require a response to, or compliance with, safety warnings and we have no plans to grant such powers. The medical devices directorate does not monitor compliance with medical alerts sent to hospitals.

  Medical Devices
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for assessing the effects of faults in medical devices.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department, through the medical devices directorate is responsible for assessing the effects of faults in medical devices.

  Royal Sussex County Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of current patient waiting times for the Brighton Health Care national health service trust and projected treatment waiting times when the Royal Sussex County hospital redevelopment is completed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Brighton healthcare trust was established in 1993 and information on their waiting times is not yet available centrally.

  Brighton healthcare trust will continue to comply with both local standards and patients charter guarantees after the Royal Sussex hospital redevelopment is completed.

  Pesticides
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the revised edition of the notes for the guidance of medical practitioners on pesticides.

  Mr. Sackville
  Work on the revision is underway. As soon as this is completed the notes will be sent for publication. The Department holds a small stock and can provide copies of the current book to doctors or hospitals if required.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by her Department to national health service employers regarding the payment of unsocial hours allowances for staff.
  698
  Mr. Sackville
  For staff whose pay and conditions are determined nationally, a variety of agreements have been reached for different staff groups as part of their overall pay and conditions of service package.

  Smoking
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the total number of cigarettes smoked by children every year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures taken from the 1992 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of smoking among secondary school children for the mean consumption of cigarettes per pupil, give an estimate of around 690 million cigarettes smoked every year by pupils aged 11 to 15 in England.

  Drug Prescribing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money in real terms would be saved from drug prescribing if the exemption for pregnant and nursing mothers were removed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no firm evidence to suggest that there would be a reduction in prescribing, and consequent savings in drugs bill expenditure, if prescription charge exemption for expectant and nursing mothers were to be removed.

  Steroids
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that a list of side effects are given whenever steroids are dispensed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patient information leaflets are an important way for patients to receive easily understood information about the medicines that they use. We have recently implemented a European Community directive to take effect from 1 January 1994, one effect of which makes patient information leaflets compulsory for all medicines unless all the information is shown on the label. These leaflets will contain important information on how medicines should be used and useful information on side effects. Pharmaceutical companies will be implementing this requirement progressively over the next five years.

  Maternity Leave
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has made to her colleagues in the Department of Employment on extending the right to maternity leave and allowance to mothers of newly adopted babies or young children.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest available figures for the total number of patients on the waiting list in each EC country.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of patients on the waiting list in each country of the European Union is not available centrally. Information on waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment for England is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England" published twice yearly, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Specialists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of specialists in hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our policy is to encourage the shift towards a consultant-based service, envisaged in the agreements between the national health service and the medical profession set out in "Achieving a Balance", copies of which are available in the Library. This suggests a minimum consultant expansion rate of 2 per cent. per year. However, it is a matter for each employing body to determine the number of consultants needed in each specialty in the light of local needs and competing priorities. Between 1987 and 1992 the number of medical consultants working in NHS hospitals in England increased by 2,240, a rate of 3 per cent. per year.

  Number of persons infected by Leptospirosis disease

  Regional Health Authority

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  March and June 1993

  Northern

  2

  2

  2

  1

  0

  1

  3

  Yorkshire

  2

  3

  5

  3

  4

  1

  1

  Trent

  3

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  East Anglian

  1

  3

  1

  3

  0

  2

  0

  North West Thames

  2

  2

  2

  0

  2

  3

  0

  North East Thames

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  South East Thames

  0

  2

  3

  3

  2

  1

  0

  South West Thames

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wessex

  5

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Oxford

  0

  0

  3

  1

  2

  2

  0

  South Western

  2

  5

  2

  2

  2

  4

  3

  West Midlands

  2

  5

  4

  2

  0

  4

  0

  Mersey

  2

  2

  3

  3

  1

  0

  1

  North Western

  2

  4

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  Optic Neuritis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) by year for the last five years and the current year to date and (b) by regional health authority the number of cases of the disease optic neuritis that have been reported.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Patient Relocations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to inform health authorities and trusts of the circumstances in which patients may be relocated in other parts of the country(a) if they are being treated under section 19 of the National Health Act 1983 and (b) otherwise.

  Mr. Bowis
  There are no plans to issue guidance on these cases. Clinicians refer all patients to units which most appropriately meet their needs. This applies equally to patients detained under the Mental Health Act and who are transferred under section 19.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will support a tobacco advertising ban at the next European Health Ministers' meeting; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have made clear that they oppose the draft European Community directive banning tobacco advertising. We do not believe that it is necessary for the completion of the single market.

  Leptospirosis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority for the last five years, and this year to-date the number of people who have been infected by leptospirosis desease.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority the hospitals that have currently been penalised financially for failing to treat patients within the waiting time limits set by the patients charter; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally. Allocations from the waiting times fund are linked to regions performance on waiting times. Deductions are made for specific breaches of the patients charter guarantees. These deductions act as an incentive to good management and some regions therefore pass them on to the responsible provider units.

  University College Hospital
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for resolving the financial problems of University College hospital, London; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The University College London hospitals group reports directly to North East Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Stavely, chairman of the regional health authority for details.

  NHS Reforms
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis she has made of the cost benefit of the national health service reforms.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The benefits of the national health service reforms are tangible: more patients are now being treated than ever before; people are waiting shorter times for treatment; general practitioner fund holders are able to back their clinical judgment and local knowledge with national health service funds to the benefit of all patients; increased numbers of people are being treated as day cases without the need for a stay in hospital. These are some of the real and important benefits flowing from the reforms —which clearly illustrate we have achieved our main aims: improvements to the quality of care; responsiveness to individuals and value for money.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ask the Audit Commission to investigate the payments to chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The independent external auditors appointed by the Audit Commission examine payments to chairmen and non-executive directors as part of their routine audits.

  Infant and Perinatal Mortality
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the infant mortality and perinatal mortality rate in each EC country in the latest available year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Infant and perinatal mortality rate in each European Community country for 1991

  Infant mortality rate1

  Perinatal mortality rate2

  Belgium

  37·0

  n/a

  Denmark

  7·3

  n/a

  Germany

  6·9

  5·8

  Greece

  9·0

  11·1

  Spain

  37·8

  n/a

  France

  7·3

  8·2

  Ireland

  38·2

  39·9

  Italy

  38·2

  310·5

  Luxembourg

  9·2

  9·6

  Netherlands

  6·5

  9·1

  Portugal

  10·8

  13·6

  United Kingdom

  7·4

  8·1

  1 Deaths under 1 year per 1,000 livebirths.

  2 Deaths under 1 week and stillbirths per 1,000 live and stillbirths.

  3 Provisional.

  n/a—Not available.

  Source: Eurostat Demographic Statistics 1993.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking regarding overspending by general practitioner fundholders in the Doncaster area in respect of drug prescribing; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders nationally are proving to be extremely successful in 702
  improving the cost effectiveness of their prescribing and can vire between the elements of their budgets to achieve the most appropriate care for patients. Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the GP fundholding scheme in their areas.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 307, about general practitioner surgery in Liverpool, South Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens and Wirral health authorities, how many of the general practitioners are fund holders; and how many fund holding general practitioners are in single-handed practices, in each of the four health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the general practitioner fundholding scheme in their areas. Detailed regional information is not available centrally.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to hold centrally, records of the revenue spending on(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients by regional health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 October her intention to abolish regional health authorities, subject to the approval of Parliament.

  Coronary Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the waiting times for each(a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority for coronary (i) artery bypass grafting and (ii) angioplasty.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times by treatment or condition is not available centrally. Information for in-patient and day case treatment by specialty for district and regional health authorities is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", published twice yearly since 1987, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Clinics (Closure)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what obligation there is on community care services and NHS trusts to inform or consult hon. Members about the closure of clinics in their constituencies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no obligation on national health service trusts to inform or consult hon. Members when considering changes to the service which they provide. We encourage trusts to develop good communications with local MPs. The precise arrangements are matters for individual trust boards.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ban the import of blood and blood products from countries which use paid donors.

  Mr. Sackville
  This country is self-sufficient in blood obtained from our voluntary, unpaid donors and we do not
  703
  obtain supplies from other sources. It is our long-standing policy to pursue self-sufficiency in blood products made from voluntary, unpaid donations and to seek to maximise the use of those products. We nevertheless recognise the clinical freedom of doctors to prescribe other products if considered more appropriate for individual patients.

  Community Care
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what method she intends to distribute the community care special transitional grant in 1994–95; and what conditions she intends to attach to its use.

  Mr. Bowis
  The special transitional grant for community care in England will amount to some £736 million in 1994–95. It will be distributed to local authorities on the basis of the personal social services standard spending assessment—PSS SSA. We have decided in the light of early experience of the new arrangements, and of a change to the way in which numbers of residents in independent sector care homes are reflected in PSS SSAs, that it is no longer necessary to base part of the distribution on historic patterns of income support spending on residential care.

  There will be conditions attached to the use of the grant similar to those applied in 1993–94. Full details of the grant conditions will be announced separately.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to elderly people about the variety of accommodation and services available to them under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities must publish annual plans outlining the ways in which community care will operate in their area. We expect local authorities to build on these plans to provide their local population with comprehensive details of the services available. This way users of services will be able to make the informed choice which is central to our community care system.

  Genetics Laboratories
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of NHS funding for regional genetics laboratories.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government remain committed to the research and development strategy. We have made it clear that the NHS Management Executive will continue to work closely with purchasers and providers to ensure that the high levels of services which are presently delivered, including those provided by the regional genetics laboratories, are maintained.

  Gene Therapy
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the membership of her committee on the ethics of gene therapy; and if she will list each member's current professional position.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy was disbanded on 19 November 1993. It has been replaced by the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, which met for the first time on 22 November 1993.
  704
  The new committee is chaired by Professor Dame June Lloyd DBE, MD, FRCP formerly Professor of Child Health at the Institute of Child Health, and a past-president of the British Paediatric Association.

  The membership of the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee was announced on 15 November 1993.

  The 16 members of the Committee are:
  Dr. Elizabeth Anionwu, PhD, RGN, HV Tutor-Lecturer in Community Genetic Counselling, Institute of Child Health:
  Mrs. Rosemary Barnes,—Director, "Wellbeing";
  Professor Martin Bobrow, DSc, MB, BCh, FRCP FRCPath—
  Prince Philip Professor of Paediatric Research, United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospitals, University of London;
  Professor Derek Crowther, PhD, MB, BChir., MA, MSc, FRCP, FRCR—Professor of Medical Oncology, Christie HospitaE and Holt Radium Institute and University of Manchester;
  Professor Anthony Dayan, MD, FRCP, FRCPath., FFPM, FIBiol.—Professor of Toxicology, University of London; Director, Department of Toxicology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College;
  The Rev. Canon Dr. Keith Denison—Director of Education for Diocese of Monmouth and Vicar of Whitson, Newport; Dr. Brenda Gibson, MB, ChB, MRCP, MRCPath., DFM—
  Consultant Haematologist, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow;
  Mrs. Rosemary Knights, RGN, OND, DN—Chief Executive, Warrington Hospital NHS Trust. Previously Regional Nursing Officer, Mersey RHA;
  Professor Peter Lachmann, FRCP, FRCPath., FRS—Professor of Immunology, University of Cambridge;
  Dr. Theresa Marteau, MSc, PhD, CPsychol—Head, Psychology and Genetics Research Unit, UMDS, London;
  Professor Norman Nevin, BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPath—Professor of Medical Genetics Queen's University Belfast from 1975 to date;
  Miss Eleanor Platt QC;
  Dr. Brian Richards, BSc, PhD—Chairman, British Biotechnology Group;
  Mr. Nick Ross—Broadcaster and journalist;
  Dr. Michael Steel, MB, ChB, PhD, DSc, FRCPEd, MRCPath —MRC Human Genetics Unit Edinburgh. From 1 January 1994, Professor in Medical Science, St. Andrews University;
  Professor Robin Weiss, PhD, FRCPath., Hon. MPCP—Professor of Viral Oncology and Director of Research, Chester Beatty Laboratories Institute of Cancer Research, University of London.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the date and the terms upon which NHS Estates took out a lease at 1 Trevelyan square, Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  The property occupied by National Health Service Estates at 1 Trevelyan square, Leeds is held on the property holdings common user estate by virtue of a lease dated 11 November 1992 and made between Nonpariel Securities Limited and the Secretary of State for the Environment. The area demised by the lease comprises the first, second and part of the third floors having a total area of 22,450 square feet together with 20 basement car parking spaces. The lease is held from the 11 November to 24 November 1992 and thereafter for a term of 25 years subject to a break in the tenant's favour only at the expiration of the 15th year.

  The rent which is subject to five-yearly rent reviews is £370,425 per year effective from 14 May 1993, the landlord having granted a six months and three days rent free period. In addition the landlord made a capital contribution of £58,496 exclusive of value added tax towards the fitting out costs. The quarterly on account service charge is currently £14,100.

  Mr. Ivan Biddle
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of her code of practice in relation to the case of Ivan Biddle, who was sacked by Barnet general hospital, for expressing to his trade union his concern about the running of the hospital mortuary.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Biddle was dismissed from his post as anatomical pathology technician at Barnet general hospital in October 1990. The National Health Service Management Executive's "Guidance For Staff On Relations With The Public And The Media" (EL(93)51) was issued on 8 June 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1988, and the first six months of 1993, the gross amount of redundancy payments given out by(a) region, (b) district, (c) special health authorities and (d) trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Spectacle and Contact Lenses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the average price of spectacle lenses and contact lenses for NHS patients, for each year since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available in the form requested. Until 1986 national health service spectacles were available free of charge to children. Adults choosing NHS spectacles paid a contribution for their spectacle lenses which was determined by the complexity of the prescription. Since 1986 people who are entitled to help with the cost of spectacles and contact lenses have received a voucher which they can use towards the cost of these.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 1993,Official Report, column 307, about general practitioner surgery in Liverpool, South Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens and Wirral health authorities, what is (a) the largest list and (b) the smallest list size of general practitioner practices in the health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the tables.

  FHSA

  Practice with smallest list size

  Number of general practitioners in practice

  Liverpool

  1,131

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  504

  1

  Sefton

  1,262

  1

  Wirral

  1,060

  1

  706

  FHSA

  Practice with largest list size

  Number of general practitioners in practice

  Liverpool

  13,158

  6

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  14,161

  6

  Sefton

  16,047

  7

  Wirral

  15,464

  8

  The data relate to 1 April 1993.

  All data relate to partnerships. Some partnerships may practice from more than one surgery.

  Partnerships may include one or more general practitioners who are restricted principals. A restricted principal is a GP who either (a) provides the full range of general medical services but whose list is limited to the staff of one or more hospitals or institutions in which he is employed or to patients resident in one or more schools or institutions; or (b) provides maternity medical services and/or contraceptive services only.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to increase the budgets of those hospital trusts whose chief executives are to receive a salary increase; and if she will make a statement;
  (2) when she was first informed of recent increases in salaries for the chief executives of various hospital trusts; what her response was; what plans she has to take action to countermand these increases; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The salaries of chief executives and other directors of trusts are matters for the chairmen and non-executive directors. The budgets of national health service hospital trusts are established on the basis of contracts for services between them and national health service purchasing authorities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all chairmen on 12 November 1992 requiring settlements for 1993–94 to conform with the public sector pay restraint limits of 0-1·5 per cent.

  Immunisation
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths, occuring within 48 hours of immunisation, were reported on yellow cards or otherwise to the Department or to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines in each year from 1986 to 1992; and how many of these deaths occured after the injection of triple or pertussis vaccines.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of reactions or deaths that occur within 48 hours of immunisation is not available. Spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions are received from doctors and dentists under the voluntary "Yellow card" scheme in the United Kingdom. In addition there is a statutory requirement for companies to report adverse reactions to their medicines. The receipt of a report does not necessarily indicate that a specific drug caused the reaction, merely that there was a suspicion that the drug is associated with the reaction specified, many other factors may contribute.

  The table lists the number of deaths reported to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines in association to vaccines containing pertussis, from 1986 to 1993. Pertussis vaccine is usually given combined with diptheria and

  707
  tetanus vaccine as a triple (DTP) vaccine starting at two months of age. It is therefore not possible to determine which one, if any of these vaccines causes a particular reported reaction.

  Number of deaths reported to the CSM to a pertussis containing vaccine

  Year

  Number

  1986

  0

  1987

  2

  1988

  1

  1989

  0

  1990

  2

  1991

  16

  1992

  16

  1993

  12

  1 In 1990, the age for routine immunisation was lowered, and coincided with the peak age for deaths due to sudden infant death syndrome. It was therefore anticipated that there would be an increase in sudden infant death syndrome coincidentally associated with vaccine administration. Research studies have demonstrated that the association is temporal and not causal.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many laboratories in the United Kingdom are currently engaged in the production of influenza vaccine for the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  One at Evans Medical's premises in Speke, Liverpool. Other distributors import supplies of influenza vaccine.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current availability of influenza vaccine; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) on 29 November at column 305.

  Patient Hotels
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give(a) the number and location of each patient hotel, (b) the number of deaths that have occurred in patient hotels, (c) the nursing to patient ratio in the hotels, (d) the percentage of non-qualified staff attending to patients in hotels, (e) the number of private companies contracted to provide patient services in hotels, (f) details of all ministerial discussions concerning the introduction of charges for facilities in hotels and (g) what consideration she is giving to changing the name patient hotel to convalescent unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally. No ministerial discussions concerning the introduction of charges for facilities in hotels have taken place nor are we currently giving any consideration to what these units should be called.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what purposes a district health authority which no longer manages the provision of health care is authorised to apply or spend charitable trust funds retained after health care was transferred to the trusts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  A district health authority is authorised to apply or spend charitable trust funds for all or any purposes relating
  708
  to the national health service. In doing so, it acts as a charity trustee. Under section 90 of the National Health Service Act 1977 it is not necessary for the particular purpose to relate to health service provision made by that authority.

  The purposes for which any particular fund is to be applied are to be gathered from the written instrument regulating that fund—failing which from the appeal literature. The authority is required to promote these purposes and no others in its use of the funds.

  In circumstances where such purposes now fall within the responsibility of a NHS trust, the authority should consider asking the Secretary of State for Health for an order under section 92 of the National Health Service Act 1977 transferring the trust property from the authority to the NHS trust. Unless and until the funds are lawfully transferred under that section or otherwise to a new charity trustee, the authority remains fully responsible for the due application of the charitable trust funds.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Administration
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the administration from Glasgow of Department of Social Service benefits to Ealing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Harry Greenway, dated 1 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what assessment he has made of the administration from Glasgow of Department of Social Security benefits to Ealing.
  Between August 1989 and June 1991 the processing work of 21 London offices was relocated to three Benefit Centres; at Glasgow, Belfast and Ashton in Makerfield. Both Euston and Ealing districts had their work relocated to Glasgow Benefits Centre. It was envisaged that the Benefits Agency's service to its customers would be improved by moving work which did not require face to face contact with the public away from hard pressed London offices.
  Since the processing of claims from benefit customers in Ealing was relocated in 1991, there has been a general improvement in service delivery. As regards Income Support (IS), which is the most frequently claimed benefit, the number of days it takes to clear a claim have been reduced by half. Currently it takes, on average, seven days to clear an IS claim.
  Furthermore, accuracy on IS claims has improved from 71 per cent. of claims being processed accurately, prior to relocation, to a rate of 85 per cent. currently.
  Similar improvements have been achieved on claims to Sickness Benefits. Prior to relocation it took on average, 29 days to clear a claim, whereas now it takes nine days. The accuracy of processing these type of claims has improved from 92·7 per cent., prior to relocation, to 94·3 per cent. currently.
  If you require any further specific information about the administration of benefit claims from Glasgow I would be happy to provide it.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those local authorities who disregard war pensions and war widow's pensions when pensioners claim(a) housing benefit, (b) council tax benefit and (c) other benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The discretion to disregard up to the full amount of any war pension applies only to housing benefit and council tax benefit, which succeeded community charge benefit in April 1993.

  The information requested with regard to housing benefit has been compiled from the latest information from local authorities for the financial year 1990–91 and is listed in the table. No details are available for council tax benefit.

  Local authorities operating a local scheme in housing benefit to disregard an amount of war disablement or war widow's pension in addition to the £10 statutory disregard.

  Aberconwy

  Aberdeen

  Adur

  Amber Valley

  Angus

  Annandale and Eskdale

  Arfon

  Argyll-Bute

  Arun

  Ashfield

  Ashford

  Aylesbury Vale

  Badenoch

  Banff and Buchan

  Barking

  Barnet

  Basingstoke

  Bassetlaw

  Bath1

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  Berwickshire

  Beverley

  Birmingham

  Blaby1

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Blaenau Gwent

  Bolton1

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Breckland

  Brent

  Brentwood

  Brighton

  Broadland

  Bromley1

  Bromsgrove

  Broxbourne

  Broxtowe

  Burnley

  Bury1

  Caithness

  Calderdale

  Cambridge1

  Camden

  Cannock Chase

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Carlisle

  Carrick

  Castle Morpeth2

  Castle Point

  710

  Ceredigion

  Charnwood

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Cherwell

  Chester2

  Chesterfield

  Chichester

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Christchurch

  Clackmannan

  Clydebank

  Clydesdale

  Colwyn

  Congleton

  Copeland

  Corby1

  Cotswold

  Coventry

  Craven

  Crawley

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Cumbernauld

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  Cumnock and Doon

  Cunninghame

  Dacorum

  Darlington1

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Delyn

  Derby1

  Derbyshire Dales

  Doncaster1

  Dover

  Dudley

  Dumbarton

  Dundee

  Dunfermline

  Dwyfor

  Ealing

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Hampshire

  East Hertfordshire

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride (DC)

  East Lothian

  East Staffordshire1

  East Yorkshire

  Eastleigh

  Eastwood

  Eden

  Edinburgh

  Ellesmere Port

  Elmbridge

  Epping Forest

  Epsom and Ewell

  Erewash

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Exeter1

  Falkirk

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean

  Gedling

  Gillingham

  Glanford

  Glasgow

  Glenrothes (DC)

  Gloucester

  Glyndwr

  Gordon

  Gosport

  Great Yarmouth

  Grimsby1

  Guildford

  711

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hambleton1

  Hamilton

  Hammersmith

  Harborough

  Harlow

  Harrow

  Hart

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Havant

  Havering1

  Hereford

  Hertsmere

  High Peak

  Hillingdon

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Holderness

  Horsham

  Hounslow

  Hove

  Huntingdon

  Hyndburn

  Inverclyde

  Inverness

  Ipswich

  Irvine (DC)

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington

  Islwyn

  Kennet

  Kilmarnock

  Kincardine and Deeside

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Kingswood

  Kirkcaldy

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Kyle and Carrick

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  Langbaurgh

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lewisham

  Lichfield

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Livingston (DC)

  Llanelli

  Lliw Valley

  Lochaber

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Maidstone

  Maldon

  Malvern Hills

  Mansfield

  Medina

  Meirionnydd

  Melton

  Mendip

  Merton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Suffolk

  Mid Sussex

  Middlesborough1

  Midlothian

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  Monklands

  Monmouth

  Montgomery

  Moray

  Motherwell

  Nairn

  Neath

  New Forest

  Newark

  712

  Newbury

  Newcastle under Lyme

  Newham

  Newport1

  Nithsdale

  North Bedfordshire

  North Cornwall

  North Dorset

  North East Derby

  North East Fife

  North Hertfordshire

  North Kesteven

  North Shropshire

  North Tyneside

  North Warwickshire

  North West Leicester

  North Wiltshire

  Northampton

  Northavon

  Nottingham

  Nuneaton

  Oadby and Wigston

  Ogwr

  Oldham1

  Orkney

  Pen with3

  Perth and Kinross

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Preseli

  Preston

  Purbeck

  Radnor

  Reading

  Redbridge

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Renfrew

  Rhondda

  Rhuddlan

  Ribble Valley

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Richmondshire

  Rochdale

  Rochester on Medway

  Rochford

  Ross and Cromarty

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Roxburgh

  Rugby

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Rushmoor

  Rutland

  Ryedale

  Salford

  Salisbury

  Sandwell

  Scarborough

  Scottish Homes

  Scunthorpe

  Sedgefield

  Sefton

  Selby

  Sevenoaks

  Shetland

  Skye and Lochalsh

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Bedfordshire

  South Buckinghamshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Derbyshire

  South Herefordshire

  South Holland

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk

  713

  South Northants

  South Oxfordshire

  South Pembrokeshire

  South Ribble

  South Shropshire

  South Somerset

  South Staffordshire

  South Tyneside

  South Wight

  Southampton

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southwark

  Spelthorne

  St. Albans

  St. Helens

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stevenage1

  Stewartry

  Stirling

  Stockport

  Stockton-on-Tees1

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Strathkelvin

  Stroud

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Sutherland

  Sutton

  Swale

  Swansea

  Tameside

  Tamworth

  Tandridge

  Teignbridge

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Thamesdown1

  Thanet

  The Wrekin

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Tonbridge and Mailing1

  Torbay1

  Torfaen1

  Tower Hamlets

  Trafford

  Tunbridge Wells1

  Tweeddale

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Vale of White Horse

  Vale Royal

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Wansbeck

  Wansdyke

  Watford

  Waverley

  Wealden

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Lothian

  West Norfolk

  West Oxfordshire

  West Wiltshire

  Western Isles

  Westminster

  Wigan

  Wigtown

  Winchester

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wirral

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Woodspring

  Worcester

  Worthing

  714

  Wycombe

  York1

  1 Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to disregard war disablement pensions only.
  2 Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to disregard war widows' pensions only.
  3 Denotes an authority which operates a scheme to disregard war disablement pensions and war widows' pensions for housing benefit rent rebates only.

  Income Support
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of people are living in a household dependent upon income support in(a) the Govan constituency, (b) Glasgow, (c) Strathclyde region, (d) Scotland and (e) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available for the Govan constituency, Glasgow, Strathclyde region or Northern Ireland.

  The latest available information for Scotland and Great Britain is in the table.

  Beneficiaries as a percentage of population

  Per cent.

  Scotland

  17·1

  Great Britain

  17·0

  Notes:

  1. Source—Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, November 1992. Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  2. Percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  3. Beneficiaries are the number of claimants plus partners and dependents.

  4. The population figures used are estimates of the resident population in mid-1992.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of children under 15 years are living in families in receipt of income support in(a) the Govan constituency, (b) Glasgow, (c) Strathclyde region,(d) Scotland and (e) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available for the Govan constituency, Glasgow, Strathclyde region or Northern Ireland.

  The latest available information for Scotland and Great Britain is in the table.

  Children under 15 as a percentage of population

  per cent.

  Scotland

  24·5

  Great Britain

  25·6

  Notes:

  1. Source—Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, November 1992. Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  2. Percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  3. Children under 15 are the number of children aged under 15 of Income Support recipients.

  4. The population figures used are estimates of the number of children aged under 15 resident in Scotland and Great Britain in mid-1992.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes will be made in the income support
  715
  claim form B1 in the light of the comments made by the Social Security Commissioner in decision No. CIS/663/ 1992.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 1 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what changes will be made in the Income Support claim form B1 in light of the comments made by the Social Security Commissioner in decision No. CIS/663/1992.
  The Benefits Agency is currently reviewing the wording on the Income Support claim form B1 and other Income Support claim forms in light of the Commissioner's decision No. CIS/663/ 1992.
  Income Support claim forms are currently reviewed every 6 months and where necessary revised versions are issued. Any change required as a result of the Commissioner's decision will be incorporated into the current review. The amended forms resulting from this review will be available for use by customers from April 1994.

  000s

  Lone mothers

  Lone mothers

  Lone fathers

  Total

  Single

  Separated

  Divorced

  Widowed

  1971

  90

  170

  120

  120

  500

  70

  570

  1980

  140

  190

  300

  140

  770

  100

  870

  1990

  395

  235

  415

  75

  1,120

  110

  1,230

  1991

  430

  240

  420

  80

  1,170

  100

  1,270

  Note:
  1971–1990 figures are taken from the General Household Survey.
  1991 figures are provisional based on a combination of GHS and census data.
  The figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Per cent. on IS/SB

  Per cent. on FC/F1S

  Number on IS/SB(000s)

  Number on FC/FIS (000s)

  1971

  43

  3

  246

  15

  1980

  39

  6

  336

  50

  1990

  66

  10

  812

  122

  1991

  70

  10

  895

  132

  1992

  N/A

  N/A

  985

  162

  Note:
  All data refer to May in each year apart from FIS in 1971 which refers to August. N/A=not available.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances an attachment of earnings order for the collection of child maintenance by the Child Support Agency can be served on an organisation which provides a training programme funded by the European social fund requiring the organisation to make deductions from either(a) a training allowance paid to the trainee or (b) a wage paid to the trainee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  A deduction from earnings order is made where the Secretary of State decides this is needed to secure the payment of child support maintenance by a liable person; it is an instruction to that person's employer to make deductions from earnings and to pay the amount
  716
  The Benefits Agency is committed to improving customer services and, therefore, welcomes any suggestions on how it can improve upon its forms.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Lone Parents
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the estimated numbers of lone parents in the United Kingdom in 1963, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1992 or the nearest years to these for which figures are available, distinguishing where possible between lone fathers and lone mothers and between(a) widowed, (b) divorced or separated and (c) never married lone parents; and what were the numbers and percentages of lone parents in each year who were dependent on (i) supplementary benefit or income support or (ii) family income supplement or family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the tables. The figures given are for Great Britain as UK figures for the total number of lone parents are unavailable. The first year for which data is available is 1971; figures for the marital status of lone fathers are unavailable.

  direct to the Secretary of State. Earnings in this context include wages or salary, from whatever source, but do not include training allowances.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what ways a full-time training allowance paid to a person participating in European social fund training course is taken into account by the Child Support Agency in assessing maintenance payments when the allowance is(a) paid to the parent with care or (b) paid to the absent parent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The treatment of training allowances in the assessment of maintenance by the Child Support Agency does not depend on the source from which they are funded. Allowances under the youth training scheme are ignored. Other training allowances, net of additions such as those for travel or being away from home, are treated as part of the parent's income. These arrangements apply equally to parents with care and absent parents.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to instruct the Child Support Agency to ensure that maintenance payments are phased in over a reasonable period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  There are existing provisions for phasing in child support maintenance assessments. These provisions apply where an absent parent with a court order or written maintenance agreement has a second family and a new
  717
  liability of less than £60. In these circumstances the amount of any increase will be limited to £20 for the first 12 months.

  Benefit Statistics
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people and what percentages of the population, showing families with children, separately, were dependent on national assistance, supplementary benefit and income support in 1963, 1969, 1979, 1989 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available for 1963 and 1969. The latest year for which figures are available is 1992.

  Information for 1979, 1989 and 1992 is in the tables.

  Beneficiaries as a percentage of population

  1979

  Per cent.

  Couples with dependants

  1·3

  Couples without dependants

  1·5

  Single with dependants

  1·6

  Single without dependants

  3·6

  Total

  8

  Beneficiaries as a percentage of population

  1989

  Per cent.

  Couples with dependants

  2·8

  Couples without dependants

  1·3

  Single with dependants

  3·7

  Single without dependants

  4·8

  Total

  12·6

  Beneficiaries as a percentage of population

  1992

  Per cent.

  Couples with dependants

  3·8

  Couples without dependants

  1·4

  Single with dependants

  4·8

  Single without dependants

  5·7

  Total

  15·7

  Notes:

  1. Source: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Statistical Annual Enquiries 1979–1989–1992, Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys. Population Estimates Unit.

  2. Percentages are correct to one decimal place and are based on beneficiaries as a proportion of the population.

  3. A dependent is aged under 19 living in the parental home.

  4. For Income Support, temporary separated have been included in couples and therefore the partner may not be a beneficiary.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update each part of the answer given to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) of 15 December 1989,Official Report, column 855, showing the distribution of child benefit expenditure according to (a) the gross income bands, (b) the equivalised gross income bands and (c) the equivalised net income bands of recipient families using (i) each band of £5,000 up to £25,000 and (ii) over £25,000.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  Estimates are given for the combined years of 1990 and 1991. The figures relating to the distribution of gross and
  718
  net income are calculated on the basis of sample survey data which are subject to normal sampling and response variations. The income levels are based on current weekly family income scaled up to an annual equivalent and may not therefore accurately reflect true annual income, which cannot be reliably measured from the Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Distribution of Child Benefit Expenditure by Annual Income Bands

  Income Bands £

  No. of children (000's)

  CHB expenditure (£ millions)

  (a) Gross Income

  under 5,000

  730

  300

  5-10,000

  2,640

  1,030

  10-15,000

  2,310

  890

  15-20,000

  2,290

  900

  20-25,000

  1,750

  690

  25,000 and above

  2,600

  1,040

  TOTAL

  12,320

  4,860

  (b) Equivalised Gross Income

  Under 5,000

  1,460

  560

  5-10,000

  3,920

  1,530

  10-15,000

  3,210

  1,250

  15-20,000

  1,760

  710

  20-25,000

  900

  360

  25,000 and above

  1,070

  450

  TOTAL

  12,320

  4,860

  (c) Equivalised Net Income

  Under 5,000

  2,040

  780

  5-10,000

  5,440

  2,120

  10-15,000

  2,940

  1,170

  15-20,000

  1,080

  440

  20-25,000

  390

  160

  25,000 and above

  440

  190

  TOTAL

  12,320

  4,860

  Notes:

  1. Estimates do not all sum due to rounding.

  2. Estimates are taken from the 1990 and 1991 FES. The second quarter of 1991 data is omitted due to data deficiencies related to the late receipt of revised community charge bills. The reply is based on data used for the "Households Above Average Income" (HBAI) publication. As a result the income and expenditure figures are those recorded at the time of the survey and unlike the previous answer no attempt has been made to project these forward.

  3. Gross income is the family's total income from all sources including benefits before housing costs.

  4. Equivalence scales are calculated giving a married couple a value of 1 00—the method used in the "HBAI" publication.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of unemployed people over a full operational year who would lose unemployment benefit if the length of entitlement were reduced from one year to six months; how many of them would be male or female; how many of those men and women would then be eligible for income support; what the net saving to the Exchequer would be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  An estimated total of 240,000 unemployed people at any one point in an operational year would lose unemployment benefit if the length of entitlement were reduced from one year to six months. Of the 170,000 men, 120,000 would be eligible for income support. Of the 70,000 women, 30,000 would be eligible for income
  719
  support. Caseloads over a full year are not available. The full year net saving to the Exchequer in 1993–94 would be about £210 million.

  All figures are based on an assumption of 2·8 million unemployed and the durational distribution of 1993–94. Rates of benefit are also at 1993–94 levels.

  Payment Recovery
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of payment recovery, resulting from awards of compensation and other similar moneys to claimants, for each year from 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of statistical data concerning the amount of monies recovered under the compensation recovery scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 1 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency I am responsible for answering questions on relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what was the value of payment recovery, resulting from awards of compensation and other similar monies to claiments, for each year from 1988.
  Under the Compensation Recovery provisions, only benefits payable from 1 January 1989 are recoverable. The amounts recovered since that date are as follows:

  Period

  Amount recovered £ million

  3 September 1990 to 31 March 1991

  3·7

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  25·3

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  51·3

  1 April 1993 to 31 September 1993 (first half of current financial year)

  34·4

  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

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

  Mr. Burt
  There have been family credit (FC) advertising campaigns every year since 1989 which have stimulated claims and increased awareness. As a result, the number of people receiving FC has increased from 280,000 in 1989 to around half a million now. The 1993 campaign has involved a major "Back to work" initiative aimed at the unemployed, with FC advertising on television and in the press playing an important part. In addition, the FC helpline was launched in April this year, fulfilling our manifesto pledge. It now receives over 30,000 calls a week.

  An important aspect of FC awareness is the personalised message in the child benefit order book (or notification of ACT payment), which tells the family concerned how much earnings they can have and still be eligible for FC. We have also set special fast track procedures for people just starting work which enables the vast majority of urgent claims to FC to be cleared, and
  720
  payment issued, within one week. And from October 1993, FC awards of £4 a week or less have been paid as a lump sum at the start of the award period. This provides one-off payments of up to £104, encouraging more people to claim and helping with back to work expenses.

  The administration of family credit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with details of the number of FC recipients in Inverclyde, Strathclyde and Scotland.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 1 December 1993:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to write to you with details of Family Credit recipients in (a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland.
  I should explain that take-up figures for Family Credit (FC) are not available on a regional basis. However, the latest Policy Study Institute figures (1991) for the take-up of FC for Great Britain, estimate that 71 per cent. of available benefit was claimed.
  For your information, I have provided figures to show how many FC recipients there are in Inverclyde, Strathclyde and Scotland as a whole. The figures represent the number of recipients as at 29 October 1993 and are as follows:

  Numbers

  Inverclyde

  1,902

  Strathclyde

  24,617

  scotland

  58,971

  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security where is the weather station which provides the recordings to enable cold weather payments to be made to citizens resident in Inverclyde; what proposals he has to change the location of the weather station in relation to Inverclyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the cold weather payments scheme is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 1 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking where is the weather station which provides the recordings to enable cold weather payments to be made to citizens resident in Inverclyde; what proposals he has to change the location of the weather station in relation to Inverclyde.
  The weather station which provides the information used to determine Cold Weather Payments in Inverclyde is Glasgow Airport. There are no proposals to use another weather station for the Inverclyde area.
  I home that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Benefits Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled persons are employed on(a) a full-time basis and (b) part-time in Benefits Agency local

  721
  offices in (i) Strathclyde, (ii) Scotland and (iii) elsewhere in Great Britain; what proportion of the staff these employees represent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The responsibility for Benefits Agency staff is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 1 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am, therefore, replying to your recent Parliamentary

  Breakdown of Registered Disabled staff in the Benefits Agency

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number of RD staff

  RD staff as percentage of all staff

  Number of RD staff

  RD staff as percentage of all staff

  Strathclyde

  66

  1·72

  8

  1·28

  Scotland

  109

  1·94

  8

  0·88

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  1,069

  1·72

  89

  0·87

  Benefits agency local offices in Strathclyde

  Glasgow City

  Glasgow (Cranstonhill)

  Glasgow Maryhill

  Special Hardship Claims Unit

  Transitional Protection Unit

  Glasgow Shettleston

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  Glasgow Provan

  Glasgow Laurieston

  East Kilbride

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  Glasgow South West

  Glasgow Craigton

  Glasgow Anniesland

  Glasgow Partick

  Renfrew

  Glasgow Springburn

  Glasgow (Cumbernauld)

  Greenock

  Port Glasgow

  Motherwell

  Hamilton

  Lanark

  Shotts

  Wishaw

  Coatbridge

  Airdrie

  Belshill

  Irvine

  Kilmarnock

  Clydebank

  Dumbarton

  Ayr

  Cumnock

  Student Incomes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many students in 1992–93 on further education courses whose parents are on income support, lost the additional allowance and child benefit on achieving their 19th birthday part way through a course; and how many such students failed to complete their studies.

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available.
  722
  Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many disabled persons are employed on (a) a full-time basis and (b) part-time in Benefits Agency local offices in (i) Strathclyde, (ii) Scotland and (iii) elsewhere in Great Britain; and what proportion of the staff these employees represent.
  Attached at Annex A are the figures requested. I should explain that the figures quoted for disabled staff only relate to those who are registered as disabled. Information is not available for disabled staff who are not registered.
  I have attached at Annex B a list of the Agency's local offices which have been included in the figures for Strathclyde.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 26 October (ref 6/3644/43) and to his letter of 25 October (ref 6/3644/55) and the two letters of 1 November concerning constituents; and if he will give the reason for the delay in answering and why no acknowledgments were sent for the last two letters.

  Mr. Burt
  I have now sent replies to the hon. Member's letters. Increased levels of correspondence on child support have meant that replies are in some instances taking longer than usual. The temporary lapse in the issue of acknowledgment cards resulted from a computer error.

WALES

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what powers training and enterprise councils have to switch their allocation of funds between various parts of their budgets; to what extent each TEC in Wales transferred funds from the budgets they were allocated for both youth training and employment training in 1992–93; for what purposes the funds were subsequently allocated; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The operating agreement between the Welsh Office and TECs provides that a TEC may increase or decrease its payment ceiling for youth training or training credits, training for work—which replaced employment training and employment action—compacts, education business partnerships and business and enterprise support by up to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the payment ceiling for each of the initial budgets agreed by the Secretary of State and set out in the business plan, provided that the payment ceiling for the sum of those budgets set out in the business plan shall not be exceeded. Such flexibility enables TECs to respond to local needs that develop in-year.

  During the 1992–93 financial year, six of the seven TECs in Wales used this facility to transfer funds from

  723
  youth training into employment training, employment action and business and enterprise support budgets. Details are shown in the table.

  Switches from youth training

  TEC

  Amount (£)

  Additional provision purchased

  Gwent

  594,226

  Employment Training

  Mid Glamorgan

  702,761

  Employment Training

  North West Wales

  241,959

  Employment Training

  Powys

  140,074

  Employment Training

  South Glamorgan

  68,850

  Business and Enterprise Support

  West Wales

  724,424

  Emploment Training

  Employment Action

  Business and Enterprise Support

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the outturn expenditure given to each TEC in Wales in 1992–93 at 1993–94 prices; and what is the budget for each TEC in 1993–94 in total and broken down in the same way as given in the answer from the Secretary of State for Employment to the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), of 18 February 1993,Official Report, column 335-38.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I will write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Numbers in training in Wales

  Period ending

  25 April 1993

  23 May 1993

  20 June 1993

  18 July 1993

  15 August 1993

  Youth Training

  13,404

  12,947

  12,619

  12,770

  12,530

  Training Credits

  1,468

  1,513

  1,591

  1,867

  2,009

  Training for Work

  11,821

  10,831

  10,191

  9,155

  9,124

  Business Start-up

  2,015

  1,919

  1,954

  2,002

  1,955

  Learning for Work1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 This spring budget announced programme did not start until September 1993.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent communications he has received from the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales on wind power development in the Principality.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—CPRW—wrote to me on 22 November setting out its new statement of policy on wind power stations in Wales. The matter was also raised at a meeting I had with it on 23 November 1993.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on energy policy in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the aim of the Government's energy policy in Wales is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy in the forms that people and businesses want, and at competitive prices.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish an energy policy advisory panel for Wales; and what discussions he has had with the President of the Board of Trade over energy provision in the Principality.

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

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

  Training Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were participating in(a) training for work (employment training/employment action), (b) community action, (c) learning for work, (d) the business start-up allowance and (e) youth training in each month since March; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested on the numbers participating in the respective training schemes is provided in the table for the first five four-weekly periods of 1993–94.

  Figures for learning for work figures are not available for these periods as it did not start until September 1993. Community action is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am satisfied that the Energy Advisory Panel containing representation from Welsh industry, recently set up by my colleague the Minister for Energy to advise the Government on the preparation of an annual energy Report, will cover Welsh interests. I am in frequent contact with the President of the Board of Trade about energy matters in Wales.

  Weil's Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by regional health board for the last five years, and the current year to date, the number of people who have been infected by Weil's disease.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Notifications in Wales of leptospirosis—Weil's disease—for each of the last five years and the current year to date are shown in the table:

  Wales

  Number

  1988

  3

  1989

  0

  1990

  1

  1991

  1

  19921

  1

  19931

  22

  1 Provisional.

  2 To week ending 12 November.

  Source: OPCS communicable disease statistics (Series MB2) Registrar General's weekly return.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to encourage householders in Wales to install solid wall insulation; what grants are available to assist in such installation; and if he will estimate the amount of energy that could be saved by a major insulation programme on the Welsh housing stock.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no grants for solid wall insulation.

  A number of other, more cost-effective techniques, such as loft insulation and draught stripping have been actively promoted through campaigns such as the home energy efficiency scheme and "Helping the Earth begins at Home".

  These schemes are being promoted because of the obvious advantages for energy savings and reduced expenditure while no specific estimate is available of the amount of energy that could be saved by a programme of insulation of the Welsh housing stock.

  Waste-to-Energy Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of energy used in Wales is provided by waste-to-energy incineration plants; and what applications for such plants he is currently considering.

  Mr. Redwood
  The amount of energy used in Wales provided by waste-to-energy incineration plants is not readily available.

  My colleague the Minister for Energy will be responsible for considering applications for such plants under the third order of the non-fossil fuel obligation which is due next year.

  Non-elective Surgery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average waiting time for non-elective surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Patients who require non-elective or emergency surgery do not have to join a waiting list as they are admitted to hospital immediately.

  Wales Tourist Board
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each grant over £25,000 in value made by his Department and the Wales tourist board to tourism-related projects in the principality since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not readily available and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. However, since 1 April 1986 to date, the Wales tourist board has provided grant over £25,000 to 260 separate projects.

  From 1987, the board's annual report lists all grant support over £10,000.

  All Projects over £25,000 from 1 April 1986 to date

  Project Name

  Assistance £

  Welsh Mountain Zoo

  77,100

  Penhow Castle, nr Newport

  99,063

  Menai Fron Hotel, Bangor

  44,000

  726

  Project Name

  Assistance £

  Ael Y Bryn Hotel

  40,000

  Castell Heights Golf Club

  26,050

  Bryn Meadow Golf Club, Hengoed

  140,000

  Cwrt Bleddyn Hotel, nr Usk

  77,710

  Saracen's Head Hotel

  100,000

  North Gower Hotel, Gower

  70,000

  Coed Y Mwstwr Hotel, Coychurch

  123,000

  Holyhead Exchange, Holyhead

  41,000

  Mostyn Hotel, Llandrindod Wells

  40,000

  Royal Pier, Aberystwyth

  37,800

  Picton Sea Eagle, Swansea

  70,000

  Oakwood Adventure Centre

  100,000

  Imperial Hotel, Llandudno

  37,500

  Bear Hotel, Crickhowell

  106,000

  Castle Hotel, Neath

  90,000

  Ector Centre, Llangollen

  28,000

  Loggerheads Country Park

  30,000

  Little Chef Lodge, Sarn Park

  117,435

  Llyn Brenig Visitor Centre

  50,000

  Bodelwyddan Castle, Bodelwyddan

  139,949

  Grand Theatre, Llandudno

  43,475

  Llanfair PG Railway Station

  164,000

  Castle Hotel, Llandovery

  30,000

  Seiont Manor, Llanrug

  75,000

  Trecco Bay Park, Porthcawl

  50,000

  Ski Llandudno, Great Orme

  100,000

  Butlins Holiday Camp, Pwllheli

  200,000

  Port Dinorwic Yacht Harbour

  30,000

  Ynys Hywel Countryside Centre

  55,251

  Lake Vyrnwy, nr Oswestry

  90,200

  Tywyn Leisure Centre, Tywyn

  36,000

  Hotel Metropole, Llandrindod

  55,000

  Lower Treginnis Farm, St. Davids

  54,000

  Beaumaris Experience

  32,500

  Dwyfor Leisure Centre

  115,000

  Carreg Bran Country Hotel

  80,000

  Youth Hostels Association

  110,330

  Maerdy Hotel, Pencoed

  37,000

  Caernarfon Air Museum

  44,000

  Dyffryn Seaside Estate

  32,700

  Rossett Hall Hotel, Clwyd

  42,977

  Cwrt Bleddyn Hotel, Llangybi

  100,000

  Y Gorlan Hotel, Tywyn

  32,500

  Presthaven Sands Haven Holiday

  60,000

  Penmachno Woollen Mill

  26,224

  Bryn Howel Hotel, Llangollen

  54,700

  Millmoor Farm Cottages

  40,000

  Conwy Touring Car Park

  36,500

  Fairbourne Hotel, Gwynedd

  25,994

  Anglesey Sea Zoo, Brynsiencyn

  70,500

  Machynlleth Leisure Centre

  45,000

  Waterloo Hotel, Betws y Coed

  200,000

  West Arms Hotel, Llanarmon DC

  51,000

  Wild Pheasant Hotel, Llangollen

  200,000

  Cambrian Cruisers, Pencelli

  36,000

  White Hart Inn, Llandeilo

  61,000

  Welshpool Heritage Centre

  58,820

  Knighton Hotel, Knighton

  95,000

  Jane Hodge Holiday Centre

  200,000

  Caeau Farm Hope, nr Wrexham

  60,000

  Riverside Caravan Park

  142,800

  Bodnant Gardens, Glan Conwy

  37,500

  Roman Lodge Inn, Caerleon

  65,000

  East Trewent Farm, Freshwater East

  30,000

  Red Lion Inn, Tredegar

  61,377

  Parkway Hotel, Cwmbran

  80,000

  Pembroke Castle, Pond

  75,780

  Outward Bound (Wales) Aberdyfl

  200,000

  Rhondda Heritage Park

  50,000

  Barmouth Leisure Centre

  90,000

  Crewe-Holyhead Steam Train

  30,000

  Trearddur Holiday Bungalows

  25,665

  Rossett Hall Hotel, Wrexham

  200,000

  Clyne Farm Activity Centre

  60,000

  East Nolton Riding Stables

  30,000

  Tir Prince Harness Racing

  159,750

  Richard Wilson Art Centre

  94,000

  727

  Project Name

  Assistance £

  Royal Victoria Hotel, Llanberis

  176,000

  Ty Mawr Holiday Park, Towyn

  35,000

  Gyro Tower Promenade, Rhyl

  60,000

  Anglesey School Sea Canoeing

  83,000

  Welcome Cafe, Pendine

  30,000

  Pendine Holiday Village

  100,000

  Ffynnon Glas Hotel, Rhymney

  33,100

  Tregynon Farm, Fishguard

  43,650

  Greenhill Hotel, Caerphilly

  33,000

  Piggery Pottery, Llanberis

  32,500

  Festiniog Railway, Porthmadog

  80,000

  Llanerchindda Farm, Llandovery

  42,000

  Plough Inn, Rhosmaen

  80,000

  David Bryant Bowls Centre

  100,000

  Colliers Arms, Pontardawe

  51,300

  Old Ship's Bell, Moelfre

  27,693

  Parkway Hotel, Cwmbran

  101,200

  Oakwood Leisure Park

  100,000

  Ammon Hotel, Glanamman

  64,850

  Dinorwic Power Station

  198,553

  North Wales Tennis Centre

  50,000

  Bwlch Mawr Caravan Park

  26,000

  Park Hotel, Ebbw Vale

  80,000

  Big Pit Blaenavon

  180,000

  Bell Inn, Llanyre Llandrindod

  33,000

  Pen y Fan Caravan and Leisure

  67,000

  Fontygary Caravan Park

  200,000

  Cwmdu Llandeilo

  85,970

  Pwllheli Holiday World

  265,792

  Kinsale Hall, nr Holywell

  150,000

  Indoor Bowling Centre

  82,623

  St. Davids Hotel, Ewloe Clwyd

  200,000

  Crazy Golf Barry Island

  44,812

  Fullmoon Inn, Aberaman

  36,000

  Hotel Maes y Neuadd Talsarnau

  64,000

  Ffynnon Glas Hotel, Rhymney

  26,680

  Llechwen Hall, Llanfabon

  51,043

  Copthorne Hotel, Cardiff

  200,000

  Aberafon Hotel, Aberafon

  85,000

  Royal Lion Hotel, Tenby

  105,000

  Holiday Wales, Swansea

  44,000

  Rhyl Theatre, Rhyl

  200,000

  Chepstow Education Centre

  60,317

  North Wales Shire Horse Centre

  35,000

  Lloyd George Museum

  50,000

  Hafod Arms Hotel, Devils Bridge

  80,000

  Welshpool Tourism and Leisure

  60,000

  Plas Penmaenucha Hotel

  132,000

  Llangollen Cark Park and Walks

  45,000

  Llangollen Eisteddfod Field

  300,000

  Kinmel Manor Hotel, Abergele

  40,000

  Llangollen Railway

  48,000

  Clarence House Hotel, Tenby

  27,500

  Tic Barry Island

  59,261

  Rhondda Heritage Park

  150,000

  Nant Mill Phase I

  32,318

  Min y Mor Hotel, Barmouth

  26,000

  Centre for Alt. Technology

  150,000

  Lord Nelson Hotel

  28,000

  Riverside Hotel, Monmouth

  65,702

  Pwll Cam Harbour Enhancement

  79,730

  Atlantic Hotel, Tenby

  81,550

  Pedestrianisation St. Mary St.

  38,190

  Cefn Lea Christian Holiday

  70,000

  Llanerch Vineyard, Hensol

  30,000

  Aleppo Merchant Inn, Carno

  81,250

  Lake Vyrnwy Hotel

  200,000

  Scimitar Hotel, Holyhead

  60,000

  Belmont Hotel, Llandudno

  140,000

  Bryn Meadows Golf Club

  100,000

  Oakwood Park, Narberth

  105,000

  Barry Island Pleasure Park

  49,000

  Glen yr Afon House Hotel, Usk

  112,500

  Countryman Inn, Bedwellty

  100,000

  Sands Hotel, Prestatyn

  175,000

  Tic Brecon

  47,460

  Trearddur Bay Hotel, Holyhead

  91,000

  728

  Project Name

  Assistance £

  Tenby Town Scheme

  33,125

  Aberdulais Falls, Neath

  50,000

  St. Mary's Golf Club, Pencoed

  68,000

  Bala Leisure Centre

  34,750

  Underground Car Park, Rhyl

  200,000

  Hotel Mariners, Haverfordwest

  46,415

  Canolfan Ozanam, Llanllyfni

  60,000

  Lodge Hotel, Tal-y-Bont

  35,000

  Plas Glyn y Weddw, Pwllheli

  33,000

  Sea Wales Centre, Rhyl

  200,000

  Mason Arms, Blackwood

  32,250

  Great Orme Tramway, Llandudno

  50,000

  Portmeirion Hotel

  50,000

  Conwy Leisure, Conwy

  43,450

  Traeth Ganol Guest House

  39,500

  Greenhills Hotel, St. Florence

  30,000

  Llandrindod Wells Bowling Club

  40,000

  Minera Clywedog Valley

  41,250

  Rebleen Guest House, Tenby

  39,407

  Winkups Camp Ltd.

  50,000

  Ten Pin Bowling, Glanllyn

  98,200

  Tredegar Arms, Merthyr Tydfil

  32,000

  Southfield Car Park, Monmouth

  30,500

  Marine Holiday Park, Rhyl

  158,000

  Riverside Caravan Park, Swansea

  31,000

  Chepstow Castle Car Park, TIC

  94,834

  Groundwork, Cheshire

  37,453

  Plas y Bryniau, Llanon

  43,323

  Bryn Bach Park, Tredegar

  36,250

  Cwmtwrch Farm, Nantgaredig

  39,100

  Noble Court Caravan Park

  50,000

  Alyn Waters Country Park

  42,500

  Grand Pavilion, Llandrindod

  125,000

  Great House, Laleston

  47,550

  Quarry Tours, Blaen Ffestiniog

  34,360

  Ski Lodge, Llangrannog

  31,080

  Cilwych Country Activities

  50,300

  Village Inn, Trehafod

  27,737

  Gaer Cottages, Cribyn

  27,000

  Rose and Crown, Eglwysilan

  30,500

  Tourism South Wales, Swansea

  47,077

  Tenby Town Scheme Phase III

  30,000

  Atlantic Hotel, Tenby

  118,450

  Conwy Town Scheme

  30,000

  Bron y Wendon Touring Park

  55,000

  Groundwork Trust

  44,218

  Seion Chapel Art Gallery

  40,000

  Three Wells Farm, Howey

  70,000

  Masons Arms, Bryncethin

  27,000

  Quasar Barry Island

  31,215

  Dan yr Ogof Showcaves

  30,000

  Touchwood Centre, Felinheli

  49,800

  Marina Services Building

  45,000

  Amelia Trust Farm

  27,225

  Court Hotel, Lamphey

  200,000

  Wern Goch Caravan Park

  34,500

  Minera Phase II

  32,785

  Bryn Morfydd Hotel, Denbigh

  32,500

  North Wales Theatre

  200,000

  Empire Hotel, Llandudno

  50,000

  Hand Hotel, Chirk Clwyd

  44,234

  Shell Island

  37,500

  Imperial Hotel, Llandudno

  50,000

  Parc Cwm Darren, Hengoed

  30,875

  Ship Inn

  41,000

  Cambrian Line Speed

  55,519

  Palms Holiday Park

  50,000

  Edwards Leisure Park, Towyn

  29,517

  Conwy RSPB Visitor Centre

  79,650

  Bodysgallen Hall

  200,000

  Urdd Gobaith Cymru

  160,000

  Cliffe Norton Hotel, Tenby

  89,354

  Hotel Metropole

  25,550

  Black Lion Hotel, Cardigan

  60,000

  Ystumgwern Hall Farm

  36,961

  Tenby Town Scheme

  36,875

  Glan Aber, Hotel

  45,558

  729

  Project Name

  Assistance £

  Pentre Mawr Caravan Park

  60,000

  Heronston Hotel, Bridgend

  50,000

  Fourcroft Hotel, Tenby

  65,500

  Dryslwyn Fawr Llanarthne

  30,500

  Bear Hotel, Crickhowell

  50,000

  Lake Country House

  50,000

  Tic Cardiff

  26,525

  Wrexham Maelor Town Scheme

  28,114

  Cambria Caravan Park

  29,676

  Middle Sontley Farm, Wrexham

  30,000

  Pwllheli Promenade

  40,000

  Bodelwyddan Castle

  200,000

  Chatsworth House Hotel

  48,154

  Fishguard Bay Hotel, Goodwick

  30,000

  Parc Coed-Machen Farm, Cardiff

  40,261

  Dinefwr Park

  52,337

  Oakfield Caravan Park

  50,000

  Bear Hotel, Cowbridge

  50,000

  Passenger Facility

  100,000

  Lancaster Square, Conwy

  34,000

  National Techniquest

  200,000

  Green Meadow Community Farm

  100,000

  National Wildlife Centre

  80,000

  The Stackpole Centre Homefarm

  55,241

  Conwy Town Scheme

  35,000

  The King Arthur Hotel

  29,000

  Number of projects

  260

  Arts Centre, Llandudno
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the annual running costs of the new North Wales theatre and arts centre at Llandudno is to be met by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants his Department has given towards the building of the new North Wales theatre and arts centre at Llandudno; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No grant has been given. Aberconwy borough council was awarded supplementary credit approval of £2 million in 1992–93 towards the capital cost of this project.

  Community Care Legislation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to amend the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 in its application to Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I shall be considering whether it will be necessary to amend the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 in order to facilitate the merger of health authorities with family health services authorities. Other than this, I have no plans to propose amendments to the 1990 Act.

  Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the names of all persons appointed by him and the salaries paid to them; and if he will make a statement.
  730
  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is contained in "Public Bodies: Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales", available in the Library of the House.

  Quangos
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total annual cost of the quangos in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is shown in the annual publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Local Authority Elections
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date in May 1994 elections to existing district councils will take place in Wales; when the last such elections took place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Elections to the four district councils in Wales which have elections by thirds will take place on Thursday 5 May 1994. The last such elections took place in May 1992. The Local Government (Wales) Bill will cancel the elections for all district councils which are due to be held in May 1995.

  Health Service, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the review by Mr. Brian Jones, the chief executive of Clywd health authority and Mr. David Galley of the Macleod hospital trust, into the health service in Pembrokeshire; and to what extent the costs of that review are being borne by the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of
  23 November 1993,Official Report, column 22.

EDUCATION

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on providing additional funding to independent schools seeking to attain grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  An independent school cannot be established as a grant-maintained school without first closing. Any funding available to a new GM school could be used only for the purposes of that school. The Secretary of State's approval of applications to establish new GM schools will depend on a variety of factors, including evidence of need for places in the area.

  Grant-maintained Schools (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will identify all the specific purpose grants given to each grant-maintained school in Nottinghamshire for each financial year since 1991–92, including the current year; and if he will give the purpose of each grant.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following self-governing schools in Nottinghamshire have received special purpose grants (SPGs):
  731

  Amount paid (£) for each financial year

  School

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Greenwood Dale School, Nottingham

  SPG (Transitional)

  100

  47,540

  SPG (Development)

  —

  24,098

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  891

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  4,500

  Ravensdale Grant Maintained Middle School, Mansfield

  SPG (Transitional)

  40,890

  —

  SPG (Development)

  8,999

  13,940

  SPG (Restructuring)

  6,763

  —

  SPG (VAT)

  3,009

  4,531

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  2,438

  The George Spencer School, Stapleford

  SPG (Transitional)

  34,410

  23,670

  SPG (Development)

  —

  39,780

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  13,262

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  12,242

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  4,500

  The purpose of each of the SPGs is as follows:

  Special Purpose Grant (Transitional)
  Available to help with the costs incurred as a result of the school's acquisition of self-governing status.

  Special Purpose Grant (Development)
  Available to fund management training, staff development and implementation of the national curriculum.

  Special Purpose Grant (Restructuring)
  Available to help with essential staff restructuring which involves costs arising from premature retirement, redundancy or voluntary severance of teaching staff.

  Special Purpose Grant (VAT)
  Compensates for the payment of VAT on supplies and services, which self-governing schools may not claim back.

  Special Purpose Grant (Premises)
  Assists self-governing schools with the additional cost of school premises insurance.

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

  Mr. Forth
  In the financial year 1992–93, the Government car service for Ministers cost the Department £217,197·48. Five vehicles were involved for the majority of the year. In addition, this figure includes eight days' use of one further vehicle for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for sport, whose portfolio fell within the remit of the Department for Education until 8 April 1992.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if she will make it her policy to take steps to suspend the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1993, and replace it with the proposals put forward by the National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  (pursuant to his reply 25 November 1993 c.117): The High Court has now delivered its judgment on
  732
  the application for judicial review by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. The court noted that there is total agreement between the applicants and the Government that there is a need to prevent overfishing of certain stocks of sea fish by the United Kingdom fleet. Nevertheless, it decided to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. We are now urgently considering the implications of the judgment for days at sea and related policies, including decommissioning.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Rechar II
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his Department's policy to support the Rechar II initiative proposed by the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The future of European structural funds community initiatives has yet to be discussed by the Council of Ministers in Brussels.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what approval or guidance British Nuclear Fuels plc has been given regarding a delay of 50 years in the decommissioning of THORP following the plant's closure; and what additional financial provision would be required if the plant were to be decommissioned immediately following closure.

  Mr. Eggar
  The decommissioning of a nuclear facility is a matter for the operators, taking account of the requirements of the regulatory authorities.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) formal and (b) informal approaches have been made to Her Majesty's Government, from utilities with a contract with British Nuclear Fuels plc for the use of THORP, to cancel or vary the contract or its terms; and what steps have been taken to alert other departments.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library details of all public appointments made by him to public bodies which are concerned exclusively with Wales, in the same form as the Secretary of State for Wales's list dated 1 September.

  Mr. Eggar
  The details of all public appointments made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the public bodies which are concerned exclusively with Wales will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Company Registration
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the current requirements of companies to be registered; with whom they must register; and how many companies are so registered.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Most Great Britain companies are formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985. They are registered by the Registrar of Companies either in England and Wales or in Scotland
  733
  Under the Act there are a number of requirements to be met before a company is registered. The following documents must be delivered to the Registrar:—
  the company's memorandum and articles;
  particulars of its directors, secretary and intended registered office;
  a statutory declaration that all the requirments of the Act in respect of registration have been complied with.

  The Registrar may not register a company unless he is satisfied that all such requirements have been complied with, but he may accept the statutory declaration as sufficient evidence of this. He will then issue a certificate of incorporation.

  At 31 March 1993 there were 1,136,400 registered companies in Great Britain, of which 175,800 were in liquidation, or in the course of being removed from the register.

  Imported Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the sources of imported house coal in 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  Data on imported coal by sector are estimated and it is assumed that about a quarter of imported steam coal, other than coal for electricity generation, is used in the home. In the first nine months of 1993 the major sources of imported steam coal, which includes imports for use in power stations and industry as well as the domestic sector, were Australia, Colombia, Poland, Russia, South Africa, and the USA.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity and cost of imported(a) industrial and (b) house coal in each year since 1990 and 1993 to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  The split of imported coal between sectors are estimated, the figures for industrial users and house coal are as follows:

  Industrial1

  House coal2

  Quantity thousand tonnes

  Value3 £ million

  Quantity thousand tonnes

  Value3 £ million

  1990

  850

  34

  260

  10

  1991

  1,600

  57

  500

  17

  1992

  2,720

  89

  880

  28

  41993

  1,070

  38

  330

  11

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  1 Estimated as 10 per cent. of anthracite imports, plus 75 per cent. of steam coal imports other than coal for electricity generation.

  2 Estimated as 25 per cent. of steam coal imports other than coal for electricity generation.

  3 The value has been based on the average cost of the total steam coal and anthracite imports multiplied by the quantity.

  4 The 1993 figures also include some estimation for intra-EC trade based on information for extra-EC trade pending the availability of full monthly statistics for intra-EC trade from the Central Statistical Office.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the restrictions on local authority capital spending in relation to ERDF funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Many local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have written to me and to the Ministers responsible for local authority finance in England,734
  Scotland and Wales. These Ministers have replied to such representations in view of their direct responsibility for the matter.

  Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of publishing the 70,000 copies of "Working with Business: a code for enforcement agencies," referred to in his answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 345; and if he will list those 70 enforcement agencies which are aiming to publish their own code of practice by 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The cost of publishing the 70,000 copies of "Working with Business: a code for enforcement agencies" was £8,296.03. All 70 agencies listed in the code agreed that they were aiming to publish their own codes of practice by 1 January 1994.

  Regulations (Impact Assessment)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those topics he has so far identified where he believes current statutory Acts or regulations inhibit the operation of economic activity of benefit to the local community or nation stating in each case the relevant instrument, its date of introduction, or its predecessors, when it first came into effect and its general purpose.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As part of the deregulation initiative, Government Departments are currently reviewing all legislation which impacts on business, considering whether the legislation remains necessary and, if so, whether it achieves its objective in a way which is proportionate and imposes the minimum burden on business. The reviews are scheduled to be completed by April 1994. In addition the Government have appointed eight task forces from business and the voluntary sector to make recommendations on priorities for amendment or repeal. These recommendations will be published in due course. The Deregulation Bill announced in the Gracious Speech will address changes which require primary legislation. Its contents will be published in the usual way when the Bill is introduced.

  Brewery Industry
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that individual brewers are making it possible for the lessees to sell a guest beer.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The requirement to allow tenants to sell a guest beer is one of the provisions of the Beer Orders. Monitoring compliance with the Beer Orders is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. I have therefore written to him, asking that his office reply to your question as soon as possible.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will place in the Library the evidence available to his Department to show that the brewing companies have carried out their obligation under the Beer Orders(a) to free a certain percentage of public houses and (b) to allow a guest beer.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Monitoring compliance with the Beer Orders is the responsibility of the Director General of
  735
  Fair Trading (DGFT). Information which is supplied by the brewers to the OFT about the composition of their estates is commercially confidential. However, I have written to the DGFT, asking that his office write to you explaining the position as soon as possible.

  EC Internal Market Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms Quinn) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 24 November,Official Report, column 92, what was the voting record of member states on (a) the adoption of food additive common positions and (b) its common position on equipment for use in explosive atmospheres at the meeting of the European Community's Internal Market Council held on 11 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On food additives, the framework directive and sweeteners common positions were adopted unanimously at the Internal Market Council on 11 November. The common position on colours was adopted by qualified majority with Netherlands and Luxembourg voting against and Germany and Denmark abstaining.

  The common position on equipment for use in explosive atmospheres was agreed unanimously.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the legislation governing rights of access to coal and other minerals in the light of the privatisation of the coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  At present, under the Opencast Coal Act 1958, British Coal has access to special procedures governing the compulsory acquisition of rights to explore for and work opencast coal, and related matters. These procedures are not available to other mineral industries. The Government do not regard it as satisfactory in the longer term for the coal industry to have access to special procedures which are not generally available. However, a period of transition is needed before an alternative regime is put in place.

  Under the Coal Industry Bill published today, the provisions of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 will continue to be available to coal operators, within a modified framework offering improved safeguards for the interests of landowners, up to 31 December 1999 but not thereafter. After the end of this transitional period, the Government intend that the procedures for opencast coal should be unified with the general regime for all minerals contained in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 and 1974.

  My Department will therefore be conducting a review of the general provisions contained in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts to determine what amendment, revision or reform to the legislation is appropriate to provide an integrated regime for the next century. The review will have regard to the need to exploit the country's mineral resources including coal, to the perception that current procedures under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts are expensive and time consuming, and to the need to protect the rights of land owners.

  Following initial consideration of the issues, I intend to publish a consultative document in due course. I invite
  736
  those interested in submitting representations or evidence for the preparation of the consultative document to write to me by 31 January 1994.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the Government's proposals for British Coal pensions after privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  In September the Government published a consultation paper on proposals for British Coal pensions after privatisation. Comments have been received from the trustees of British Coal pension schemes, from the corporation, from industry unions and from over one thousand individuals.

  Careful consideration has been given to all responses to the consultation paper. In the light of these responses, and taking full account of the recent recommendations of the Pension Law Review Committee, the Government have decided that:

  Existing schemes
  (i) all pensioners and deferred pensioners of the mineworkers pension scheme (MPS) and British Coal staff superannuation scheme (SSS) and all currently contributing members would be able to leave their past-service entitlements in the schemes at privatisation, if they so choose;
  (ii) the MPS and SSS would be closed to new members at privatisation and the new private-sector owners of the industry would not participate in them;
  (iii) the Coal Industry Bill would provide for both the MPS and SSS to be given a Government solvency guarantee that would ensure that pensions and deferred pensions are increased after privatisation in line with the retail price index (RPI) by reference to their level at privatisation;
  (iv) beneficiaries would in addition be able to benefit from any fund surpluses through pension payment increases over and above RPI levels, but surpluses, and benefits from them, will not be subject to guarantee from the taxpayer;
  (v) provision would be made for the beneficiaries and the Government, as guarantor, to receive equal shares of any distributable surplus;
  (vi) in order to assist the management of the funds any share of surplus payable to the Government would only be receivable in equal installments over a 10-year period;
  (vii) deficiency payments due under the guarantee would also be payable over 10 years;
  (viii) existing obligations on British Coal to make 'additional contributions' in respect of early and enhanced pensions would be honoured in full by the Government;
  (ix) there would be triennial valuations of the schemes, as at present, and if a valuation subsequent to a deficiency reveals a surplus, or vice versa, there should be an immediate settling of balances before further payments by or to Government are determined (including a safeguard to ensure that beneficiaries and Government have received equal shares of any unsustained surplus distribution);
  (x) the Coal Industry Bill would provide for the rules of the MPS and SSS to be modified in order to give effect to the necessary changes;
  (xi) the Bill would also safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, as ultimate guarantor, by providing for the Government to be able to secure that the trustees of the MPS and SSS have proper regard to the interest of the taxpayer in performing their fiduciary duties (the precise details of how this safeguard would operate in practice are still under discussion with the trustees and the Corporation and will be contained in Regulations and scheme documents which are yet to be published);

  New industry-wide schemes
  (xii) new pension schemes would be created for employees of British Coal and its subsidiaries who are transferred to employment in successor companies;

  737
  (xiii) the new schemes would follow on, separately, from the MPS and SSS and would be required by statutory regulations to provide the same package of benefits as the corresponding existing scheme;
  (xiv) the Coal Industry Bill would provide protected person status for employees transferred to the new schemes and the schemes would contain measures regarding their maintenance, membership, use of surpluses and any eventual winding up;
  (xv) the new schemes would operate on an industry-wide basis and the Coal Industry Bill would provide for all new employers of protected employees to participate in the schemes;
  (xvi) continuing employees would be able to transfer their past-service entitlements to the new schemes if they so choose or they would alternatively be able to transfer them to another scheme operated by their new employer, depending on its terms, or to a personal pension scheme;
  (xvii) the Coal Industry Bill would provide for the new Coal Authority to make pension provision for its employees, including any transferred from British Coal.

  The Government believe that these proposals meet in full its commitment to protect MPS and SSS pensions. The proposals will provide security for pension entitlements earned from service with British Coal and will provide protection for pension entitlements from future service with successor companies. The Coal Industry Bill would provide the necessary statutory underpinning for all the safeguards proposed.

  It is intended that drafts of the regulations giving statutory effect to the details of the new arrangements would be made available during Commons consideration of the Bill.

  The consultation paper on British Coal pensions listed in an appendix a number of other pension schemes with which British Coal is involved. The Government will be assuming responsibility for the six unfunded pension arrangements listed in the appendix. From discussions with trustees and scheme representatives it appears that pension entitlements from all of the funded pension schemes listed in the appendix can be adequately safeguarded without direct Government involvement through guarantees or statutory protection. The Government are nevertheless taking a close interest in the future arrangements that are being proposed and will report to Parliament on them in due course.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, when he expects to announce his decisions on the bids for Konver funding by Essex county council and others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [pursuant to his reply 25 November 1993, column 112]: I am pleased to announce that grants totalling £15·6 million have been approved to 150 applicants under the United Kingdom's Konver programme, including grants of over £350,000 to Essex. There was keen competition for the grant available. The successful projects are of high quality. I expect them to bring real benefits to the areas which are dependent on defence spending.

  I am placing a copy of the list of grants approved in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

  The Attorney-General
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  UDR Four
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the date of the Appeal Court hearing in Northern Ireland at which three of the UDR Four were released; what were the recommendations of the court about prosecutions of persons involved in the case; what action has been taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland; what matters remain upon which the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has yet to make a decision; and when the expects such decisions to be taken.

  The Attorney-General
  The Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland delivered its judgment in the appeal of Rv. Neil Fraser Latimer, James Irwin Hegan, Noel Richmond Bell and Alfred Winston Allen on 29 July 1992.

  The court made no recommendations in respect of prosecutions. The court directed that its judgment be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland so that he could consider the bringing of prosecutions against officers who he considered had committed criminal offences in connection with the trial of the appellants.

  On 5 August 1992, 10 February 1993 and 27 April 1993, the director issued interim directions to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary requesting that further reports, information and witness statements be obtained. When these had been received, the director considered all the facts and information before him. In Northern Ireland the test for prosecution applied by the director is that criminal proceedings are instituted where he is satisfied that the evidence which can be adduced in court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction and that such proceedings are in the public interest.

  The director concluded that the evidence in this case was sufficient to warrant prosecution of a number of individuals. Accordingly, on 26 July 1993, the director issued a direction to prosecute three serving and two former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for offences of perjury and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of public justice in connection with the trial of the appellants. The director further concluded that the evidence was insufficient to institute criminal proceedings in respect of any other police officers who had been the subject of report. There were a number of other matters in respect of which the director requested the Chief Constable to carry out inquiries. Additional papers have now been received from police and are presently being considered.

  Subsequently, a solicitor acting on behalf of one of the persons in respect of whom prosecution had been directed, submitted a medical report. The director then arranged that this person be independently examined by a consultant physician and a further report obtained. When this report had been received and considered, the director concluded that the prosecution of that individual should not proceed. Accordingly, a direction of no prosecution was issued on 1 September 1993.

  Roger Levitt
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will investigate the conduct of the case against. Roger Levitt.

  The Attorney-General
  I have investigated the conduct of the case against Mr. Levitt and I am satisfied that the prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office was fairly, properly and vigorously conducted.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will refer the case of Roger Levitt to the Court of Appeal.
  740
  The Attorney-General
  Rulings of the trial judge in the course of the trial related to matters within his discretion and are not matters of law which can be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972.

  Sentencing is always a matter for the independent judiciary. The Attorney-General has power, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal in respect of offences which are triable exclusively on indictment. Fraudulent trading is an offence triable either on indictment or summarily and therefore, under the present law, sentences imposed for it cannot be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.): The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMIITEES on the Woolsack.

Roehampton Burns Unit: Future
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the burns unit at Queen Mary's University Hospital, Roehampton.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in her policy paper Making London Better asked the London Implementation Group and South West Thames Regional Health Authority to report on likely developments in the pattern of hospital services in South West London, including Queen Mary's University Hospital, Roehampton, Kingston, St. Helier and St. George's hospitals. Their report is expected by the end of this month. It will then need to be considered alongside the advice in the independent specialty review on plastics and burns.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her usual courteous reply. Is she aware, however, that it is a somewhat predictable reply? Is she further aware that I have a family interest in this matter in that our younger daughter nursed at that hospital for some years? The unit is just eight years old and it is a specialty unit. I visited it recently and spent some hours there. The team who work there, which comprises anaesthetists, doctors and nurses, will suffer greatly if the unit is broken up. This fine hospital covers a large geographical area.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, all those factors will be taken into account when decisions are finally reached, but I would like to say that we are looking at services and specialties, not just at institutions. I believe that some of those services can be transferred and teams can be kept together.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to advise the House that there is no threat to Queen Mary's Hospital itself? I am sure she is aware that the hospital is a valuable asset in south west London and is close to the hearts of people who live in Roehampton, Putney and the whole of that area. I hope she can tell us that the hospital itself is safe. We also hope that the burns unit will remain attached to it because those two things go together. I leave the matter at that.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know the hospital very well and I recognise the contribution that it makes to the local community. But as I said in my
658
initial reply, it is one of the four hospitals that is subject to the review that the south west Thames region is undertaking at the moment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebon: My Lords, while declaring an interest as an inhabitant of Roehampton, dependent almost entirely for emergency services upon this hospital with such a wonderful tradition, may I ask my noble friend—of course, we have to await the final decision—whether she will take into account the acute anxieties of the people in the neighbourhood? The proposals which have been rumoured and discussed have caused a great deal of hostility.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very much aware of local opinion and particularly the opinion of the local MP.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the majority of the specialist support staff to the burns unit are women who, due to their family commitments, are unlikely to be able to move if the unit is moved to another location? Under those circumstances, how long does the Minister think it would take to build up another unit of similar skills, and what would be the cost of that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is being studied as part of the work that is currently being done by the South West Thames Regional Health Authority. I understand the views that have been expressed about staff who work in the health service. I would like to pay tribute to their commitment and dedication. I think they do a fine job, but in the final analysis we run the health service for the population and for the patients who need it and not primarily for the staff.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in so far as these decisions that are to be made are delegated to appointed bodies—government appointed quangos full of their own supporters—will the noble Baroness take some steps to ensure that a moderate degree of public confidence is reposed in these bodies?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the South West Thames Regional Health Authority is accountable and its staff are responsible for the services in the south west Thames regional area, which encompasses more than just London. The region is conducting the initial inquiry and that is absolutely correct as the staff in that region know the people concerned and they have detailed knowledge. But then they will report to the London Implementation Group, which will consider those recommendations in the wider context of all of London's services. The recommendations will then be made to the Secretary of State. If a change is being proposed, the Secretary of State will ensure that the. whole matter goes out to consultation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is it not a fact that there is a higher risk of infection with burns than with any other specialty? Is it not true that this unit at Queen Mary's covers the whole of greater London? What is the point of tearing the heart out of this skilled unit when it serves the whole of greater London?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, these are aspects that the specialty review team looked at but there are 14 units that serve London within the M.25 area.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, follows closely the one tabled earlier in the week by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and indeed Questions that will be dealt with in the following weeks, all of which reveal there is considerable uncertainty about the state of clinical services in London? When will the Government give us their strategic view of their plans?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State produced her policy paper, Making London Better, in the spring. She recognised then that a tremendous amount of work needs to be done not only as regards looking at the services that are required for Londoners but also looking at the academic, teaching and research aspects. This is a complex area that needs to be examined. Therefore it is important that we look at these different pieces of the jigsaw and try to pull them together bit by bit. As I said to your Lordships earlier in the week, a number of things are happening at the moment. A number of different hospitals are coming together to form joint trusts and all those consultation periods are beginning to come to an end. I can assure your Lordships that a decision will be made very soon.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Baroness said in answer to her noble friend Lord Swinfen that ultimately the service is run for patients and not for the staff. But is it not in the interests of the patients that staff should be expert, should work as a team and should be happy with what they do? Surely that must be taken into account in this instance.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. Of course that is taken into account. I was trying to get the right balance. One also has to consider the population. The services are primarily for the people of this country and not solely for the staff.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to answer the final part of my supplementary question, which was: in the event of a specialist team being broken up by a move what would be the cost of training another team?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is impossible for me to tell at the moment. It depends on the unit, where it is going and who is involved. There are all sorts of considerations, and they are being taken into account by the South West Thames Regional Health Authority.

Livestock Imports: Health Controls
3.10 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the current animal health controls on imported farm livestock are working properly.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, we are satisfied that our controls are working properly but we have identified some problems in exporting countries. As a consequence, the Government are taking a number of measures designed to help prevent the introduction and spread of disease by imported cattle. In particular, 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; and we have stepped up checks at points of destination to between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. on average. We believe that those measures, and others taken in the light of any disease risk in exporting countries, will continue to help safeguard our high animal health status.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does the introduction of the new system which he described, which we all welcome, mean that the Ministry has now accepted the warnings that many of us gave some time ago regarding the low standard of veterinary certification in some other EC countries?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are concerned that in certain other member states the standard of certification has fallen short of what is expected. However, I emphasise that, in the event of suspicion of a specific disease risk, we can carry out checks on imported consignments at any point in the transport chain, including at ports of entry. Furthermore, it is open to us to take action to provide safeguards to prevent imports in the event of an outbreak of disease in the exporting country which poses a serious public or animal health risk.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall his first day at the Dispatch Box in his present position on 20th May 1992 when I asked a Question very similar to this one? In view of the fact that warble fly has been reintroduced into this country, how should farmers who are already sensitised to organophosphates treat milking cattle? There is no problem with young cattle which can be given an ivermectin injection, but with milking cattle organophosphates are the only treatment. As farmers work milking cows twice a day and are exposed to those products, they are very concerned that either they will have to lose 28 days of milk supply if they inject their cattle or will themselves be affected by organophosphates.
Earl Howe: My Lords, where farmers face real difficulties in carrying out warble fly treatment the Ministry is willing for them to arrange for blood samples to be tested for warble fly at the Central Veterinary Laboratory. The cost of taking the blood sample will have to be borne by the farmer but the Ministry will pay for the test itself where the samples are received before mid-February 1994. All animals giving a negative result to the blood test will be released from any further restrictions, but those giving a positive result will have to be treated, if necessary by another person, before movement restrictions can be lifted.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister recognises that an essential element in this issue is the confidence we have in the accuracy of the certification given in overseas countries for the importation of animals into the United Kingdom, especially from the European Community. How will Her Majesty's Government respond to the proposed reduction in the meetings of the veterinary advisory committee on veterinary training, under which meetings would be held for one day once a year? Many other advisory committees are similarly affected. Those advisory committees ensure a degree of comparable status and competence across the Community. Will the Minister comment on that important question, which has direct relevance to certification?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are looking at those proposals carefully. There is no evidence to suggest that official veterinary services in other member states are any less competent than those in the UK. Occasional errors in veterinary certification have occurred but they have been taken up immediately with the member state concerned. The UK is pressing for harmonised EC standards of veterinary certification based on a set of principles drawn up by the federation of veterinarians in Europe.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what are the risk diseases associated with this Question?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the UK is largely free of all the major animal diseases. We are therefore concerned to exclude such serious diseases as Aujeszky's disease in pigs, swine vesicular disease, Newcastle disease in poultry, foot and mouth disease, warble fly and brucellosis.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what liaison exists with the British Veterinary Association to help farmers on the issues we have discussed this afternoon?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that the British Veterimuy Association is only too willing to advise farmers where they are uncertain. Equally, the regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture are also ready to provide advice.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the anxiety that exists in relation not only to imports which originate in other EC countries but also to imports which originate outside the the Community and enter the EC before being imported into this country? Is he also aware of the letter this week in the Veterinary Record from a vet who said that he had seen some of the certification procedures in other EC member states and that if a vet in this country were to practice at that level he would be struck off?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of that letter but I shall make sure that I see it. I note what the noble Lord says with some concern. Imports of live animals into the Community from third countries must comply with detailed animal health conditions. In addition, live animals may be imported into the Community only through an approved border inspection post and must undergo full documentary, identity and physical checks
662
before being permitted to enter into free circulation within the Community. On the whole we are satisfied that the system is working well.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, can my noble friend please tell me what is the warble fly?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the warble fly is a very nasty insect and lava which infests itself into the body of a cow or other animal. It causes severe discomfort to that animal and severe loss of condition.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the very full reply that he gave me. However, perhaps I may press him. In a case where blood tests prove positive and the farmer has to dress his cattle or inject them, can compensation for his loss of milk for a 28-day period be considered on the same basis as compensation for slaughter of animals affected by brucellosis and foot and mouth?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there are no provisions for that kind of compensation. If the noble Countess cares to write to me with details of the case which she obviously has in mind I should be delighted to seek a full reply.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, in order to put at ease the minds of those who are interested in the import of livestock, can the Minister confirm or deny whether any of those diseases have been confirmed in livestock at a port of entry?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is my understanding that none of the outbreaks of disease which we have seen this year has been detected at the port of entry. However, it is fair to say that nor would they have been under the old system. They have been detected at subsequent points, most notably the points of destination.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, did I hear my noble friend say earlier that the vets on the Continent are as good as the vets in the United Kingdom? The skills of the vets whom I have seen in Spain are almost non-existent.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend did hear me aright. We have every confidence that the standards of training for vets throughout the Community are of a uniform nature.

Education Bill [H.L.]: Parliamentary Costs
3.19 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they estimate will be the cost of putting the Education Bill [H.L.] through Parliament.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we estimate the cost to the department to be in the region of £80,000.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister not think that that is a waste of money? The Government are keen on containing public spending. The second part of

663
the Bill on student unions could perfectly well have been dealt with by other means. A great many of the clauses could have been dealt with under the Education Act 1992. The first part of the Bill relating to the teacher training agency is unnecessary. The higher education funding council can deal with those matters for Wales. Why waste public money and a great deal of the time of this House on a Bill which is unnecessary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, the bulk of the Bill deals with initial teacher training reforms. The noble Baroness and many of her friends on the Benches opposite would have jumped up with apoplexy in this House had we precipitately brought forward a Bill on teacher training without full consultation.
Secondly, once a year it is the freedom of every government, through the gracious Speech, to address both Houses with their programme. That was done. There were four days of debate in this House. The point was not raised. It certainly was not voted upon at that time. Through the democratic process the issue is now before the House, which can discuss the measures in the Bill. It is now for the House to do the job which it does well: to scrutinise and, if necessary, revise the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not be better to defer debate on the Bill until we have the Second Reading on Tuesday?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has put more succinctly the point that I sought to make rather clumsily.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Government consider dropping the Bill altogether, thus saving every penny of the amount to which the Minister referred? The two main features of the Bill are completely irrelevant to educational problems at present. We realise that the student unions' proposals were put in the Bill to obtain a necessary cheer at the Tory Party Conference.
On teacher training, every educational association and organisation is completely opposed to the proposals. When will the Government enter the real world on educational problems?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, through the gracious Speech the Bill was announced. There were four days of debate; a vote was not taken at the end of the debate. The Bill received a First Reading. That was passed without comment in this House. The Bill must now be left to the democratic process of this House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady David, has revealed that her Question relates to the appropriate nature of expenditure on procedures in this House. Does my noble friend have a note of the cost of conducting yesterday's procedure on a superfluous Motion of no confidence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not. However, it was a question that I posed to myself in order to obtain the information for today.
So long as the democratic processes are properly used, and people are given proper opportunities to
664
discuss Bills, it is right and appropriate that staff are paid the cost of their work in association with a Bill. In this specific case staff costs—I refer to superannuation, national insurance and so on—are covered. So, too, are all the internal and related printing costs of the Bill. It is absolutely right that that should be so. It is now for the House to discuss the Bill in its appropriate stages.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, do the costs that the Minister has given us include the fixed costs—that is, ministerial and Civil Service time—and do the Government take those costs into account when deciding whether to introduce a Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not receive any bonus for taking a Bill through the House. My salary is not deducted if I do not have responsibility for a Bill. So far as concerns my services, the costs are absolutely neutral. Indeed, so too are the costs of the civil servants, who would be working anyway. We have costed work that is superfluous. That is a Freudian slip. I should have said "additional". We have taken the genuine costs of the department over and above the normal work of the department. The staff costs, which include national insurance, superannuation for staff time and overtime for the hours that are kept in this House, are £48,000, with £10,500 for overtime. That figure is dependent on how long we take on the Bill. There is £20,000 for all related printing and reprinting of the Bill as it proceeds through the House. We have rounded the figure up for miscellaneous items. The figure is actually on the high side.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not object terribly to education Bills; we have had 15. It is the Education Acts that I oppose. The Bills do not seem to do any damage.
The noble Baroness states that £80,000 is the marginal cost of producing the Bill. Did she also state—I may have missed it during the general jocularity—that the figure does not include any costs for your Lordships' House and another place? Is that an additional cost that we could obtain if we asked for it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we did try, but, given that there is Question Time every day, once Members are present, the costs of their attendance and travelling to and from the House are already part of the overheads of the House. They are not included in those figures.
Much is being made of the number of education Bills and subsequent Acts that have passed through the House. However, I remind noble Lords of some of the items that these Bills covered. I refer to the repealing of the requirement on local authorities to set up comprehensive schools; the very important special needs Bill based on the Warnock report; the national curriculum, to which I understand noble Lords opposite agree; funding councils for further and higher education; education support grants for training of teachers; a pay review body for teachers—it was welcomed by all sides of the House; and the abolition of the ILEA, for which I do not expect support from the other side of the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the other matter which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised.

665
Since many of us have not previously seen many of the friends of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who were present at Question Time yesterday, will the noble Baroness make absolutely sure that they know how to fill up the relevant form?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Peston: We can then calculate correctly the cost of running this House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government can be well pleased with the impressive vote of confidence on the Motion put forward by noble Lords opposite. However, I believe that it was the feeling of this House yesterday that it was not the best use of time and certainly not the best use of money.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister criticised me for not having raised the matter during the debate on the Queen's Speech. Perhaps she would be kind enough to read my speech again. She will find that I criticised the Government for bringing forward a Bill in which the student unions proposals could have been dealt with by making certain acts by students ultra vires. That measure was unnecessary; and I stated that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise unreservedly if I did not say that the noble Baroness criticised the Bill; she did so. However, there was an opportunity to vote. There was also opportunity to comment at First Reading, and that was not done.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that implementing that legislation will cost the universities a great deal more than £80,000 a year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a detail that I have no doubt will be dealt with at great length in the course of discussing the Bill in Committee.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that we did not vote at First Reading? If that is right, she surely knows that there is a strong convention that we do not vote on First Reading. Would the noble Baroness like to comment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an unusual question. I stated that the Bill was mentioned in the gracious Speech. The debate was not voted upon. I had understood by rumour, if rumour is anything to go by, that there was to have been a vote on the gracious Speech, but there was no vote. There was too no comment at First Reading.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, as the matter has been raised, for the guidance of your Lordships perhaps I may read from the Companion to the Standing Orders which states:
"The First Reading is almost always accorded without dissent or debate, both as a matter of courtesy and because the House has normally no knowledge of the Bill until it is printed; but it is not unknown for the First Reading to be discussed, opposed or refused".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, thank you.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
3.29 p.m.
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 consider hybrid instruments and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

V. Craigavon,

V. Dilhorne,

L. Gallacher,

L. Mutton of Lindisfarne,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this Motion generally goes through on the nod, but in view of what happened during the last Session on the Railways Bill it may be desirable to pause for a moment. The Hybrid Instruments Committee is a constitutional organ peculiar to your Lordships' House. It was set up for the purpose of safeguarding individual rights and interests which might be affected by subordinate legislation. It is idle to set it up if, whenever it may be of use, it is set aside by a statutory provision suspending the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House in that regard.
The hybrid instruments procedure arose out of an attempt to evade the hybrid Bill procedure. As your Lordships know, a hybrid Bill is in general a public Bill, in other words affecting the public generally, but containing some provision which adversely affects a. particular individual or body, their interests or rights, in the way that a private Bill does.
When the independent examiners of Bills certify that the Bill is hybrid, it goes to a hybrid Bill committee in both Houses. That is, of course, inconvenient for administrators, who want to get on with the job. A public Bill, with all its stages in both Houses, is bad enough; the hybrid Bill procedure adds an extra stage with private rights and interests apt to become inconvenient for administrators wanting to lay down a broad general line which will do justice in the overwhelming mass of cases.
Thus, what was done, ingeniously, was to put the hybrid provisions—those affecting particular bodies—not into the Bill itself but into subordinate legislation under the Bill. In view of that, your Lordships' House alone set up the Hybrid Instruments Committee which each Session scrutinises hybrid instruments that might infringe individual rights and interests. The procedure was considered by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73. It said:
"This procedure has for nearly 50 years"—
that was 20 years ago—
"provided valuable safeguards for private interests affected by delegated legislation, and should be retained".
Notwithstanding that recommendation—the report was accepted by both Houses of Parliament—there have been repeated recent provisions obviating the procedure by statutory intervention. They culminated last Session in the Railways Bill. There was a late schedule dealing

667
with pensions. In effect, it gave the Minister, being a party to the contract, the right to re-write the contract relating to pensions. As a sub-paragraph, that would probably not, in the ordinary way, have been seen. Fortunately, however, your Lordships had set up the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which was such a success last Session. It drew your Lordships' attention to the provision, signalling reasonably loudly that it ought to be primary legislation and very loudly that if it were still delegated legislation, the hybrid instruments procedure should not be suspended. Your Lordships allowed it to be done by subordinate legislation but objected strongly, through an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, to the suspension of the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House.
The matter went to a Division, which the Government won by a majority of one as the Tellers reported it but which resulted in an even vote of 124 each, according to the Clerks. It is worth while comparing that Division with the one that took place last night. What happened was that a considerable number of noble Lords who support the Government voted against them on the previous occasion and even more abstained. The Cross-Benches voted overwhelmingly for the amendment.
With that Pyrrhic majority, I doubt very much whether any department would try it on again. But the message should go out that your Lordships will be more vigilant than ever to vindicate the procedures of your Lordships' House.
There is a further point. Valuable as the scrutiny committee has proved, it only operates once a Bill has been published, in effect after Second Reading. But once a provision has been put into a Bill, a department is liable to fight very hard—as it did on the Railways Bill—to preserve that provision. That indicates the need for two further steps. The first is that parliamentary counsel should be responsible to the Law Officers. At the moment, they are nominally responsible only to the Prime Minister. So, in fact, they are irresponsible. Their responsibility to the Law Officers was recommended by Sir Robert Andrew, a very distinguished civil servant, who was asked to report on the Government's legal services. His recommendation has more recently been endorsed by the magisterial Hansard Society report on the legislative process.
The other step that is needed, coincidentally, is that the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet should resume its former role of scrutinising legislation critically before it is introduced, not merely as a business committee, as it now does, and refer objectionable Bills back to the department. In the meantime, in setting up this committee again, your Lordships are, in my submission, establishing that your Lordships are adhering to your legitimate, necessary and recommended role in this regard.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, says. However, in the light of further business I do not seek to amplify it. I understand that the Leader of
668
the House recognised the genuine unsatisfactory state where there is a clear division between the Houses but a small majority on a matter which is of importance to this House as part of Parliament.
My hope was that the Leader of the House would set up a committee to look not only at that sort of matter but also at other matters concerning the Procedure Committee. Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether that committee is likely to be set up and when; and whether the matter that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will be placed on the agenda to be examined by that committee as a matter of urgency? We do not know, in terms of legislation that may be put before this House, whether we may be faced with the same difficulty and conflict. If the noble Lord can give those assurances, many of us would be content.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the House will perhaps be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for reminding us of recent history, with particular reference to the Railways Bill. This is a matter about which the House feels extremely strongly, as was evinced by the closeness of the vote which took place on that occasion. The setting up of this committee is obviously something which the House would wish to do. I believe also that the House is extremely grateful for the existence of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which pointed out very clearly to the House the points which were raised in the Railways Bill. I remind the House, however, that the Railways Bill was precedented in this case by quite a number of Acts now upon the statute book: the Airports Act 1986; the Wages Act 1986; the Local Government Finance Act 1988; the Official Secrets Act 1989; and the Local Government Act 1992, all of which contain—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recognise that that means that the fault that took place last Session was compounded and that repeatedly there have been inroads on the privileges of this House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not prepared to accept that the situation has been compounded. I am, however, prepared to agree that the event was yet another illustration of government wishing to push through matters which this House does not care very much to have happen, evinced, as I said, by the vote which took place on the Railways Bill. There is no doubt that this House would like to retain for itself the right that exists according to standing orders that in these events we should be allowed to look at such matters. That is a right which I believe this House will probably fight for. I am assured by the Leader of the House that in setting up the committee, which he is forming to look at our procedures, the working party which is in his mind will undoubtedly examine the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
Obviously, I shall not have succeeded in totally satisfying the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I believe that the whole House shares to a great degree the feelings that he expressed. But the vote went the way that it did. The House, reluctantly perhaps, has to accept that. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
3.43 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Hooson,

V. of Oxfuird,

L. Templeman,

L. Thomas of Gwydir,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: 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 a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee—

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

E. Ferrers,

L. Glenamara,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Richard,

L. Shackleton,

B. Stedman,

L. Strabolgi,

V. Ullswater,

L. Wakeham (Lord Privy Seal),

L. Wigoder.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills 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. Gallacher,

E. Grey,

670

V. Hood,

L. Renton,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Thurlow,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Biotechnology: Select Committee Report
3.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Regulation of the United Kingdom Biotechnology Industry and Global Competitiveness (7th Report 1992–93, HL, Paper 80).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the committee's inquiry was to investigate suggestions which had been made, largely in industry, that the current regulations governing biotechnology were likely to place United Kingdom companies at a competitive disadvantage compared with competitors especially in the United States and Japan. In fact, our study of the implementation of those regulations led us to believe that there were some elements of uncompetitiveness even within the Economic Community.
The committee was aware right from the beginning that those regulations were only one factor governing the competitiveness of the firms in question. We noted that such matters as the availability of investment funds and intellectual property rights, for example, were at least equally, if not sometimes even more, important.
Very briefly, the committee's findings were as follows: (a) Biotechnology is already in everyday use and offers substantial benefits to mankind; (b) Separate regulation of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in contained use is not needed; (c) The deliberate release of GMOs, with some exceptions which we note in the report, is not inherently dangerous, although some people contend that it is; (d) The United Kingdom regulations, which are based on Community directives, take an unduly precautionary line and are based on obsolescent information; (e) The current regime is unscientific in so far as it fails to discriminate between activities which involve real risks and those which do not. By real risks, I mean risks which can be measured by some acceptable form of risk assessment.
The committee made quite a large number of recommendations, which are summarised in Chapter 7 of the report, and summarised even more briefly in paragraphs 1.8 on page 10. The main recommendations are that, first,
"the Government must press for amendment of the EC contained use Directive so as to substitute a risk assessment system in place of the current classification of risk according to size of operation and pathogenicity"
secondly,
"The Government must press for amendment of the EC deliberate release Directive to enable certain activities, as selected by a group of EC national experts, to be exempt from the present provisions";
and thirdly that,
"as a matter of principle, GMO-derived products should be regulated according to the same criteria as any other products".
We believe that the present process-based system of regulation should be confined to those areas where it is absolutely necessary and that we should move towards product-based regulation so far as industry is concerned.
We also recommend that the DTI deregulation task force should review the current regulations with a view to revising them, and where necessary attempting to revise the EC directive.
At this point I should interpose the fact that the committee's inquiry was not aimed at deregulation as such in the manner of the Government, who dislike regulation. The committee was not part of the Government's deregulation process or strategy. I hope to make that quite clear.
Lastly, the committee recognised that there is a need for the promotion of public understanding of biotechnology, which would be promoted mainly by the industry concerned but certainly by government departments as well.
The committee received somewhat over 100 written submissions, some of them quite substantial. We heard from 30 witnesses or groups of witnesses. Most of those witnesses and submissions came from industry or academia, but we heard also from government departments, the Community and environmental groups.
Speaking personally—as chairman, I do not wish to commit my fellow members of the committee to this part of my speech but I hope that they will not dissent too much from it—I found the evidence impressive, though I felt that the Commission's evidence amounted largely to stonewalling. I was not at all impressed by the witnesses sent to us by the Community. I do not feel that they were of any great help to us in our deliberations. I was disappointed too in the performance of Greenpeace, which was immovable in its opposition to genetic modification of any kind. It is important in dealing with a subject of this kind that the views of environmentalists such as Greenpeace and other groups from whom we heard evidence should be heard and studied. Nevertheless, I found Greenpeace disappointing. Not all my colleagues may agree with me but I thought that I should make my views clear.
The departmental witnesses, who were mainly from the Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Executive—there were others from agriculture and food and so on—were naturally cautious. But the Health and Safety Executive was more adventurous than the others. It seemed to think that in some cases the existing regulations were too strict and that their implementation was sometimes too severe and could possibly be relaxed. On the other hand, the practitioners from industry and the academic world almost all believed that the regulations were much too strict and that the hazards presented by GMOs were exaggerated in most people's minds.
In paragraph 5.8 (on page 31) of the report, the committee states:
"Their [the practitioners'] arguments were that the caution shown by the scientific community in the 1970s had been excessive and could now be relaxed; that the perception of risk posed by genetic modification had been founded on false premises; that fears about deliberate release had been misplaced;
672
that the act of genetic modification was in scientific terms far more precise and predictable in its effect than the largely serendipitous acts of nature and selective breeding; and"—
what is important—
"that no known accident had ever occurred either from contained use or deliberate release of a GMO".
Those are strong conclusions arising from the very strong evidence that was presented to the committee day after day in the course of its inquiry.
Some witnesses went so far as to say that scientific modification was more safe than the ordinary modification in the evolutionary process. The committee itself does not press that point. An interesting example of that view came from Professor Kornberg, who illustrated his beliefs with an analogy. He said that there are two ways to feed a fire or a furnace with coal. One can gather up a shovelful of coal and shove it into the fire, including anything else which happens to be present in the coal, such as cigarette ends and bits and pieces of rubbish. That is a generalised way and in fact it is the evolutionary way. The other method is to feed the fire with a pair of tongs, carefully selecting pieces of coal and only pieces of coal, discarding the odd bits of rubbish. Professor Kornberg explained that that was an analogy with the scientific method of genetic modification; namely, one puts in the good bits and leaves out the bad bits. The committee found that analogy a graphic and convincing illustration of facts that were presented to it over and over again.
At this point I must draw attention to an error in the report. It led one of the witnesses to suggest that the committee had misunderstood his evidence. Right at the top of page 33, in the first three lines, Professor Mark Williamson of the University of York is quoted as saying:
"The vast majority of the biotechnological developments that are known about at the moment will have no safety implications for the environment".
The committee then refers to the complete account of his written evidence, which is in another volume of the report. Unfortunately, one word was left out in the publishing process. Those who are concerned with publishing, as I am in my private life, will realise that when a word is left out in the publishing process it is almost always the most important word in the sentence. At some stage of the process the word "new" was left out. Professor Williamson should have been quoted as saying that the developments:
"will have no new safety implications for the environment".
Professor Williamson was aggrieved that we misrepresented him, although it was wholly inadvertent. As was said, his full evidence, including the necessary word "new", appears at page 206 of the second volume of the report, where the rest of his evidence is given in full. He goes on to say in that evidence:
"However, there is a small possibility of a major environmental effect".
It is important to mention that he says that.
Some prominence has been given to Professor Williamson's views in the press, for example, in the Independent last October, when the report was published. But the committee did not rely on his evidence to come to a conclusion. Its conclusions are based on the totality of the evidence and the combined evidence of a very substantial number of witnesses.
Professor Williamson urged caution. So did the committee. The committee recommended that:
"the United Kingdom Government, in concert with other countries active in biotechnology, presses the [European] Commission to amend the Directive"—
that is the deliberate release directive—
"to enable certain activities to be exempt from the present provisions. Those activities should be selected by a group of EC national experts on which the United Kingdom would be represented by ACGM and ACRE".
The committee, therefore, is aware of the need for caution. At the same time, it suggests that, in the light of experience, approval for some activities can be speeded up. It is important to note that nowhere in the report did we ask for a free-for-all, though some people suggested that we had. In that respect the committee is closer to the 13th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution than might appear at first sight and, indeed, than some people might think—the Royal Commission not excepted.
In 1989 the Royal Commission said in one of its conclusions,
"We see no environmental justification for preventing releases that are considered safe from proceeding".
That is the position of the Royal Commission and it is the committee's position as well. As I said earlier, the committee was aware of factors other than regulation which bear on the competitiveness of biotechnology. I mentioned investment funds and the problems of intellectual property. The condition of the macro-economy has some bearing on that and so too does the strength or weakness of the science base in Britain. Particularly important in that respect is the public awareness of science. Public understanding not only of science but also of biotechnology is crucial.
Biotechnology is not new, even if genetic modification is. I do not like the use of the phrase, "genetic engineering". For reasons of which many Members of this House will be aware, I prefer, "genetic modification". I hold a specific view, of engineering. Processes like fermentation and the selective breeding of animals and plants have been used for generations. That is biotechnology, though it is different from the genetic modification which we are discussing.
In the committee's view, genetic modification is another step on a well-trodden path. It is not something that came completely out of the blue, as it were, though perhaps not everybody would agree with that. While there is no extreme antagonism to biotechnology in Britain, there is some scepticism. As I sat listening to some of the witnesses it seemed to me that some people were critical of biotechnology and sceptical in regard to unspecified and as yet unmeasurable benefits. At the same time, they were less sceptical—some were not sceptical at all—in regard to unspecified and unmeasurable dangers. They suffered a change of attitude and did not look at the two points in an objective way.
There is therefore important work to be done in educating the public. The committee believes that biotechnology will gain public acceptance in the fullness of time as it comes to be seen as useful and desirable. That is perfectly natural. In the meantime
674
positive public education is needed. That is the business of industry, the Government and, in the long term, the schools. We made recommendations in that direction.
In relation to educating the public, the committee did not believe that foodstuffs produced using GMOs should be labelled, though people pressed the use of labelling on us. We were not against people labelling products voluntarily, though we did not believe it should be insisted upon. We noted immediately that the safety of food is already subject to wide regulation and felt that there was no need for more. In this case labelling would give the public a wrong signal. For example, as the labelling of cigarettes is meant to convey some form of harm—sometimes fatal harm—so insisting on the labelling of GMO foodstuffs would give a similar but mistaken signal to the public. Our committee did not support it, whatever any future committee may say. As The Times newspaper put it in a leader last October,
"What we need to know about a genetically-engineered tomato is not how it was created but whether it is safe to eat".
Finally, I thank the members of the sub-committee—the individual Members of your Lordships' House—who guided me through the inquiry and produced a report which I believe to be extremely important, warts and all. We were greatly helped by our clerk, Mr. Rhodri Walters, who has since moved on to other responsibilities in the House, and to Sally Roger of the Committee Office. We were given strong backing, too, by Mr. Brian Richards, our specialist adviser, and Dr. Simon Shackley, who analysed overseas regulatory practices for us. Without their help the report would have been a somewhat limp affair. I thank too all those who gave evidence to the committee, whether written or oral, for it was on their evidence that the committee's conclusions and recommendations were based. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Regulation of the United Kingdom Biotechnology Industry and Global Competitiveness (7th Report, 1992–93, HL Paper 80).—(Lord Howie of Troon.)
4.7 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and his Select Committee on the report, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in particular on his admirably clear introduction to it. As a chartered biologist and natural pedagogue I am delighted also to see the admirable layman's guide to genetics and genetic manipulation that appears in the report, including the glossary of definitions and technical terms. I am sure that it will be of great educational benefit in this House, if not more widely in the public domain, and I welcome it.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, and indeed the report at an early point in paragraph 4.3, identified the 13th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as an influential previous study. I speak as a member of that commission for the decade following 1981. The first point to emphasise is that the Royal Commission's report dealt only with a part of the broad

675
sweep that was covered by the Select Committee. We need to recognise that it was exclusively directed towards issues arising from the release of GMOs into the environment. It was concerned with planned releases but also addressed the question of accidental escapes from contained laboratories or sites of commercial production.
The Royal Commission study was carried out between 1986 and 1989. At that time events were moving rapidly in the field. Our conclusions benefited enormously from the advice and participation of leading practitioners in the UK and elsewhere. They were the scientists who were personally, in their laboratories, involved in studies leading up to planned releases. They wanted to get on with the job and were therefore deeply concerned to operate within a framework that would both protect the environment and satisfy actual or potential public anxiety.
The commission's report is prefaced by the words of the late Lord Zuckerman, who was, incidentally, my doctoral supervisor. He said:
"Governmental action to guard against possible environmental disaster has never turned out to be either premature or unnecessary".—[Official Report, 20/10/88; col. 1313.]
I believe that, in the present case, events have shown that judgment to be wise and true.
Unlike the proceedings of the Select Committee—I have before me the floppy version; there is also a three volume version with evidence—the reports of the Royal Commission are not backed by the evidence, which in any case would be unmanageably voluminous. I hope that your Lordships will judge that the statutory remit of the commission and the varied qualifications and background of the commissioners are enough to ensure that its reports and its advice are based on careful, scientific objectivity.
I too should like to refer to Sir Hans Kornberg, who I have always regarded as one of this country's most quotable men. I was pleased to see, with respect, that he rebutted the noble chairman's leading question (question 776 on page 164 of the evidence) where the noble Lord suggested that the commission had been "slightly hysterical"—those are his words—in its approach. I cannot accept the suggestion in paragraph 6.10 of the Select Committee's report that there was at that time no basis for the recognition of public concern, nor the implication, in paragraph 5.13 of the report, that the views of biological scientists on the subject had not been accepted at that time by the Royal Commission. I am glad in this context to take note of the correction to Professor Mark Williamson's words—a small word but with a big meaning in context—to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has drawn our attention.
The 13th report of the Royal Commission made the key point that the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs raises quite different issues from their uses in a secure laboratory. The two kinds of activity are rightly subject to separate regulatory regimes. This distinction is not always sufficiently recognised in the Select Committee's report.
The purpose of the recommendations in the 13th Report of the Royal Commission were to make it,
676
"possible to identify proposals for release that raise concerns and deal with them appropriately on an individual basis".
The Royal Commission also observed quite clearly that relaxation of the controls over GMOs and their releases can be undertaken on the basis of further experience of actual releases. I remind your Lordships that in 1989 the commission explicitly said that it expected that there would and should be changes in the regulatory regime as understanding grew.
As members of the Select Committee know, the present regulatory procedures derive from the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Since February 1993 applications to release GMOs to the environment in the United Kingdom have been handled by the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment biotechnology unit has scrutinised and granted consent to 11 applications since it took over this responsibility, which indicates fairly well the rate at which things are moving.
At present each application is also submitted to the Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment (ACRE) for consideration and approval before consent is granted by the Secretary of State. The 1992 regulations on the deliberate release of GMOs require applicants to provide two statements to support the evaluation of a proposed release: one setting out technical information and the other being a risk assessment statement. It is true, as the report emphasises, that the technical information contains 89 points which are prescribed in the legislation, but applicants are free to use these in the way best suited to their needs. It is also true that the present regulation allows a period of 90 days for the scrutiny of applications. It seems to me essential to preserve this maximum to safeguard reliable scrutiny.
The Department of the Environment has issued guidance about how to apply for a consent to release or market GMOs, including a framework for risk assessment which builds on the Royal Society's definition of hazard and risk, which was the result of very considerable study. I understand that the guidance has been used by applicants, with satisfactory results. My own view is that, in unfamiliar ground such as this, the approval system has to start by being strict. It must be right that no consent is granted unless and until the department is fully satisfied with an applicant's risk assessment and confident that a GMO can safely be released. I think it is scarcely fair to characterise the present arrangements as "Byzantine", as the Select Committee does in paragraph 1.8, or even as over bureaucratic and unscientific.
As another illustration of the rate at which things go, there have now been 75 releases of GMOs to the environment in the United Kingdom since 1986, and well over a thousand such releases worldwide, including more than 300 in the European Community—over 150 of those (half of them) since the 1990 EC directive came into force. I understand that the approach to risk assessment adopted by other member states is similar to that used in the United Kingdom.
It may be useful if I take up a few minutes in restating the Royal Commission's position in the light of later developments. The 13th report recognised the

677
importance of identifying, types of release which could be exempted from government scrutiny and/or categories of organism for which proposals for release should he treated differently. It also recognised that it might ultimately be possible to replace controls directed specifically at genetically modified organisms—GMOs—by reliance on wider product controls. The Select Committee report goes into the issue of product controls at some length and uses the phraseology of "vertical" and "horizontal" controls. But it is important to realise that, for the type of GMO for which release to the environment may be sought, in many cases product controls are not available as an alternative.
The Department of the Environment has already announced its intentions to streamline the process by introducing a "fast track" process for some generic products, which are to be identified by ACRE. I am sure that this will be welcome to scientists and others working in areas that by now have become familiar—because we have moved on from 1989. All parties now recognise that, in time, as experience of dealing with applications builds up, ACRE should be in a position to make generic recommendations which would cover the majority of applications.
In his evidence Sir Hans Kornberg speculated about the position the Royal Commission might take if it were to reconsider the evidence today. Although it is not the usual practice of the commission to return to the subject of previous reports, it has issued a statement to clarify its position. It may be helpful if I draw the main points of the statement to the attention of the House. First, the commission is glad to note that the Department of the Environment now considers it justifiable to streamline the regulatory procedures by introducing a fast track for certain releases. I understand that ACRE has accepted the proposal in principle provided the Government continue to follow its advice over implementation. This would have the Royal Commission's full support. The proposal goes some way to meet the views expressed by the Select Committee as summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. In due course, further streamlining of the procedures may become possible without creating unacceptable risks to the environment.
Secondly, the Royal Commission's overall conclusion is that the department's arrangements for scrutinising applications for the deliberate release of GMOs to the environment are soundly based scientifically and at the same time are flexible, within the framework of a step-by-step approach to innovation which the 13th report envisaged as the basic safeguard in the regulatory system. The commission is therefore satisfied that the department is adopting a sensible case by case approach and content that the biotechnology unit of the Department of the Environment is carrying out its task satisfactorily.
For the moment, however, I do not believe that the Commission would want to follow the Select Committee in identifying, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, as "much too strict" control over the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. I am sure that the Commission would not countenance the wholesale removal of controls over this particular
678
activity. So I am glad to hear the noble Lord. Lord Howie, state clearly that in this key concern the Select Committee is at one with the Royal Commission.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I must apologise to the House because I may have to leave before the end of the debate to be at a previous appointment. Therefore, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whaddon for agreeing to change places with me in the order of debate. Perhaps I may also point out that the Chief Whip's office has indulged in a bit of remarkable biotechnology by changing my sex. I am not Baroness Perry, I fear.
It was a fascinating experience to have been a member of the sub-committee whose report is under consideration today. Biotechnology is enormously interesting and important. I would like, first, to pay tribute to our chairman, my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who handled us and our witnesses with great skill and with a lightness of touch that kept everyone in good humour even when dealing with the most serious of issues. I agree with everything he said today.
I myself was particularly interested in the problems of the control of the products of biotechnology. That is perhaps not surprising because I spent 15 years of my life as a member of the British Pharmacopoeia Commission which laid down the standards for all medicines. For six years I was director of the department of biological standards at the National Institute for Medical Research, which acted as the control laboratory for the Department of Health in the application of the Therapeutic Substances Act. The Act controls the toxicity and the efficacy of all therapeutic substances which are not pure chemicals so that the dose cannot be determined simply by weight. Each batch must be tested biologically by comparing it with a standard preparation. The substances covered included at that time vaccines, antitoxins, hormones and antibiotics.
I mention all this, first, because I am anxious to show that I did have a lot of experience of control mechanisms but, secondly, because I want to discuss one particular example from the past which is in some ways analogous to the problems posed by the products of genetically modified organisms.
Much of what I shall say concerns the question of balancing risks. All control measures depend on determining that balance. When it has been determined, those who draft the control regulations are nearly always challenged and called upon to justify their decisions, explaining how the risks were estimated and, even if the estimates are accurate, whether the balance chosen is an acceptable one.
Some 30 years ago, when I was director of the department of biological standards, poliomyelitis was a disease that provoked much fear. There were annual epidemics of varying severity which left many, both children and adults, dead or permanently paralysed. One could, after each epidemic, calculate the risk, that year, of a person being attacked by the disease. By adding the

679
risks year after year one could estimate the risk for an individual being attacked by the disease sometime during his or her life.
Let us assume that that risk was something like one in 100. While I was director, a new vaccine against poliomyelitis, devised by Jonas Salk, was introduced. The Salk vaccine was, after a few years, superseded by the Sabin vaccine, the one currently used. The Sabin vaccine is a living attenuated virus, given by mouth on a lump of sugar. It produces an infection in the recipient which causes no harm but also produces lasting immunity against virulent poliomyelitis viruses. The Salk vaccine, on the other hand, was made by a method often used for bacterial vaccines but not for virus vaccines. The method consisted of growing living strains of virulent poliomyelitis virus and then treating them with formaldehyde. If the right amount of formaldehyde is used, it makes the virus non-infective but leaves its ability to produce temporary immunity unimpaired. It has to be injected. The manufacturing process is very delicately balanced between leaving a little bit of the virus still active or affecting it so badly that its antigenicity is lost and therefore no immunity conferred.
That balance was upset in the laboratories of one American manufacturer and, as a result, 10 children died and over 100 were paralysed by the residual active virus in some of the batches. On the other hand, many more children were saved from naturally occurring attacks of poliomyelitis as a result of the whole campaign. I was at that time required in my job to sign the certificate saying, "This batch of vaccine is safe". Since it went into about 100,000 children, it was not a very comfortable feeling.
The accident led to a full-scale inquiry into control methods in general. The public demanded a safe product. It was very very difficult for the media or for the general public to comprehend that no control method could ever give an absolute guarantee of safety. Tests depend on sampling each batch. However carefully the batch is mixed, there can be no guarantee of complete homogeneity. Thus the only way of securing absolute certainty is to test the whole lot, which does not leave any to inject into patients.
We have to deal with a balance of risks. There is, for any child, a chance of contracting the disease if left unimmunised. If the sampling techniques used in testing batches of vaccine give a probability of, say, less than one in 1,000 that there is any active virus left, is that good enough when the risk of contracting the disease is one in 100 over a lifetime? Most people would say "no". There seems to be something much worse about getting a disease because someone injected you with the bug than getting it during an epidemic by act of God. But most people might settle for a risk of one in 100,000. Overall, the chance of getting infected in the years the Salk vaccine was used were of the order of one in half a million.
Perhaps we may take a second example of the balances of risk. We can choose to look at what happens to people who are exposed to a nuclear power station. Here the balance is more complex because, first, the
680
benefits of using nuclear power from avoiding atmospheric pollution are benefits to mankind as a whole and not, like immunisation, benefits to the individual, whereas the risk of damage is a direct risk to the individual living in the environs of a nuclear power station. Secondly, the risks are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify because there is a paucity of clear evidence. The risks of atmospheric pollution and the resultant global warming are not immediate and people are less frightened by future risks even though they may threaten the survival of the entire human species. But it is that threat that makes it absolutely necessary to try to estimate the balance of risk even in such a difficult case.
When we come to biotechnology, we have situations which are analogous both to the polio vaccine and to nuclear radiation. At the moment almost all the products of biotechnology which are already on the market in this country are those which are controlled under the current regulations for the contained use of genetically modified organisms. Most of them are medicinal products such as human proteins, new vaccines and diagnostic agents. For these products the situation is analogous to that which arose with the poliomyelitis vaccine.
A good example is human insulin. This is manufactured by taking the gene that provides the instructions to a human cell to produce insulin and inserting it into the genome of a bacterium. When those bacteria are grown in cultures, which can be done on a large scale and very quickly, they all dutifully produce human insulin. The bacteria can then be killed easily and effectively and the insulin separated and purified. There is no remaining trace of any genetically modified organisms; and we are left with a preparation of human insulin that is indistinguishable from preparations made by any other method. It is true that while bacteria are easily destroyed, DNA is remarkably robust. It is probably true that the very robustness of DNA was a necessary factor in evolution taking place at all. It is perfectly easy to devise tests which can be applied to each batch of the insulin to ensure that there is no remaining DNA.
We thus have a situation where there is a very small risk to the individual given the human insulin for his diabetes; and a very significant risk to him of allergic reactions to all the insulins from other species. Both risks can be estimated with some accuracy and a balance struck. It is overwhelmingly in favour of using these products of biotechnology and of controlling them just as one controls products not derived from genetically modified organisms. That is what we strongly recommend in our report.
On the other hand, if the decision is taken to release a genetically modified living plant or animal into the environment, the situation is very much more complex. As has been said, by selective breeding people have produced new varieties of roses, potatoes and grapes, of dogs and cattle and pigs—varieties that have some specially desirable characteristic. This causes no outcry; it is just good farming practice. Yet it is quite obviously interfering with nature. If, however, a new variety is produced in the laboratory, people are instinctively much more sceptical about letting it loose. It is seen as interfering with nature in a way that is of an altogether

681
different order. Yet in most cases the risks are no greater than releasing a new variety produced on the farm by selective breeding.
In saying that, I do not mean to gloss over—I am sure that the committee did not mean to gloss over—the fact that, especially where pathogenic organisms are concerned, there is a real need for very great care. But the fact that there are situations where that very great care must be taken should not be allowed to dictate all the control procedures for the vastly greater number of instances of vanishingly low risk.
I am arguing the case for a much more sensible and sensitive drafting and application of the control regulations. Currently they exert a very considerable depressant effect on British industry and we must change that, for the biotechnology industry will be of enormous economic importance in the next few decades. The whole thing is beset by the emotional reactions of a public whose fears are very real but are usually based on the scarey stories put out by the tabloid press and other media and on a total lack of understanding of the facts. A similar problem exists with other situations where the issue is emotionally upsetting, like living near nuclear power stations. Politicians are necessarily sensitive to the irrational fears of their constituents and they are advised by a Civil Service that is itself relatively ignorant.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, of Brailes, in his Mountbatten Lecture in November this year, summed up the situation very cogently. He was dealing with an understanding of industry. I am referring to an understanding of the biotechnology industry and I cannot resist quoting his words. He said:
"From Government we require some quite fundamental changes in attitudes and practices. Let us first examine the role of politicians. Few of them have any experience of working in, much less managing, industry; yet they have a deep belief in their abiliiy to shape and inflnence industry, sometimes through direct intervention and sometimes through studied neglect.
"A degree of humility and self-questioning would be a welcome development. The scientific method of hypothesis, controlled experiment and modification of the hypothesis if necessary, is foreign to the attitude of politicians driven by a Parliamentary timetable but an occasional recollection of the fate of major industries at the hands of politicians of both parties should give pause for thought.
"In general, the advice received by Ministers from their departments leaves much to be desired and, since pressure of time often forces them to rely upon such advice, the shortcomings are serious. They stem from the essentially amateur approach of the Civil Service, which I suppose they would prefer to call generalist. It is rare indeed to find a senior civil servant with any knowledge of science, engineering or accountancy yet this lack does not appear to innibit the offering of advice on highly complex and sometimes technical matters where numeracy and some acquaintance with the technology of the issues would be valuable. This lack is compounded by the practice of moving civil servants every three years or so, usually to departments far removed from the individual's experience. As a result, in my experience, the quality of advice given is often very poor and is usually concealed from the outside world for a wide variety of procedural reasons.
"This approach is a luxury we cannot afford. Maybe we can afford to take a relaxed attitude to cricket, but the economic performance of the country is much too important to us all to be treated in such a casual way."
I cannot find a better way to describe the situation that faces the biotechnology industry.
But what about public understanding? I spent 12 years building the Open University, one of the most
682
effective ways of providing access to education to the adult population, so I am particularly concerned about the public understanding of biotechnology. We heard a great deal of evidence at the sub-committee about the need for such public understanding and about the lack of adequate steps to provide it. The Engineering and Science Research Council carried out a survey for the Department of Trade and Industry on the public perception of biotechnology. It showed that the public put most trust in such bodies as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace for advice, information and opinion and least in the newspapers, multinational companies and government.
We received a lot of criticism of the media, which were accused of being more interested in controversy than in information. The Confederation of British Industry said there was no government department which acted as a champion with a clear remit to promote biotechnology. Professor Weatherall said, and I quote:
"I don't think that the British biotechnology industry is sufficiently aware of the importance of taking the public along with them. Nor do I think that government is aware of the importance of the public appreciation of biotechnology and its implications".
The Biotechnology Joint Advisory Board in 1991 said,
"there is a strong case for publicly funded initiatives to improve public perceptions"
and our final recommendation was that DTI should respond positively to that.
We desperately need a more rational approach and this calls for a much better informed public, a much better informed Civil Service and a much better informed Parliament.
In summary, the vital messages in our report are, first, that the Government must act to ensure a more sensible and sensitive drafting and implementation of the regulations to control the products of biotechnology; and, secondly, that they should play a much more active role in improving the public perception of biotechnology. In my view—I hasten to add that this is my view—financial resources for this should be provided by industry, academia and Government but the lead must be given by Government. I commend the report and these messages to your Lordships.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I shall follow what the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, said as I develop my speech, but I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for the excellent way in which he introduced this complicated and broad report. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, said that the House needs educating and we have already had a very good lecture on what biotechnology is about, and how it affects us all, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie.
I speak as a scientifically intelligent layman who has not had the advantage of serving either on the Select Committee or on a commission, as have previous speakers, but I should like to pick up the main point that this is a question of public understanding and education. The vital recommendation is that relating to the development of public understanding. The idea that the subject should be dealt with in schools is fine but that is not the generation that forms part of the electorate at the

683
moment; it is not the group that is influencing public opinion at the moment. A two-pronged approach is needed on the education side.
Taking the schools approach, I noticed in the report a suggestion that the subject might be included in the schools' general curriculum. That would be fine if one could be sure that the problem of biotechnology was taught by someone who was scientifically literate and who had been educated in understanding biotechnology. Earlier this afternoon some of us heard comments on a report in which it was said that 25 per cent. of the people teaching science in schools had no scientific background. It would be a disaster if that 25 per cent. was made responsible for teaching biotechnology or an understanding of it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said, biotechnology has been with us for a long time. Different yeasts for making beer and bread have been selected. There is also grain, or perhaps something closer—the breeding of cows and race-horses. My theme, to the extent that I shall be talking on a theme, will be related to pharmaceuticals and the biotechnology of pharmaceuticals. Penicillin was one of the earliest biotechnological processes. Look how many lives that has saved. There were never any scares that something would be released accidentally into the environment.
Again, on the subject of education, I support fully what the noble Lord, Lord Perry, said about the education of those in the design of the regulations and the control of this technology programme, but to what extent is biotechnology different from the manufacture of pharmaceuticals? Many of the hazards are the same. The process of obtaining the answer is different. The method of biotechnology is a much more accurate way of obtaining the answer in manufacturing pharmaceuticals. If one is manufacturing something chemically, there is a risk of producing an isomer. For those who can remember the thalidomide cases, the problem was that there was an effective, active, element in its manufacture, but, unfortunately, there was what was thought to be an inactive isomer which in fact caused the thalidomide disaster.
If one is using a biotechnological technique, one does not make the isomer. One cuts off the small amount of amino acid or protein that one wants to use, targets it onto a carrier and targets and designs the active element to treat the disease, or the ailment, or to attack the virus that one wishes to attack. The methods by which the process has to be designed means that one can detect what is going on much more accurately than can be done pharmaceutically. There is no contamination, and the whole process can be better controlled.
I am aware that there may be escapes of active elements during the process, but escapes of acids, solvents and such things already have to be contained. The chemical and the biochemical industries are well aware of the necessity for containment.
I have had the advantage of going around a biotechnology development plant. I was astounded at the way it was controlled, the understanding the people had of the problems and the great skill that they were using. That is why we have to keep up to date. The
684
regulation side is important. It must be sufficiently restrictive—I emphasise the words "sufficiently restrictive"—but it must be responsive to changes in methods of manufacture and the changes in controls, and the only people who know what they are—this again supports the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Perry—are those who are doing the job. I agree that the HSE is learning fast, because its staff are the people who go onto the shop floor and it is at the sharp end. That is most important, but one must be aware that there are problems.
There needs to be careful control of the regulatory procedures and the information that has to be given during those procedures. If a company is working with a particular amino acid or set of carriers, that information is commercially important. It is needed for regulatory purposes, but it must be used for regulatory purposes only. There must be no risk of leaks. If one is developing a process in which there are one or two active elements, but it is necessary to use 50 or 100 carriers, that means 50 applications and 50 times the risk of a leak of information.
Another piece of information which is just as important, and even more likely to leak out sometimes, is when someone has ceased to apply to use a particular product, or amino acid, because they have discovered that it is of no use. Should that information leak out to a competitor who is working on a similar project, that competitor would then be able to stop the process. That would be to the commercial disadvantage of the first applicant. One must be careful. I know that we have Chinese Walls and such things, and I know that one always hopes that they are effective. I think, and hope, that in this country they are. However, there is always the risk that if there is a European committee someone may be indiscreet and let out, "We have had an application for product so and so". That may point someone in that direction, because we should not forget that, for example, in France the regulator of today may tomorrow be the managing director of a biotechnology company, or he may have come from a biotechnology company to do his regulating. It is not like our Civil Service, although that may be an advantage or a disadvantage so far as concerns our Civil Service. It is something about which one needs to be aware. An exchange of information is always valuable for regulatory purposes, because it is pointless to regulate unnecessarily.
I suggest that when the regulations are set out by Act of Parliament, or by order, they should contain a clause that insists that they are looked at three or five years later, and perhaps revised, or amended, as necessary in the light of the development of techniques. When legislating for anything like this, it is difficult to anticipate in a fast-moving industry such as biotechnology, the developments that may occur three or five years later. We need a revision programme. One of the problems with European directives is that at the moment the Commission is so busy producing them that it does not have time to go back and look at what it has already produced and to think about revising them. I have said enough. I support the repot.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, as a layman and one who has virtually no scientific background it was a great privilege for me to be invited to sit on the committee. I admired the way in which our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, conducted the proceedings. I enjoyed also working with those members of the committee who were far more knowledgeable about the issues and the opportunity that was presented for learning more about the subject.
The committee received evidence from a large number of scientists and industrialists and from people who were against biotechnology. Indeed, some were against any new developments. A number were worried about this particular technology. As I listened to the evidence I was struck by the ability and the clarity of expression of the scientists, their great understanding of the subject, their awareness of the ramifications of the technology and their certainty about what was and was not safe. I was struck by the fact that those who were against the new developments had no scientific evidence to support beliefs that were dominated more by prejudice than by knowledge. I came away with not the slightest doubt that those who gave the scientific evidence had to be listened to. I support very much the conclusions of the Select. Committee.
Biotechnology is no great mystery. It has occurred in the development of mankind and the products of society ever since time began. I have spent most of my life as a cheese maker. I am probably a more practical biotechnologist—although I would never have believed it—than many of the people involved in the committee's study. As the evidence emerged it became clear that many fears are not related to the actuality of the new technique—it is merely a technique and not a great new approach—but to a lack of understanding.
As I listened to the evidence I became aware of the enormous benefits which the technology provides for all. We are able to carry out techniques in a clearer, more precise and more effective way. If developments took place in the course of nature, the introduction of new projects and ideas would take time and possibly many mistakes would be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry, mentioned the pharmaceutical industry and the many benefits which every person in the world now derives from its new products as a result of biotechnology. We all use diagnostic agents, which would have been impossible to operate only a few years ago. Antibiotics have been mentioned. Great possibilities are being opened up in food production as regards better productive and more economic methods. We all use detergents, and every day commodities are being produced more efficiently as a result of this technology. Advances are being made in leather production. We are becoming world leaders because, as a result of biotechnology, we can be more efficient in production. The same applies to paper production, the development of novel foods and plastics and polymers. More importantly, the technology will help us to preserve our living ecosystem, about which so many people are anxious. It will also help a great deal in the protection of the environment.
686
I shall leave other noble Lords to deal with the scientific aspects of the subject but there are also important economic and environmental aspects for our future. I do not need to remind noble Lords that in the next 50 years we anticipate that the world's population will double from 5 billion to 10 billion. Many new scientific methods will be required to deal with that because we must preserve the environment that people want while at the same time create the wealth that they will demand and the services and resources that they will use. There is not the slightest doubt that the development of biotechnology will make possible more than we ever dreamed of a few years ago.
It is essential that our society gives every possible encouragement to those who are developing biotechnology, those who wish to invest in it and those who need every opportunity to get new products onto the market. It is quite clear that there is not the inherent danger that only a few years ago it was believed existed. Although one would never criticise those who a few years ago made the decisions about regulations without today's knowledge, it is right and proper that the regulations should continually be reviewed in the light of new knowledge and opportunities which the technology presents. We should respond to them in a positive way in order to encourage further investment.
That is all I feel it appropriate for me to say about the report. I support and encourage its recommendations and I hope that the Government will respond to them positively. I wish to take this opportunity to tell your Lordships that, as a result of being involved in the Select Committee, I and my noble friend Lord Soulsby were given the opportunity to lead a delegation of biotechnology scientists to the United States in order to look at its industry. By a happy chance my noble friend Lord Soulsby went to Washington and I went to San Francisco. The weather that I had was a great deal better than the weather he had to suffer. It might be interesting to remind your Lordships of what we learnt on the trip and of the approaches which are taken in the United States, which might help us to be as positive.
We visited various people and took evidence from them. One of the first people we went to see was Steven Burrill who is the technology specialist of Ernst &Young. In that capacity he has world-wide responsibility for all Ernst & Young's contracts in the area of biotechnology. He made some interesting comments. He felt that scientists left the UK and went to the US because they could not become rich enough in the UK. That has a lot of underlying meaning. He went on to tell us that the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sector in the United States is already a 150 billion dollar-business, greater than the electronic business was at the same stage of its development. He thought that we were in the middle of a new industrial revolution of which the capital markets would decide the final success.
Although we have discussed in the report the implications of regulations, one cannot divorce the implications of those regulations on the availability of capital, which is the very life blood of all new developments. Mr. Burrill went on to say that a very important factor is the Government's attitude because government regulations decrease the predictability and

687
therefore the financial support. In all aspects of such developments we must always remember that predictability encourages venture capital and makes things possible.
Mr. Burrill explained to us, as did many other people in the US, that it now costs between 150 million dollars and 200 million dollars to take a biotechnology product from the idea to the marketplace; that is, to take it through all the regulation processes, to introduce it to the public and to get it accepted in the marketplace. Those figures show that such investment is practical and possible only if one is developing a product for a large marketplace. Those in the United States believe that their marketplace is just about big enough. But as costs continue to escalate, even they are becoming anxious and are having to look further than the US marketplace.
In developing the advance technologies which are now possible and which will bring benefits throughout the world, people are looking for world markets. However, if we are to have a world market, we must have a world-based regulatory system. Wherever there is investment people will need to know that they will be able to get a return on it and that that product will be marketable and made available throughout the world.
Therefore, one aspect at which all governments need to look, if they see the advantages of this new technology, is the need to ensure that we work towards a regulatory system which is effective and equal throughout the world so that investment in one place can be attracted in the knowledge that it will be possible to obtain a return on a worldwide basis.
We visited the University of California Technology Transfer Company. We were enormously impressed by that organisation. It had been set up by the universities of California specifically to commercialise the new technological developments coming from those universities. The company was responsible for the licensing, the patenting and the marketing of those products. It was explained to us that throughout the campuses of the University of California, 40,000 academics are involved in the development of new technologies. I know that in the course of putting together the report, noble Lords were concerned that, if we are to have new ideas and innovation, we must encourage young people to think about it and to be motivated to develop new ideas. They must know also that they will benefit by their development. In California alone, there are 40,000 young minds concentrating on developing something new and better for all mankind. What a wonderful resource that is.
One other important issue was pointed out to us by a Denise Gilbert who was then a US analyst with a large firm of stockbrokers which looked specifically at the biotechnology industry. She told us that one of the important roles that our Government could play in helping the world scene would be to give more information to American analysts and companies about our system of quality product control in the biotechnology industry. Very often biotechnology products produced over here have to go through another system in the United States because the Americans do not understand the basis of the system on which they
688
have already been passed and agreed over here. That increases the cost of products produced in this country. Again, that is an area where we must forge links with other countries if Britain is to take advantage of this great opportunity to become a centre for the development of biotechnology.
It is quite apparent from the reports and the evidence that there is still too much diversity of regulation throughout EC countries. Unless we rectify that, it will become more and more difficult to have standardised regulations throughout the world. That is clearly the first step. The simplified approaches suggested in our report, which make such enormous sense, should be quickly put into effect.
I ask your Lordships to look at page 58 of the report. Paragraph 6.31 states:
"It is a logical consequence of our analysis of product and process regulation that work on further process based EC Draft Directives on GMOs should cease forthwith. Furthermore we wholeheartedly reject the concept of a "Fourth Hurdle" of socio-economic need as an additional criterion in product regulation of biotechnology".
We included that sentence because, in the course of the evidence we heard, it was suggested that the Commission is now being urged to consider that fourth hurdle before allowing certain products to go onto the marketplace. It seemed to us—and it seemed to me in particular—that once we have to prove the need for the development of a new product, it will be extremely unlikely that such a new product ever comes into existence because it is virtually impossible to prove need. We hardly need most of the things that we enjoy. It is not possible to look at this matter on the basis of need. I hope that if the time comes at which we must consider that idea, we should throw it out. I have much pleasure in supporting the report.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too thank the Select Committee for its report and in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for his introduction of it. I have benefited from the discussion so far and in particular, from the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Brain.
I am rather unhappy that there has not been more discussion on some of the ethical issues, both in the examination and report of the committee and in your Lordships' debate. It is slightly sad that there is no speech from the Bench of Bishops on that extremely sensitive area.
I shall concentrate on one small but important part of the report; that is, the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. Your Lordships may well ask, when looking at the impressive qualifications of noble Lords taking part in the debate, what qualifications I have. The answer is that I do not have very many qualifications. I have a rather poor degree in agriculture, and I am the son of a very successful and quite inspired animal breeder. In passing, I should say that much sleight of hand has been going on this afternoon by those who suggest that the kind of thing which my father did and was proud to do is on the same kind of level as the genetic engineering which is taking place today and which is planned for the future.

689
I was the founder director of a body called the Green Alliance, which gave evidence to the committee and which has commented since on the committee's report. I make it quite clear that, although I admire Greenpeace and I believe that there is a certain amount in the stand which it has made, I am not talking about Greenpeace. I am talking about the Green Alliance which is a small, perhaps elitist, body of concerned people who are prominent in public life and who are interested in such subjects.
The director of Green Alliance, Julie Hill, gave evidence to the committee. She has been a member of the Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment since 1990. That should be firm evidence that she is not against the whole question of the development of the release of GMOs. If she were, it would not be possible for her to sit on a government committee advising on consents for release.
However, it is fair to say that the Green Alliance is in favour of pro-active regulations which aim to minimise the possibility of environmental damage from this technology. When I refer to the Green Alliance, I identify myself with its views because I have read and accepted its arguments and discussed them with many people.
I believe that the committee's report is unduly dismissive of the arguments put to the committee that GMOs may pose environmental risks and that its criticisms of the regulatory system for deliberate release are in many ways misplaced. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said towards the end of his speech that it seemed to him that some witnesses seemed sceptical of the benefits and not at all sceptical of the hazards. It seems to me absolutely right that we should be sceptical of the benefits and not of the hazards. We all know Murphy's Law when it comes to hazards and we all know of a great many pies in the sky which eventually come to nothing. It is better, as they say, to be safe than sorry. That is so even if it means risking some advantage in global markets. The report concluded that the UK regulations, which are based on EC directives,
"take an excessively precautionary line".
It seems to me that that view amounts to a dismissal of the concerns voiced in the 13th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, about which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has spoken to us this afternoon. That report was admittedly published in 1989 and, together with the EC directives, had a strong influence on the development of UK regulations. Some of our most eminent scientists, including the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, sit on the Royal Commission and evidence was taken from a wide range of expert witnesses.
The report describes the Royal Commission's findings as cautious and draws attention to the fact that the Royal Commission did not recommend against releases per se. That may be so but the Commission did consider the potential risks great enough to recommend, in terms which could hardly be described as cautious, that,
690
"the addition of commercial pressures to the quest for scientific knowledge makes it even more important to develop a system by which the environmental risks arising from genetic engineering are evaluated, regulated and minimised".
The report contends that practitioners of the technology take the view that fears about deliberate release have been misplaced and that the hazards were minimal or non-existent, although this is acknowledged to be,
"with certain theoretical exceptions following deliberate release".
Those theoretical exceptions are, unfortunately, unspecified.
There is little direct evidence cited in the committee's report in support of the argument that the hazards are over-emphasised. There is a comment from the AFRC which bases its reassurance on one limited and considerably criticised set of experiments, the PROSAMO programme—planned release of selected and modified organisms. There is a comment from one of the UK's largest plant breeding companies who contend that it is impossible inadvertently to create a weed. However, that ignores the possibility of transfer of genes over several generations, and it has been argued that it could take decades for weedy characteristics to become apparent. I would say in parenthesis there that it is, I think, fairly common sense that if one spends one's time developing organisms which are resistant to their natural predators, one is apt to produce something which may, if not take over the world, at least cause a considerable problem in the future.
We have already heard about the unfortunate omission of the word "new" from the quotation of Professor Williamson. I would suggest that the effect that that may have had on the committee's report has been minimised because the committee argued from that. It was not for no reason that Professor Williamson was, as I understand it, quite angry about the whole incident.
The evidence cited in the committee's report does not, in our view, amount to a scientific or rational reappraisal of the risks outlined in the Royal Commission's report. It certainly does not amount to a body of evidence that should reassure us about the environmental impacts of deliberate release. The fact is that we have little scientific evidence about the long-term effects of deliberate release. Little has happened to update our knowledge in the past four years. The six years' experience of releasing GMOs is nothing when one considers that significant changes in the natural environment can take place unnoticed over decades and then unexpectedly accelerate.
For instance work is being done to improve the killing ability of certain viruses that are specific to insects; yet there are still unanswered questions as to what determines the host range of these viruses in the wild, and how they persist in the environment. Parts of plant viruses are being grafted into plants themselves to confer resistance to infection; yet the possibility of recombination of virus particles to produce new diseases has not been discounted.
Crop plants are being engineered to be resistant to the spray of herbicides and that raises the problem which I have already mentioned. It should be stressed that in the

691
EC experiments in all these fields have gone forward so far with appropriate safeguards because a regulatory system is in place to consider the possible dangers and unknowns and put conditions on the release. Unregulated or less regulated releases in pursuit of any of these lines of inquiry would be another matter altogether.
The report's assertion that the,
"regulations fail to discriminate between activities involving real risk and those which do not",
seems to be based on a misunderstanding of their purpose. In order to come to a view about the degree of risk posed by any given release, it is essential to scrutinise releases and that will only happen if a regulatory system is in place.
It is therefore important to reject the call for regulations that apply only to work which is not in the low to negligible risk category, which the committee does not define in its report. Releases judged by the present regulatory system to be of low risk may be so because of the conditions that are put on their release, the way they are managed or the monitoring required. This would not be possible if they were put entirely outside the system.
We can only hope that once the dust has settled from the DTI's deregulation drive—I know that it has been said that this has nothing to do with this debate; nevertheless it is the context in which this report has come forward—it will be possible to return to a proper debate about the future of risk assessment for releases of GMOs. The message of the Strasbourg conference was that, while it is possible to be reasonably confident that releases taking place under present procedures will not cause problems, at least not immediate ones, it is impossible to be confident about the long term effects of many of the possible applications of the technology. Here I entirely agree with what is being said about education, provided that education does not just mean propaganda for the advantages of biotechnology unregulated, which has sometimes seemed to be slipped into the argument. If it is proper education, it is absolutely essential. We need to move the debate outside the small circle of regulators, scientists and industry representatives to a wider circle of those with environmental expertise and concerns.
The future of biotechnology will in part be determined by the acceptability to the public at large of different types of environmental risks and a debate now may help prevent wholesale rejection of the technology later. In closing, I go back to the point I made earlier; that it is right to be sceptical of benefits that are promised and it is right not to be sceptical of hazards because, as we know, hazards, diseases and disasters can occur across the world. Hazards can cause immense harm to the human race and indeed to the future of this planet.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it has been a privilege and a pleasure to have served on the sub-committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and so very well served by its clerk and its
692
expert adviser. I hope that I may at the outset repeat, as other noble Lords and our report make clear, that regulations governing the new biotechnologies, and in particular those governing the release of genetically manipulated organisms, are in the UK at present significantly more restrictive than in countries such as the USA, Japan and Australia.
The regulatory system in the United States is firmly product based and the US Government have argued strongly that regulations should be based on demonstrated risk and should not depend solely on the fact that an organism has been genetically modified. In Japan the government accept the advice of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the effect that biotechnology does not demand specific legislation. By contrast the EC directives to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has referred, and upon which current UK regulations are based, are much more stringent and seem to have resulted from the fact that many of those concerned with their formulation believe that these methods carry much greater hazards than experience has shown to be the case.
It is also true that implementation of the directives within member states has varied. Germany and Denmark in particular have taken a very strict line, while in this country we have implemented a very demanding regime extending the contained use regulations to cover animals and plants as well as the micro-organisms specified in the EC directives.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said, and as other members of the committee have confirmed, it is proper to continue to have process-based regulations on current lines for research and development in the very limited areas where regulation is required; that is to say, work involving pathogenic organisms and for deliberate release of GMOs outside the "no negligible risk" category. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that in my opinion that category has been adequately defined. Work on further process-based EC directives should surely cease forthwith, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, as the current regulatory framework places the UK biotechnology research and development at a significant competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis our principal overseas competitors.
It is essential that in this country we should revert to a product-based system of regulation while taking full account of any potential risks, even though those which are potential only have been greatly exaggerated by many organisations and individuals. Clearly, too, universities and research councils should be exempt from paying fees on applications for deliberate release, and our report stresses the importance of seeing that applications under existing regulations should be processed in much less than the present limit of 90 days. It also follows, as several noble Lords have said in this debate, that a major programme of public information and education, especially of the young, is needed to combat what I fear is much of the ill-informed and mischievous propaganda that has bedevilled this subject in some segments of the public domain.
One only has to consult the autumn 1993 edition of the Medical Research Council News to learn how vital

693
biotechnology is proving and will prove to be in relation to the future economic well-being of this country. I do not propose to comment on those techniques which are proving increasingly fruitful in the agricultural and veterinary fields, while I note with pleasure the recent initiative of the Agricultural and Food Research Council inviting greater public debate on the genetic modification of plants. However, I wish to emphasise that value creation in biotechnology is shown to be substantial in relation to human therapeutic products. The increasing number of biotechnology companies which are thriving in the UK pays due testimony to this important development, as does the fact that the British pharmaceutical industry, one of our greatest successes in innovation and development and in our export markets, is also intimately involved in this field.
I should point out (with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Howie) that for some years now we have had genetically engineered human insulin. Monoclonal antibodies developed by biotechnology have become increasingly important in diagnosing human disease. Some such antibodies are now proving to be effective in treating sepsis and rheumatoid arthritis. Innumerable developments have also been achieved already in the management of cancer, of autoimmune disorders and of a variety of inflammatory diseases, many based on important research discoveries in molecular biology and immunology.
Without question this is one of the fastest growing and most exciting sectors of British industry. Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of exploiting the discoveries which are now emerging almost every week and which carry a huge potential for future improvement in human health, always accepting that the methods employed and the products so produced must be shown to be safe. The regulatory framework under which those companies work must therefore be sufficiently flexible to allow rapid exploitation of discovery and invention.
British and British-based scientists are without question leading the field in several such areas. We simply must not allow their efforts to be frustrated or stifled by excessively bureaucratic administrative procedures and by substantial financial barriers.
Perhaps I may be allowed to highlight one particularly exciting field which is developing apace; namely, that of gene therapy. Drugs based on developments in such technology may be used not just to treat inherited disease resulting from single defective genes but can also play an important role in disorders such as cancer, inflammatory diseases and AIDS. Every week or two we learn that another defective or abnormal gene responsible for causing an inherited human disease has been located to a particular point on a specific chromosome in human cells. In many instances such discoveries have been rapidly followed by full characterisation and sequencing of the abnormal gene and in some instances by discovery of the missing product which the abnormal gene fails to produce or of the abnormal combination of amino acids which alternatively some genes produce and which damage human tissues.
The gene responsible for the Duchenne and Becker varieties of muscular dystrophy, progressive and
694
ultimately fatal disorders in which I have had a lifelong interest, fall into the former category. The missing gene product—namely, dystrophin, a constituent of the membrane which covers the normal muscle cell—is absent or severely deficient in those conditions, thus allowing a progressive process of muscle cell breakdown. Active work is now going on in this country and in many other parts of the world in order to find a means of delivering the dystrophin gene construct into the human muscle cell in order to restore muscle function and thus to control or, it is hoped, to cure the disease.
One such method involves the splicing of a mini-construct of the dystrophin gene, that is an appropriate segment of DNA, to a harmless virus which could then be given to the affected individual in order to carry the missing substance into the cells throughout the patient's body. There are as yet many obstacles in the way of such a development, but work along those lines is moving fast and the existence of muscular dystrophy in some strains of animals which have a similar defect of dystrophin is helping greatly.
In yet another inherited disease—namely, cystic fibrosis —an alternative method of delivering the gene is being used by packaging the missing DNA material into tiny fatty envelopes called liposornes, which can then be inhaled into the lungs; organs which are severely damaged in that disease.
Those are but two of the conditions in which the prospect of gene therapy is within sight of becoming a reality. Such developments of course require cloning of the relevant segments of DNA: that is, reproduction outside the human body of multiple copies of that specific portion of the DNA molecule which is missing and must therefore be replaced in the body Such work is one of the fundamental processes in this field of biotechnology. It is good to know that the Government have established an informal regulatory and supervisory mechanism by setting up a committee, to be chaired by the distinguished paediatrician, Dame June Lloyd, to oversee, I am confident, in a suitably precise but nevertheless supportive way, work in this and other related fields in the UK. Such work is crucial to the future of medical and biotechnology research.
I could quote many other possible developments, but I feel it appropriate to raise another important area of anxiety which was ventilated during the deliberations of our sub-committee, although it is not specifically mentioned in our conclusions and recommendations; that is, the question of the patenting of human genes.
Correspondence which I have had on this matter with the Patent Office and with the right honourable lady, the Secretary of State for Health, has not totally allayed the anxiety felt by myself and by many other doctors and scientists who believe it to be unethical to patent segments of the human genome. Similar concerns were expressed by me and other neurologists at a recent meeting of the American Neurological Association in Boston, USA, as we have learned over the past few years that a number of DNA segments with as yet no known function have already been the subject of applications for patents by US scientists. Until recently the position in the UK appeared to be that, following the

695
example of the US National Institutes of Health, the MRC had felt it prudent to file applications for the patenting of gene sequences obtained at the MRC Human Genome Resource Centre, in an effort to protect the UK industry should such patents be granted. The view generally held was that while it was improper to patent human gene sequences within the human body, those derived from cloning DNA segments outside the body could properly be the subject of such patent applications. Most of us concerned with research into human genetic disease feel that the latter, too, is unethical, believing that all such discoveries should be made available to the medical community at large throughout the world without the payment of substantial royalties, particularly as the prospect of effective gene therapy draws nearer.
I was glad to learn that the US Patent Office recently raised significant objections to such patent applications and that the MRC has decided in consequence against filing any further patent applications for DNA sequences of unknown function, but will share them immediately with other researchers through databases. I can only express the hope therefore that any further applications will be discouraged for the reasons that I have given.
I am happy to commend to the House this exciting and far-sighted report in the preparation of which I was privileged to play a minor part.
5.30 p.m
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the debate occurs during Budget week, an issue which is no longer the business of this House. Nevertheless, we are all responsible citizens, sensitive to the dilemmas presented in balancing the national budget.
As medical science progresses, the general public gradually come to trust a new operation and to demand the cure that it provides. There are now waiting lists for hip operations whereas in the 1970s people regarded such operations as risky. Expensive pills which our parents would have refused are taken willingly today. Our health service costs more as a result, and to meet public demand public expenditure rises. That is true in other departments of state also. How do we pay the resulting bills? We must manufacture useful and desirable products both to fulfil our own needs and to export successfully in a competitive world.
Recently the Government published a White Paper, Realising our Potential, the theme of which is similar. It states:
"The understanding and application of science are fundamental to the fortunes of modern nations. The history of the UK has shown the intimate connection between free trade, the application of science to tradeable products, and national prosperity. Science and engineering also make a most important contribution to improved public services and the quality of life. For example, recent developments in the bio-medical sciences have made possible the improved diagnosis and treatment of disease and allowed a greater emphasis on preventative medicine"
Those benefits are self-evident.
As a nation we are rather good at biotechnology and its applications, whether that means scientists researching or industry applying the results of that research. We
696
are talking about a growth industry whose potential in generating income abroad and fulfilling our own needs is great. It will not help us as a nation to strangle that industry at birth through excessive regulation and the demand for conformity with time-consuming bureaucracy, as my noble friend Lord Wade said when he highlighted what is possible in the USA. Crops can be planted only at certain times of the year. Those who apply for patents must be able to do so at an early stage or they lose their competitive advantage. Delays caused by answering many questions and waiting several months for permits will prevent a firm's success.
Biotechnology is a comparatively new field of science. One can understand early regulators erring on the side of caution because of its complexity and novelty, and because they foresaw risks that, thankfully, were not realised. However, we have been fortunate in this country. Scientists and engineers involved in the development of the technology have been cautious and have avoided risks and the possibility of catastrophe. The committee was impressed by the careful and highly responsible way in which experiments were carried out by good laboratory and industrial practice and the resulting processes and products that developed.
I cannot pretend to an in-depth understanding of all the ramifications of the subject. It was fortunate that we had on our committee noble Lords who have that understanding. That has been amply and ably demonstrated by noble Lords today. I leave the detailed comment to them. We are grateful to our splendid chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Perhaps that complexity gives a clue to the balance needed in the future. Our witnesses talked of "transparent regulation", "reasoned and reasonable regulation" incorporating stringency at first,
"followed by relaxation as a record of safety and sound practice is established".
The aim of such regulation has been to build a strong foundation of public confidence which is essential if the public is to buy and use the new products. Otherwise our industrial competitiveness in the field will never be realised successfully either at home or overseas. Our report lays out in detail how that can be achieved and emphasises the importance of risk assessment in judging the degree of control necessary. It draws attention also to the good work carried out by the Health and Safety Executive and to the fact—it must never be lost sight of—that general food regulations will apply equally in that field and are strict in themselves.
The other side of the penny relates to how the public view the developments. The complexity of the subject and the domination of jargon in its description makes that difficult. Simple explanations and vivid examples of its beneficial effects in so many fields have to be developed to demonstrate those benefits both to children at school and the public at large.
I am a member of COPUS which is referred to in our report. In so many Select Committee reports, we refer to one of the major obstacles to progress as being the lack of in-depth understanding of science and technology among the general public and among specialists such as lawyers, shipowners and operators, media people, and even—dare I say it?—Members of Parliament. In

697
connection with the report, we commend in particular the MAFF Foodsense Factsheets. Those are available only on request at present. I hope that the firm recommendation of the Office of Science and Technology report Realising our Potential about promoting public understanding of science and engineering will be taken seriously. We hope that government themselves, through the school curriculum and in colleges and universities, will put that recommendation into action. We hope that they will support wholeheartedly the activities of organisations such as COPUS, the Engineering Council, the Royal Academy of Engineering and others concerned in the imaginative creation of interest in science and technology so that the subject becomes more fully understood and accepted by the public at large. As a society we need to appreciate fully how much we depend for our health, comfort and quality of life on sensible development of science and technology. We are a long way from realising that goal at present.
Too often media presentations are superficial and not based on clear scientific fact. They can so easily undermine public confidence in new products and processes. That has happened to a certain extent in Germany. We received evidence of German firms moving into the UK where they felt they could develop their products more successfully as our regulations are not so stultifying as those in Germany. However, that gives no ground for complacency as regulators can be more favourable in other countries such as the USA and Japan and even in some other countries in Europe. The world is a global village. International companies establish their activities in the most favourable environment that they can find to develop their products and sell them worldwide.
Of course, our regulations should not be weak. They must protect public safety. But that must not mean excessive bureaucracy. I hope that the proposed deregulation Bill referred to in the gracious Speech will lead to considerable progress in the field. I hope also that the Government, and through them the European Community, will pay serious and urgent regard to the recommendations of the report. Time is not on our side.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I had the privilege of serving on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution during its study of the release of genetically engineered organisms to the environment which resulted in its 13th report. Professor Beringer was one of our specialist advisers during that study. I had previously served on the commission under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Hans Kornberg and I mention their names because both were witnesses to the Select Committee during the study for the report under consideration today. Their evidence is central to the short point I wish to make. Sir Hans seems a popular person from whom to quote, and I shall do so.
The report fails, in my view, to give sufficient weight to the impact of public attitudes and perceptions upon the industry involved in genetic engineering, which offers the prospect of major improvements in medicine, industry and agriculture and is likely to lead to new
698
commercial products and elimination of or reduction in environmental pollution. Many noble Lords who have spoken previously and who have a vast knowledge of the subject have mentioned that.
However, this new technology attracted much anxiety from the time of its early development. There was concern stemming from the belief that scientists are manipulating something as fundamental as life itself and that the relationship of living things to their environment is complex and imperfectly understood. Although they lay outside our remit and were not considered by us, we were aware that ethical, social and political issues were in the minds of the public, relating, for example, to animal welfare, possible use for military and terrorist purposes and such matters as human gene therapy and the fundamental question of whether mankind should seek to create new forms of life.
I subsequently became concerned in questions relating to animal welfare as chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee, which published a chapter on that difficult subject in its annual report for 1990. In it, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, played a very prominent part.
I was greatly concerned that the Royal Commission should undertake the study which it did in order to forestall widespread opposition to the development of the science and thus stultify all activity i n the field, including the creation of an industry based upon it. I was much supported in that view of the importance of the matter by those in industry to whom I spoke. Nor was it at that time, or I believe, at present, pure fantasy. In Germany, a report to the West German Parliament had recommended a moratorium on the release of certain genetically engineered—if I may use the term—micro-organisms, while in the USA action by local and national groups had delayed or prevented some release experiments. Indeed, in the USA there was a vigorous movement to ban all such developments.
Taking account of the failure of the nuclear industry to address those problems—which they are now vigorously seeking to remedy—it was desirable to tackle them early by establishing a regime of control which would have the confidence of the public. That would necessitate the maximum public availability of information about everything which was being done in the context of releases to the environment.
It has been mentioned that there have been no accidents and I do not wish to spread alarm and despondency, which I do not feel at all. However, it came to our notice when we were studying the matter for the Royal Commission—and this is referred to in paragraph 9.32 of our report—that there had been a release to the environment in Argentina by an American company. There was a trial of a vaccine concerned with rabies which was produced with the assistance of some form of genetic modification. Argentina was chosen because there were no controls there, whereas there was a moratorium on such experiments in the United States.
It was put to us that, consequent upon that, cattle had been vaccinated with the experimental vaccine and that other cattle who were running with them had become infected. It was also put to us that attendants of the cattle had themselves become infected in the same way by

699
accident. An alternative explanation which has been given to me is that those were purposes of the experiment. That is to say, it was an objective to determine whether or not the vaccine would result in the infection of cattle running with those which had been vaccinated. It was an objective to see whether the attendants would be so infected. I cannot believe that anything quite so ghastly and unethical as that could have been in the minds of those who were in charge.
Thus there are serious ethical objections to the way in which that trial was conducted and it also illustrates the kind of dangers that result from the unregulated release of genetically modified organisms.
That, as well, of course, as the environmental impact, is the context of the proposals made in the Royal Commission's report for a statutory framework for control, the establishment of a release committee and provisions about access of the public to information. Scientists on the commission considered that each proposed release should initially be considered by the committee, recognising that with experience there could be relaxation by the release committee, for example, in relation to categories. However, in the view of our scientists, that was for the future—a future which I believe has now arrived.
I think it right also to say that the recommendation we made, which is to be found in paragraph 8.5 of our report, suggested the structure of statutory control by a framework statute with regulations made under it, precisely in order that they might be changed without undue difficulty, as technology, experience and knowledge advance. Therefore, the notion that the regulations—good or bad—which were initially introduced should be altered was completely in our minds at the time we were dealing with the report.
Since many releases to the environment were likely to arise in the context of field trials of new products, a problem arose in connection with the provision of adequate information to the public without undermining the commercial viability of the development and therefore damaging the incentive for innovation. It therefore appeared that there was a need for some development of patent protection to cover this new field of invention. I note the paragraphs in the Select Committee's report about that, paragraphs 5.83 to 5.86, but they do not seem to me to take us much further. I believe that some steps have been taken to address the problem, though I am not aware of the detail. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howie, or the Minister in her reply could advise your Lordships' House on it. The withholding of information from the public would not, in my view, by itself be a satisfactory option.
I note from paragraph 5.91 of the report that witnesses pointed out that public opinion of biotechnology in the UK,
"was more benign than, say, in the United States, Germany or Switzerland. 'The United Kingdom has not so far had to suffer from the extreme antagonism and vandalism seen in Germany or the Netherlands or from people such as Jerry Rifkind in the United States, but acceptance cannot be taken for granted and there is a ground-swell of antibiotechnology feeling which could well be mobilised'".
700
That is from the evidence of the Society for General Microbiology at page 185 of the report. Absence of acceptability could jeopardise not only the development of UK industry, but also the entry into this country of others who wish to take advantage of the scientific expertise and facilities that are available here. It would therefore defeat the very purposes that the committee seeks to promote.
Strong arguments are advanced for deregulation, as for instance, at paragraph 6.41:
"We therefore recommend that the DTI Deregulation Task Force review the contained use and deliberate release regulations",
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said about this matter, which rather modified my understanding of what was intended there.
The section on public understanding begins, as follows at paragraph 6.42:
"There is no evidence within the United Kingdom of the extreme antagonism against biotechnology and its products that has emerged in some other countries…. We see no reason to believe that such antagonisms will necessarily develop here".
But I wonder whether that is due to the regime put in place precisely for that purpose which the committee wishes to remove.
I turn to the evidence of Sir Hans Kornberg and Professor Beringer to which I referred at the beginning. At paragraph 802 on page 168, Sir Hans said:
"for agricultural products I would guess there is probably none yet on the market, or if there is, it must be on the fingers of one hand. Indeed, the big hurdle is still, as Professor Beringer has already indicated, that nobody quite knows how to market these products and get them accepted by the public. We have already seen statements in the press in the United States—I saw such reports last year—of chains of ice cream manufacturers who said that they would never use milk which had been genetically modified. Restaurants have said that they would never use any plant materials that had been genetically modified."
At paragraph 804 on page 168, Professor Beringer says:
"I just wanted to add something in relation to marketed products in the United States and that is, to me, a very great concern to what has happened to the Flaur Savr tomato, where Campbell is on record as saying they are backing off this area, because of public perception. What the truth of this is, we are not sure, but there does appear from reading the literature of people against the technology, that they are using as an excuse now inadequate supervision and risk assessment and so comments that I have heard that we should move very rapidly to vertical assessment, product based assessment and to cut down on the amount of environmental risk assessment, may themselves be self-defeating until such time as these things are publicly dealt with".
I want to see the United Kingdom biotechnology industry develop and prosper no less than do Sir Hans, who is a leading protagonist, Professor Beringer and indeed the committee. What I fear is that the adoption of the recommendations to which I have referred will defeat that purpose.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that this House will be immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for introducing the debate on this report. It is a topic of great importance to the economy of the United Kingdom, and holds out enormous potential for benefits to the health and welfare of humans and animals. It also raises ethical issues, and those have been mentioned in the present debate.

701
It was my great privilege and pleasure to be a member of the Select Committee under the very able and (shall I say?) at times humorous—chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
The old biotechnology, as we have heard from previous speakers, including the fermentation of foods or wines and even, more modernly, pharmaceuticals such as penicillin, has been with us for some considerable time. But the new biotechnology is only of the order of 20 years in development, and follows from discoveries some 40 years ago by Watson and Crick on the function of DNA.
It has been said that biotechnology is the next major scientific frontier, and will probably have a greater impact than the computer or the microchip. It has also been said by some that it may well be the last major frontier. I do not share that view. But there is no doubt that it will clearly be a major source of wealth creation to this nation; and following on from that, will lead to the betterment of the health and welfare of our nation and other nations in the world. It is also very clear from the evidence that we received that the United Kingdom is very good at biotechnology, a fact which is freely admitted by our competitors—the major ones being the United States and Japan. Consequently, we should not let restrictive regulations hamper our national and international competitiveness—as indeed is perceived to be the case not only in this country but also overseas. Indeed, that was the original reason for the Select Committee's report.
We heard much opinion to that effect from various witnesses. But the clearest confirmation of that situation came at first hand when a few of us—as the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Charlton, said, he and I and some others—had the privilege of undertaking an OSTEM, an overseas science and technology expert mission, to the United States. As my noble friend said, the weather that he experienced in San Francisco was somewhat superior to the weather that we had in Washington. The basic scientific leadership of this country was fully acknowledged in the United States; but the competitive disadvantage was also fully acknowledged in that country.
I do not believe that anyone would deny the need to regulate biotechnology, which these days includes genetic modification. That need is accepted by all. Initially, the regulatory process, which started in the 1970s, was very strict indeed. At that time I was living in the United States and I played a very minor part in that regulation. But as scientific knowledge and understanding has increased, it has been possible to relax regulations based on science. Relaxation of the regulations is, and should be, science-based. That is probably a major difference between the United Kingdom and, for example, the United States. The regulatory process in the USA is science based, whereas in this country, as the report indicates, other issues come into play, including that of the necessity for the research.
What does that restrictive regulation imply in terms of economic growth and development in this country in particular? First, we were told—and there is good evidence for it—that venture capital is not as freely available in this country as it is elsewhere. Indeed, we
702
heard that even British venture capital was. going overseas, whereas the flow of venture capital to this country from overseas was very poor. Secondly, post-venture capital, or development capital, is similarly affected and is not as freely available. A further point is that small businesses are often seriously affected by the time taken for the regulations to work, and there is the cost of applying for those regulations. In fact in the United States there is no charge for research workers undertaking biotechnological research in laboratories. But as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howie, the DoE has now streamlined some of the regulations. That is very welcome indeed.
Should it be felt that I or other noble Lords have painted too gloomy a picture of the effect of regulation on economic development, let me draw your Lordships' attention to the situation with our near neighbours in Europe, where unduly strict regulations and public opinion (including what is known as the Fourth hurdle) may and indeed have forced some major pharmaceutical companies to leave their native country and go elsewhere. Examples of that are Hoechst and Bayer moving from Germany and Ciba-Geigy leaving Switzerland. Some see this country as a location for their biotechnological work. Nevertheless some American-owned companies based in this country have decided to move their research and development back to the United States. That cannot be of benefit to the economy of the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords would find it tiresome if I were to go on at length about the US regulatory procedures. However, I believe that it is important to note that the USA believes that this is a technology for paramount economic development. With an annual market of £8 billion a year and an estimated growth of 28 per cent., it is guided by a public philosophy of legislation which seeks deliberately to base regulation on scientific considerations and to avoid new regulations when existing ones will suffice. There is strong collaboration between regulatory departments and a transparency of operation which generates a strong degree of confidence in the legislators and on the part of the public in general.
That raises the important requirement of greater understanding and better education of the general public about biotechnological issues. Much of it can start with primary education. As my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said, biotechnology is no great mystery. Despite the jargon, it is not a science that is too difficult to understand. During meetings of the committee, members were privileged to participate in a fascinatingly simple experimental system. In a committee room we isolated DNA in a test-tube. We all discovered immediately that we were biotechnologists and that the long, white material was capable of being extracted from a simple solution.
Perhaps one of the greatest concerns about biotechnology is the transgenic organism and its release into the environment. We have heard much about that this afternoon. Several bodies gave evidence both at the committee and subsequently. They sensed the danger of some killer organism that may be released at great hazard to the population or feared that an evil genius practising eugenics in man might take hold of the

703
technology to the disadvantage of all. There is concern, and I admit that it is genuine concern, about easing regulations on genetic manipulation for use in animals, especially in agriculture. The objections include the charges of tinkering with nature, playing God and creating unnatural animals. Objections are accompanied by the fear that the welfare of animals will inevitably be affected.
But one of the greatest causes of poor animal welfare and suffering in this world is disease. The control of disease is probably one of the greatest contributions that can be made to the betterment of animal welfare in general. That is now very much more within our grasp than ever before by improving animals' native resistance to disease by means of transgenesis or by producing new vaccines based on genetically modified organisms to combat major, harmful, dreadful diseases, such as rinderpest in cattle in the Tropics, equine herpes infection in horses in this country and rabies on the Continent.
The welfare of man also can benefit enormously from this new technology—in the provision of crops and livestock that can utilise areas of the world in which hitherto man and his animals could not sustain a livelihood. The health and welfare of animals is particularly important in the developing world, where biotechnology will help enormously. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that still 85 per cent. of the energy required for agricultural input in the world in general is derived from animals, despite the energy produced by the internal combustion engine in the western world. Any effect on the animals which provide that energy will produce a reduction in the health and welfare of the human populations associated with it. So the betterment of animals in the third world will be of direct benefit to the health and welfare, happiness and indeed longevity of the human population in those areas too.
I believe that any claim that genetic engineering of animals is out of step with modern attitudes to animals is wide of the mark. I certainly know that my own veterinary profession in particular is very anxious that constraints should be placed on the genetic engineering of animals. The welfare of the animal must not be compromised and nor must the welfare of the animal's offspring. I believe that genetic engineering can offer much to improve the welfare of animals rather than reduce it, because of the accuracy that it brings to breeding and planning of animal production.
We must have biotechnology and regulation of biotechnology too. I do not believe that there can be any debate about that. But the process must be logical and science-based. This report sets that out logically, clearly and concisely. I am happy indeed to recommend it to your Lordships.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I take the opportunity to thank the House for giving me the privilege of serving for four years on the Select Committee. Of all the years that I have spent in both Houses, those four years have been the most rewarding. It has been a great privilege to
704
serve on a committee that has such expertise at its service, both among its members and in the witnesses who came before it. Indeed, the Select Committee on Science and Technology shows the House of Lords at its best, bringing unrivalled experience and qualification to bear on important subjects in an objective way. It is amusing to think that it would not be possible to bring together such an organisation by an elected process.
Twenty-five years ago, in a more plebeian capacity in another place, the chairman of the committee was my Whip—and a good one. But he was an even better chairman than he was a Whip. I thank him and congratulate him.
Of the subjects considered over the past four years, many were interesting and worthwhile but none compared to the study of genetic engineering and its regulation. Science generally progresses by infinitely small, painstaking steps gradually extending the frontiers of knowledge. But here and there will come the sudden realisation of a new view of the world. There has been reference to computers; I think of Darwin. His theories were both feared and disdained. They were understood by few at first but later accepted by everyone. The spin-offs affected not only biology, but also politics and religion. They resound still throughout the world.
Genetic engineering is another example. We have barely begun to taste its implications. Only a few people understand what is happening. Far too many have the feeling that it produces a form of Frankenstein. That is complete nonsense. It is a God-given tool that must be used for the benefit of our people and our industry. The apprehension is ill-based. The genie is out of the bottle. We must live with it and do so happily.
The Commission directives are rightly criticised in the report. It is regrettable that it took such an ill-informed view of developments. It appeared to be out of its depth and did not really understand what it was dealing with. In fact, it clearly ignored the advice of its experts. It is said that power without responsibility has been the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. But power without understanding is equally damaging and undesirable. I am afraid that that is what we are faced with. The more restrictive aspects of the directives must be resisted. Unfortunately, the restrictions placed on European industry by the directives caused much damage and handed totally unnecessary advantages to the United States and Japan.
One specific product of genetic engineering with which I am familiar illustrates some of the problems that may need to be faced. I refer to beta-interferon. I have a strong feeling that the real problems of genetic engineering will not be technical. We have the competence to deal with them. There are considerable social and economic difficulties just around the corner which the Commission's directives do not address and which we must face as they arise.
I see some difficult decisions arising with regard to beta-interferon. Interferon has been recognised for many years as a tantalising and promising tool for medicine. But it was only recently that it became possible for pure beta-interferon to be produced by the use of GMOs. Suddenly there was enormous interest. A few weeks ago

705
in the United States it was licensed for use against multiple-sclerosis. I must declare an interest. It is not financial but personal. I suffer from that condition and naturally I take a great interest in what is happening.
Although the general public had little understanding of genetic engineering, it is astonishing how many people with MS were converted to its use as they learnt of the potential benefits of beta-interferon. People would give almost anything to get their hands on it. Up to now it has been available only in microscopic quantities.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt to ask the noble Lord, who is so enthusiastic about genetic engineering, whether it has any bearing on human conduct. If so, what?
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, indeed it does, and I hope to illustrate that. There was a stampede of all those suffering from multiple-sclerosis—I use that as an example—to obtain the beta-interferon. It will not be available in bulk for a number of years. In the meantime Her Majesty's Government are setting up trials. There is considerable pressure on the Government to keep the trials as short and restricted as possible so that licensing in this country can be finalised in the quickest possible time.
No one could be keener than I to see the product on the market. But it is vital that the tests are carried out thoroughly in accordance with true scientific principles. They must be adequate both in scope and length. It would be tragic to, get it wrong, not only with regard to beta-interferon but also with regard to similar products which are coming along.
The product has enormous financial implications, relevant to the whole country. The financial press estimates that the potential market is around 5 million dollars a year. Indeed, if only half the patients in the UK were treated with it, the cost to our health service would be £250 million a year. And it would be imported. That is just one product. Over the next few years how many similar products will arise, all of which seem to be exceedingly expensive? We can see the country facing import bills of billions of pounds for a handful of genetically produced products. It is imperative, not only for the patients but also for the prosperity of the country, that we are at the forefront of production of genetic pharmaceuticals. I urge Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the tests are carried out in a scientific manner.
The Government have been keen to tell us of the importance they place on subsidiarity with regard to European legislation and regulations and how keen they are to deregulate where regulation is not necessary. In regard to the regulations from Brussels on genetic engineering products, they have a perfect chance to prove their point. Let us see whether they are prepared to stand by their principles in the interests of the British people. The prizes are tremendous. We must not lose them.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Howie and his committee for producing this interesting., thorough and enthusiastic report. "Enthusiasm" is a vvord we do not often use about reports in your Lordships' House, but when I read the first few paragraphs of the report which summarise it I was struck by the litany of praise for biotechnology. The argument of competitive disadvantage is agreed; we are told that it is an exciting technology; that it is continually evolving; that the benefits are well proven; that there are enormous future benefits; that early fears are unfounded; that the deliberate release of GMOs is not inherently dangerous; that the regulations are excessively precautionary; and that the safety regulations are bureaucratic, costly and time consuming. The committee was certainly very enthusiastic in its endorsement and it seems to have accepted the scientific arguments in favour almost without hesitation—what I would describe as a utilitarian approach to the subject.
I have to confess in reading the report to one still small voice of doubt. I have the honour to be a vice-president of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. I have to point out that there have been situations in the past where sincerely held scientific views have turned out to be wrong and indeed have had some fatal results. The industry that we are considering is only 20 years old. I wondered whether the committee might have been slightly more guarded in its enthusiasm for the techniques and the systems suggested.
Paragraph 1.8 refers to the importance of understanding. It states that,
"promotion of public understanding of biotechnology is important but should not preclude evolution of regulation".
So there is evolution before public understanding. But in paragraph 5.91 the same point is made rather differently. It states:
"A number of witnesses spoke of the connection between regulation and public perception, and of the need to improve public understanding… Indeed, public understanding, if adverse, can in some ways be considered as another factor governing competitiveness".
Those two quotations seem to be slightly at odds with each other.
A minority of the witnesses felt that the various techniques were inherently risky. In paragraph 5.8 we find that the practitioners thought that the hazards were minimal or non-existent, a not very surprising conclusion which was accepted by the committee.
Clearly, the agriculture and food industries have a major interest in biotechnology. I was not completely convinced by the arguments advanced in paragraph 5.18 regarding the creation of a so-called weed species. The committee has either slightly missed the point or I have. Some 40 years ago, when I was taught agriculture, I first heard the not very helpful definition that a weed is a plant in the wrong place. If herbicide resistance were to be built in through biotechnology, this could lead to possible dangers. The transgenic cultivars will not be competing with the wild species, as the report says, but with the cultivated species. Indeed, I was struck by the remark in paragraph 5.18:

707
"If I were a plant breeder, and in fact I am responsible for a lot of them, I would be quite offended by any implication that I could inadvertently create a weed".
That seems to be a concept of infallibility that is almost papal in its scope.
The report mentions cross-pollination between transgenic plants and indigenous species and seems to imply that there is no problem. I was puzzled by that. As a grower of oil seed rape I spend a great deal of time avoiding cross-pollination between high and low erucic acid varieties. If you are a grower of herbage seed you spend a great deal of time zoning to make sure that there is no cross-pollination. If you are a seed grower of almost any plant or variety you take an enormous amount of trouble to avoid cross-pollination. That is the case with a normal cultivar. Why is there apparently no danger with a transgenic plant? Perhaps I have missed the point. If so, I should be happy to be corrected.
The report contains the slightly curious argument that toxicity, allergenicity, breeding problems and other hazards are acceptable in genetic modification because they also occur in natural breeding—that makes them acceptable. But are they any different in kind as well as degree?
When I read the "Opinion of the Committee" I was struck by the last sentence of paragraph 6.1. I substituted the words "nuclear technology" for "biotechnology", a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Perry. I shall deliberately misquote paragraph 6.1:
"The uses and products of nuclear technology demonstrate just how great is the potential for applying nuclear technology in areas of fundamental importance to the quality of life".
I am sure that the nuclear scientists and technologists would agree with that statement. Some politicians would certainly agree with it. I suspect that there would be deep distrust among the general public. Argument by analogy is usually dangerous, but I do not think it is completely unfair in this case.
Paragraph 6.26 deals with the labelling of food. It states:
"We do not accept that GMO derived foods or food constituents are inherently dangerous. We do not think that a case can be made for the universal generic labelling of such foodstuffs. We therefore recommend that the Food Advisory Committee reject calls for such labelling".
I understand the arguments that the report has produced but at the same time I would draw the attention of the House to an extremely interesting book called Your Food: Whose Choice which is produced by the National Consumer Council. It states:
"A Europe-wide survey in 1991 … suggests that public understanding of biotechnology is very low; indeed only one in five respondents felt capable of answering the questions. A second study in the Netherlands in the same year found that the amount and type of information influenced the level of acceptance of the product. Where foods were presented as new products, but with no reference to genetic engineering, they were rated positively; if it was revealed that they had been made using genetic engineering, the acceptance level was lower".
I wondered whether the argument set out in the paragraph on labelling was a post-hoc argument.
I should also like to say a few words about a subject touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Soulsby. I refer to the question of ethics. I understand immediately that this was not strictly within the terms of reference of the committee. I thought it was significantthat
708
that in the summary of the Opinion of the Committee in Chapter 6 the word "ethics" does not appear and the subject is not discussed. It was mentioned in one way or another by 15 witnesses but so far as I can see it was not dealt with in the chapter on the Opinion of the Committee. I felt that that was a surprising omission. It is almost as if the ethical considerations do not exist—and, as I said earlier, the utilitarian arguments prevail.
There are fundamental ethical questions about the relationships between people and animals. There is less concern about plants. At Question Time today I asked a Question about animal welfare. If we look at some countries in southern Europe we can see what happens when there is no concept of an animal's welfare rights. The subject needs a debate in itself and a report in itself, but because so many of the witnesses mentioned the issue I felt that, although it was outside the committee's terms of reference, at least the chapter entitled "Opinion of the Committee" could have dealt with the ethical argument very briefly.
On the subject of animal welfare and ethics, I was also struck by the evidence given by the Farm and Food Society to the inquiry into the Ethics of New Breeding Techniques for Farm Animals. The society set out a series of proposals for consideration to be taken into account before the licensing of research. They are:
"The precise aims of the work. What are the expected benefits to humans/animals? Is the result expected to fulfil a recognised need?"—
the so-called fourth hurdle.
"Are there alternative methods of reaching the desired goal?…Are there practical means of avoiding the problem in the first instance?… Does the proposed work change the intrinsic nature of the animal? Is biotechnology the only answer? If the work is performed, what is the estimated number of animals likely to be involved? What degree of suffering will these animals be exposed to?
Is it possible that, even if the experiment is successful, further problems may arise: (a) in the animals themselves; (b) in their offspring?".
Finally, the report asks whether the work could create other problems in the welfare, environmental and social and economic fields.
That is a big list. I do not believe that the procedure is unreasonable or that process of thought in studying the licensing of research. I imagine that the committee is satisfied that this is the kind of procedure which has been followed in all the cases which they have examined.
I believe that the committee has dealt well with the global competitiveness argument. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I am still not sure about the views on the release of GMOs. There is genuine concern about this aspect of biotechnology, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. I believe that all noble Lords will agree that bland assurances are not sufficient.
I certainly agree with the committee that a proper policy of public education in this matter is required. We hear so often the comment that if only people understood better what we are doing. Although it has already been referred to, it is worth repeating—that is to say, the quotation from paragraph 5.91 which is the

709
survey by the ESRC for the DTI showing the perceived trustworthiness of the sources of advice. Noble Lords are aware that the most preferred sources were:
"Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, New Scientist magazine, the conservation groups and scientists who work in universities, in that order. Working up from the bottom of the list were: tabloid newspapers".
There is a surprise!
This is a very brief response to a very big report. Although I agree entirely with the exciting possibilities of biotechnology, when I read the report I had the feeling that the committee had gone ever so slightly overboard in their enthusiasm for it. Having said that, there is a statistic which I never tire of repeating to farming and non-farming audiences. I refer to the forecast for the increase in world population by 2020. That forecast is probably reasonably accurate. If it is—and one assumes only a very small increase in the food consumption of the one fifth of the world which is inadequately fed—world agriculture in the next 27 years has to produce as much food as has been produced in the last 10,000 years.
Clearly, we must understand and appreciate that biotechnology will have a great deal to do with solving that problem. I agree with the committee that biotechnology, under a proper system of regulation and control, will have a lot to offer. I conclude by once more thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and his committee for a very interesting, informative, and thought-provoking report.
6.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, even before I enjoyed the privilege of membership of your Lordships' House, I was well aware that the one publication which would always bring benefit to a subject is a House of Lords' Select Committee report, and today is no exception. On behalf of the Government, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the members of the committee. We must be grateful for their time, energy, commitment and constant search for answers. From today's debate it has been very obvious that the participants took great pleasure in that membership. We have today all listened with great interest to what has been said on the effect of regulation on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's biotechnology industry. That is rightly identified as global competitiveness. I for one have learnt much from the many and valuable contributions.
Biotechnology is already an important enabling technology within many sectors of UK industry and it is set to grow. It is truly cross-sectoral and promises to transform many aspects of everyday life; better and novel approaches in health care, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, drew attention; improved agriculture and, not least, in my own department's area, environmental protection. As my noble friend Lord Wade pointed out, there is great practical benefit ahead. Biotechnology will be an important part of the United Kingdom's high technology future.
As a result of accumulating experience, confidence in
710
modern biotechnology is now rapidly increasing. With the benefit of this experience many of the fears associated with the technology in the early 1970s have now been clearly exposed as unfounded. This increasing understanding has quite rightly led to evolution in appropriate areas of regulatory control. The need for this process of change has been recognised consistently by government and our advisers and is made explicit in my department's White Paper This Common Inheritance and in the tiered controls available in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The flexibility in the UK legislation and in the European Community directives themselves, has allowed us to move quickly to adapt to this evolutionary need.
The Select Committee reported and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, drew particular attention to the continuing concern of industry about the burden of controls. While I am relieved to see the committee's conclusion that this may not be the major cause of restraining the growth of UK biotechnology, the Government are rightly concerned that the regulatory burden should only be commensurate with the risk. I hope that some of the recent developments described today will have alleviated many of these concerns. The Biotechnology Industry Government Regulatory Advisory Group will no doubt help in this.
Global competitiveness is at the very heart of the Government's industrial policy. Consequently, the DTI task forces set up under the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative, reviewed the case for regulatory change in biotechnology. While I note the firm disclosure by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that the committee's work was no part of that initiative, I should also like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the deregulation initiative is not aimed at a free-for-all but at removing regulations sensibly and where restrictions are without purpose—in many cases, where they have been made layer on layer.
The case for regulatory change in biotechnology is therefore well reviewed and bilateral discussions between government and industry produced results which were in full agreement with existing policy. These will be reflected in our response to the Select Committee's report.
In the White Paper which my noble friend Lady Platt mentioned, Realising our Potential: a Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, we clearly recognise the importance of biotechnology in our decision to establish a new biotechnology and biological sciences research council. That will come into being on 1st April 1994. It will combine the current work of the Agriculture and Food Research Council and the biotechnology and biological sciences parts of the Science and Engineering Research Council. That seems an eminently logical and sensible move in view of all that we have heard this afternoon.
The sense of confidence surrounding this new technology has been aided by a cautious regulatory approach. Following a call in 1976 from scientists for a moratorium on genetic engineering, the United Kingdom established the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group to give government safety advice. Later, the Royal Commission on environment pollution,

711
under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham—perhaps I may say how pleased we were to have contributions today from both the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who were members of that important Royal Commission—addressed the problem of the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. Their step by step approach has underpinned government policy since and forms the basis of the new regulations introduced earlier this year to bring in measures for environmental protection.
The Government consulted widely on the implementation of these regulations not once but twice, in an effort to ensure that all views, including those of industry, were represented in the finished product.
We have heard this afternoon that UK scientists and industry are "good at biotechnology". That is true. I am also delighted to be more optimistic about UK investment in biotechnology. Although there is evidence that some of the US sources, to which my noble friend Lord Soulsby referred, are drying up, there is evidence that it is slowly being recognised here that this is an area of great opportunity. I am particularly pleased that that is recognised in relation to many small firms. The UK regulatory bodies, guided by the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification, and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, work hard to keep it that way. Over the past years, these bodies have been advising on legislative controls that balance the need for safety and public reassurance with the minimum of constraint on industry and researchers.
Furthermore, in the light of 10 months' experience with the new regulations, I feel sure that the vast majority of practitioners will agree that, while the appraisal of hazards to humans and the environment is carried out pragmatically, it is done with a high degree of scientific rigour yet well within the statutory time limits. Recent guidance on risk assessment from both advisory committees has helped greatly in this respect and allows us to take a lead in Europe.
We recognise that the system of controls established by the directive on the contained use of genetically modified organisms is bureaucratic. We join the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and many others in that view, but this is not a risk issue—rather, it is an administrative one. We have identified a number of measures which can be taken to remedy that. They range from alerting industry to the potential for flexible operation of the current regulations, within the scope allowed, to the drive this October at the competent authority meeting in Rome for changes to the contained use directive.
Concurrently, the classification of organisms into "low" and "high" hazard groupings is under review in Europe to make it more workable. The UK is leading in this review. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, that there can be no greater fan of subsidiarity than myself, but, as my noble friend Lord Wade pointed out, we have to be extremely careful when we are working with biotechnology in global markets. We must not hamper industry. I am pleased that the aim is simplification, so
712
that an application to a single authority will allow people to market throughout the whole Community. That seems to be a sensible solution.
Meanwhile, the majority of the work carried out in containment in the UK continues to be subject to no more than good laboratory, or industrial, practice, as endorsed by the Select Committee and under requirements common to biological hazards in general.
There have been a number of recent developments on deliberate release of genetically modified organisms too, again as a result of experience. In October, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment recommended the introduction of "fast-track" procedures for clearance of some low-risk genetically modified organisms, as foreseen in the second year report to This Common Inheritance.
The first list of organisms which will qualify for these procedures is currently under discussion by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. It is expected to be announced shortly and will be published as guidance notes as soon as possible. I am pleased to say that this list will compare favourably with the US notification scheme and will have the same turn-around time—30 days. The list will be reviewed at frequent intervals in order to add—or, indeed, remove—GMOs as experience is gained. I believe that both the noble Lords, Lord Brain and Lord Nathan, will be pleased that it is recognised that here is something that is moving fast.
Evolutionary change is also apparent in Europe. Criteria for "simplified procedures" under the deliberate release directive have recently been agreed unanimously and information requirements for individual releases are being reduced and made more organism specific. The UK is playing a leading role in these negotiations.
Within the OECD, we have been one of the main driving forces behind moving away from a cross-sectoral (or process-based) approach to a product-specific approach to biotechnology safety. This has led to new initiatives designed eventually to lead to OECD-wide product approval schemes for genetically modified crop plants, biological pesticides and bioremediation agents.
I should like to touch on the comparisons that have been made with the United States, although I recognise the need to reply to the report in much greater detail. The United States system is so complex, involving multiple pieces of legislation from multiple agencies, that sometimes US officials themselves do not understand it, and GM provisions are embedded in much ostensibly non-GM legislation, which is always a cause of difficulty. It sometimes appears simpler because practitioners see only a tiny part of it. I am delighted that some US firms are envious of the European systems.
My noble friend Lady Platt mentioned Japan's competitiveness. I should point out that in Japan there have been in total two releases of GMOs, compared with 75 in the United Kingdom, some 350 in the Community and about 600 in the United States. I feel that, instead of running down British industry, which I

713
am delighted that we have stopped doing, we might be in danger of running down British regulation, which stands well against the competition.
The product-based approach in the OECD is consistent with our commitment to push in Europe for moves towards more product-specific regulation of genetically modified organisms. This has already happened with medicinal products. Others will follow. Any additional process-based legislation is neither required nor welcome.
As well as protecting human and environmental safety, sound regulations should help to build public confidence in the products of modern biotechnology. Indeed, there is no doubt that the success of any product, particularly in the agriculture and food sectors, depends on such confidence.
The Government have launched a number of initiatives to foster understanding, including support for science festivals and grant schemes. I very much hope that today's debate will help that understanding, because most noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Platt, have been at some pains to point out that this issue is nowhere near as difficult as people assume from the outside. The national curriculum now allows the concepts of biotechnology to be introduced to all our children. I hope that the lack of understanding will not be as long term as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, feared.
I noted one particular point in the written evidence that was submitted by the National Consumer Council which I think that both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I would say represents an important view on this matter. In its conclusion, it states that the gap between scientific knowledge and public perception can be very wide indeed. It may be the former which drives industry, but it will be the latter which determines its success. I think that it is important that we continue to ensure that the scientific players in this field do not say that, if someone cannot understand what they are doing, it is that person' s fault—rather, it is that they are failing to explain the matter simply. That causes great concern.
I was interested to note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, on his reaction to evidence from Greenpeace. Since joining the Department of the Environment, I have been concerned that too often the heroes in the environmental field are those who identify the problems. It is crucial that we make heroes, and increasing numbers of heroes, of those who identify the solutions. We are talking today about the engineers and technology people. We have to get out those messages. I can assure your Lordships that that is at the top of my agenda.
I shall give some comfort, I hope, to the noble Lord, Lord Perry. All those reviewing applications in the directorate of the chief scientist at the Department of the Environment have a PhD in biological sciences, and two have direct experience in the biotechnology industry. Continuous scrutiny and all enforcement work is carried out by staff qualified and experienced in microbiology. I have been impressed by the knowledge and experience in this area of the people with whom I have worked on this report.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised the issue of the patenting of the human genome. That has been
714
addressed in the draft EC directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. The UK Government support measures contained in the draft directive to prohibit the patenting of the human body, or parts of it, but it is, of course, as the noble Lord will understand, still very much a moving target at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked about patent protection and how long it was reasonable to withhold from disclosure commercially sensitive information. No such period is laid down. Sensitive information is withheld for as long as it is sensitive. The patent authorities were involved closely with the preparation of the regulations on that point. Substantial protection is built into the regulations.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, about universities and research councils paying less—I believe that is the issue—I must reply that the Government's policy is to operate full cost recovery for consent schemes such as the deliberate release of GMOs. However, costs can be reduced if a consent covers a programme of work extending for a number of years and several release sites and is related to the degree of scrutiny likely to be involved.
Safety has been discussed throughout the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for drawing attention to what happens when there is an unregulated trial. The trial was stopped arid the scientific procedures called into question. The existence of a precautionary regulatory regime is intended to ensure that accidents do not happen. That approach is common throughout Europe, the United States and the OECD countries.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I have similar feelings about this afternoon's subjects. It is such a big report that it is almost impossible to reply to it. This afternoon, I can cover only some of the issues that have arisen during the debate. I wish that I had time to tell your Lordships about the "flavour-savour" tomato which is just two months from the market in the United States. As the Select Committee chose to have the debate before the Government's response, we shall be able to cover all the important matters raised in that response. I promise your Lordships that Hansard will be read carefully to ensure that that is so.
I hope however that the Government have demonstrated that the system of regulations in place in the UK is sensitive to the protection of human and environmental safety. It is also sensitive to the legitimate needs of this country's industry, large and small, to operate on a level playing field in a free-market economy. It is a system which will continue to evolve.
The Government will maintain such a system in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We shall promote it throughout the European Union; and, finally, we shall promote it in the OECD and internationally via the United Nations. We join all noble Lords who have spoken today in wishing to see the United Kingdom biotechnology industry grow and prosper.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, as chairman of the Select Committee, I have been subject this afternoon to an unusual quantity of praise. So much so, that I wish that the debate had gone on for another hour or so! I do not expect anyone else to agree with me, and I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. I wish to say just a few things about the remarks which have been made. First, I thank my colleagues on the committee who spoke. They put flesh on the bare bones of my introductory remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, spoke about risk evaluation and gave examples. The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, spoke about the availability of capital, which is an important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, demonstrated that there was a body of scientific talent on our committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, spoke of the economic effects of the industry and of risk assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, spoke about the important effects caused in Germany by over-rigid regulations. He drew our attention to the undesirability of the fourth hurdle. The committee spent a good deal of time considering the fourth hurdle. Unfortunately, I have forgotten what the other three are. Although I have been told several times, I can never remember. I need not be told now, because it is in the evidence. The fourth hurdle means that one will not be permitted to do something unless there is a perceived need for it. We believe that the need would not be demonstrated by a form of licensing or permission but by the market itself. We have said that there should be no fourth hurdle. That is also the view of the Commission, although it will no doubt find some way of slipping it in by the back door. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, was very kind. He drew attention to the good example of Interferon. Those noble Lords are my friends, and I am glad to thank them for the kindness they have shown to me.
I wish to say just a few words about the Royal Commission and the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It was not my intention, or that of the committee, to fall out with the Royal Commission. However I believe that we managed to do so slightly. I apologise for that, but I hope that I have said enough during the debate to show that we are much closer to the Royal Commission's views than may have been suspected last month. I hope that that is so.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, drew your Lordships' attention to a question which I had asked of Sir Hans Kornberg. I asked him at one point whether the Royal Commission had been hysterical. Put baldly like that, that seems to be a gratuitously insulting remark. However, if your Lordships look at the evidence you will see that that question arose directly from comments about hysteria which Sir Hans had made in his answer to the preceding question. There was nothing gratuitous about the question. It was asked in context. We did not believe that the Royal Commission was hysterical, and Sir Hans agreed with us.
I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for reminding us of what was in the 13th report. At times I found it difficult to know which report he was
716
talking about but I shall study Hansard closely and sort it out. The noble Lord mentioned public understanding, as did other noble Lords. He quoted the ubiquitous Hans Kornberg, saying that we had failed to give sufficient weight to that in the report. That may be so but noble Lords should not forget that that was not what our report was about. It was not about the public understanding of science; nor was it about biotechnology as a whole; it was about the effect of regulation on the industry. In so far as we dealt with such matters as the availability of capital, public understanding and so forth, we went a little beyond our remit but kept well within the flexibility that is allowed to a Select Committee.
I found the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, extremely interesting. He modestly said that he knew nothing about science and proceeded to demonstrate that he knew a great deal about it. I thought that that was a fairly low trick! I shall read his remarks tomorrow. The noble Lord too spoke of public understanding, which is crucial. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, underlined that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, told us that he was the founder director of Green Alliance. Julie Hill, the director of Green Alliance, appeared before the committee. I found her to be an extremely sensible and sensitive witness. We paid considerable heed to what she told us, in particular because of her attitude which was free of "green" dogmatism. Of course, she had her stance, and correctly so, but it was non-dogmatic and sensible. We paid considerable attention to what she said.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, raised the omission of the word "new" from the evidence of Professor Williamson, for which I apologised. I believe that the noble Lord is under a slight misapprehension. The omission of the word "new" in no way affected our conclusions because it occurred during the publishing process long after our conclusions had been reached. It was an undesirable error but not one which led to our making mistaken conclusions—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, of course I am prepared to accept what the noble Lord is saying. Do I understand that in the daily minutes, which the committee will have received, and the transcript of that day Professor Williamson was correctly recorded and that therefore what the committee had written to consider was correct but not what was finally printed?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the situation did not arise quite like that because Professor Williamson did not appear as an oral witness. The sentence that we quoted was from his written evidence, which is printed in full on page 206 of volume I. However, the omission is regrettable and we are covered in shame for it.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Carter spoke of the small, still voice of doubt. But it is important that such a thing should exist in a matter of this nature. The first piece of public education on which we should embark is to assure the public at large that the Select Committee is not calling for the regulations to be swept aside. In no way are we looking for a free-for-all. We merely suggest that the regulations should be modified

717
where appropriate and under control themselves. That is the first public perception which should be clarified if the debate goes much further.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a further matter of extreme interest. He said that ethics were not dealt with in our report. To be frank, I did not think that ethics arose. I do not believe that the ethics of this science are any different from those of science as a whole. It did not seem to be necessary to add an extra ethical dimension to the issue. The noble Lord is an agriculturist and ethics arise in relation to the treatment of animals and not in the biological science in so far as it relates to animals. It is right that animals should be treated properly at every stage in the business and no one would argue about that. But in this case the ethics are no different from those which apply to the experimentation of animals—or at any rate, I do not think so.
I should like to make one last remark about my noble friend, Lord Carter, with which I hope he will agree. He drew attention to the fact that Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are thought to be the most trustworthy organisations. That may be so; it is a reflection of public perception. A number of years ago when I was more involved in nuclear industry matters I had a good deal to do with Friends of the Earth. It was in the days of the amiable and delightful Walter Patterson and the extremely witty and amusing Amery Lovins. They were two splendid men, but I should not have turned to them for the most objective opinion on nuclear power. I should have turned to them for a clear explanation of their stance on nuclear power, with which I would not agree—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was saying that it is significant that people believe that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are the organisation to go to. That is the crucial point. It is not that they are the right organisations but that people believe that they are.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I agree entirely. Perhaps it shows a high-heeled claim. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, explained the Government's attitude in clear terms. It is fair to say that since the committee investigated the matter things have moved on a little. There have been changes in the regulations which are all to the good. The committee did not refer to them, of course, because they did not exist when it was at its work.
The noble Baroness mentioned the system in the United States. It is true that that system might be complex on paper, but as regards the industry there it appears to work reasonably well. It works with more flexibility and a good deal more speed than our system. It may be that there is bureaucratic work in the background which takes time, but as regards the industry the system is not as burdensome as ours. At any rate, that was the committee's opinion.
Although the noble Baroness explained the Government's attitude clearly, she did not say what I wanted to hear. That is not surprising because I wanted to hear an undertaking to accept all our recommendations. I know that that cannot be done right away and we await her full reply when it is published in a few weeks' time.
718
I have spoken for long enough; the debate has lasted a long time. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Organic Farming
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam rose to ask Her Majesty' s Government what action they intend to take to promote organic farming in the United Kingdom.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be considered an appropriate moment to discuss organic farming following a debate on the genetic modification of organisms. The subjects are related, and it is interesting that the Agricultural and Food Research Council is starting biochemical research into plant structures.
The debate is due to the inspiration of those involved in the organic industry. I refer to the Organic Farmers and Growers Association which is allied to the Soil Association and the SAFE Alliance. This is a great time in their history. After 50 years in the wilderness they are now recognised through the organic aid scheme. It is therefore right to recall at this moment the pioneering efforts of the formidable Lady Eve Balfour and Lawrence Hills, not to mention my mother.
Organic farmers, together with the Henry Doubleday Research Association and Elm Farm Research, recently met my right honourable friend the Minister, Mrs. Shephard, who was properly impressed by their presentation. Indeed, I believe that the word that she used was "exciting". Your Lordships will note a large research content in that delegation. It is interesting too that the Government are funding £950,000 worth of research into the subject. I hope that that research will be properly co-ordinated. The noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, is to speak. He is president of HDRA and no doubt will concentrate his remarks on the subject of research.
Organic farmers do not expect revolution to come from this debate. However, they are looking for steady progress towards the aim of increased acreage of organically organised farms, fairly supported in proportion to the contribution that they make to the environment debate.
Perhaps I may say a few words about organic farmers themselves. As we all know, they are no single interest group. They are part of the original farming community, farming land in the manner of their forefathers. They have resisted the blandishments of the agro-chemical industry and the persuasions of government tax breaks and incentives. If CAP reform means anything, it is the conversion to extensive farming which is what the organic system—essentially a mixed whole farm concept—is all about. If the first round of negotiations on CAP reform fails—perhaps my noble friend will allow me to suggest to him that it might—in view of the fact there are increasing yields from farms with a less than 10 per cent. reduction in the acreage, then a new system of controls will have to be introduced. In that context, the existing controls and regulations governing registered organic farmers provide a ready made scheme. No one likes controls. Indeed, the Government can take credit for reducing such controls and that is to

719
be welcomed. Following the introduction of incentives to intensive farming after the last war, controls inevitably proliferated. That is no less the case under the present set-aside rules. The exhausting plethora of paper brought about by set-aside could be replaced by whole farm plans of considerable simplicity.
I shall not expand at this stage on the comparison between intensive farming and the need for conservation of animal and bird species, botanical species and, not least, the actual farm products themselves. They are often destroyed by sheer carelessness. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will speak on the subject of pesticides. She is much better qualified to do so than I am. Suffice to say that recently I attended a meeting upstairs at which the agro-chemical industry explained its ethos. It was chillingly frank in putting to us the fact that the farming community is now dependent upon that industry, that intensive farming is here to stay and that it was not going to allow it to be altered. Some respite is being given to overworked soil but paradoxically only through the ridiculous set-aside system which pays the farmer to stop production and recompenses him for the loss of subsidy which he has so gallantly foregone. It is difficult to imagine anything more ridiculous.
It has been stated in the press that UK farmers received subsidies of £1.2 billion in the last year. We are now in the strange position of organic farmers running mixed farms on which productivity levels are not 15 per cent. but 30 per cent. less than those achieved by their fellow intensive farmers who do not benefit from the set-aside programme. Therefore, they are effectively performing set-aside but the Treasury seems to seek to punish them. It uses the specious argument that they adopted the practice—a practice which others are now being paid to perform—of their own free will. That there is no benefit in being right is amply exemplified in that curious argument.
In recent discussions with the Minister I understand that there was a commitment to organise an inter-departmental meeting with officials to look at the problem of how to reward those farmers who are already organically organised. And for that we are most grateful. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, in his reply, to tell the House how that inter-departmental operation is progressing. I ask in particular as it is proposed in the Ministry's own organic aid scheme that organic acreage should be trebled in the next 10 years. It is the existing organic farmer with his, and in notable cases her, wealth of experience who will be vital to the increase in organically farmed acreage that the aid scheme postulates. I have to tell my noble friend that existing organic farmers are liable to leave the scene altogether as their fight against subsidised competition from their fellow EC organic farmers expands at their expense while they are left without any help from the multifarious schemes arranged through the organic aid scheme.
Also, the organic farmer will be getting less than his intensive neighbour from the CAP reform measures through set-aside, arable aid compensation and livestock premiums. Their position is becoming
720
untenable and there is already evidence of reduced numbers of registered organic growers. That is a most unfavorable trend.
Set-aside can be described as a typical bureaucratic fudge which involves inherently bad land management. And at what cost? I believe that £140 million will be spent on set-aside support of 556,000 hectares at £253 per hectare. ESAs, the Stewardship Campaign and other favoured government institutions are to receive a further £61 million. I ask for the same consideration to be extended to existing organic farmers. I should like to be among the first to praise those NGOs for the vital work they do and for which they are deservedly rewarded. Perhaps I may mention also the new regional forests that are to be planted with broadleaved trees. That is another excellent example of the Government's intentions in the environmental field.
As regards other farmers' benefits from grants from the Government and the EC—or is it now the EU?—where set-aside hectarage gets £253, rising next year to £320, existing organic farmers will get nothing. They farm 35,000 hectares; that is, 35,000 hectares of whole farm area which is to be considered in relation to 556,000 hectares of set-aside and the 4.1 million hectares farmed in the UK. The intensive farmers who convert will share the £1 million. That is about the same as the amount which the Government will be spending on research. But if, as is right, existing farmers are also to benefit, there will be less than £30 per hectare available to go round.
Let us be realistic about the £1.2 billion. There is to be only £1 million available for organic farming. Then, to add insult to injury, existing organic farmers are majestically advised to go out and buy more land which they can convert organically to make themselves eligible for support. Is the Treasury going to give them a grant? That would be most welcome. But it would be much better to spend the money on existing organic farmers to keep them in business. The organic aid scheme should produce hidden benefits to the Treasury which in total would probably refund the whole cost of the scheme. After all, it should not be beyond the wit of man to save £1 in £12,000, or £1 million in £12,000 million. The savings to the Treasury would include conversion to a mixed farming system which would mean a reduction in acreage eligible for set-aside and arable compensation; a reduction in crop acreage of high payment areas such as oilseed, and lower crop yields overall which would mean lower costs through intervention, storage and export subsidy.
This matter has been discussed previously in your Lordships' House. A debate was initiated by my noble friend Lord Selborne on EC Regulation 2078/92 on 19th May. Organic farming is established as a recognised means of extensification of farming practice by the EC but it cannot reach its full potential unless it overcomes the marketing constraints of low volume. That requires central packing and marketing of products. With only 35,000 hectares under cultivation, and that distributed widely across the realm, it is not a practical proposition.
The organic farmer is therefore left with the option of special arrangements with local retailers or sale at the farm gate. There are some opportunities such as dairy

721
products which sell well but at an uneconomically small premium. The organic farmer has to fight an endless battle against the odds in selling his produce, often having to convert it into bread or sausages or other products. There is also the by now well-known problem that our fellow EC organic farmers are subsidised well above the level proposed in the aid scheme, exacerbating the marketing problem for the UK supplier.
I have asked my noble friend on previous occasions much the same question as I am asking now. We have not really received any satisfactory answers. Whether we will obtain any more satisfactory answers this evening remains to be seen. Surely it is not so much a case of there being no money, as we are always told, but rather that others have, as of this moment, a prior call on it. There are large sums being disposed of—£1.2 billion—in what might properly be described in some cases as a positively vulgar waste of money. If there is such a thing as subsidiarity, then it should be applied to use some of this money to encourage organic farmers in what is a useful, recognised and environmentally successful system. Organic farming is here to stay; indeed, it has been here as long as farming has been known. I suggest to my noble friend that it is the responsibility of government to see that it is encouraged and supported.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I am only sorry that he suffers the fate of every topic of last business on a Thursday in that he has a rather thin House. None the less I believe that this will be a valuable debate. I am also particularly grateful to him for covering so well all the economic aspects and the problems of set-aside. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that that means I can shorten my contribution quite considerably.
I support the intention behind this debate, which is to encourage the Government to give greater support to organic farming. I wish to emphasise a few of the points that have already been made as well as to develop them a little. First, it makes no sense at all to import 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the requirements of an identified and growing market—which I understand is presently valued at about £125 million —for goods which we can perfectly well supply ourselves, especially when the quality of what comes in from abroad is often suspect. Many questions need to be asked as regards how truly organic many of our imports are.
There is a subsidiary question on this matter that I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe. As regards the figures for imports, my honourable friend in another place asked the Minister, Mrs. Shephard, to quantify the cost of imports of organic produce. She replied:
"This information is not available because import statistics do not distinguish between organic and conventional food".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/93; col. WA 778.]
The figure I have given comes from Food from Britain which is an official organisation. I find it rather
722
surprising that this information is not available to Mrs. Shephard. Perhaps the Minister can clear up that matter when he replies to the debate.
Secondly, an improvement in conditions for organic farmers would result in increases in rural employment. A number of debates have been held recently in your Lordships' House on the problems of rural areas. It makes sense to encourage the use of the traditional skills of people in rural areas. I should have thought that that is yet another good reason for supporting organic farming.
Thirdly, and not least in my book, organic farming is beneficial to the environment. The Government have on many occasions stated their concern for the maintenance of biodiversity worldwide, and charity begins at home. We have problems of diminishing species in this country. Much of the damage can be traced to modern farming methods. As the noble Earl said in his opening remarks, the extensive use of pesticides has had damaging effects. I understand that the term "pesticide" includes herbicide and therefore I will use it as an inclusive term.
The British Trust for Ornithology and indeed the RSPB can supply examples of bird species which have declined in recent years—some of them almost to the point of extinction. This decline can be directly traced to non-organic farming methods. Therefore the improvement of organic methods would help to restore the balance. We have been assured in the past that there is consultation and co-operation between departments on environmental issues. The noble Earl has said tonight that there is co-operation between MAFF and the DoE on economic issues. Where is the evidence of co-operation in this case on environmental issues?
Can the noble Earl tell us whether the DoE and MAFF have had any discussions on the future of organic farming and whether the DoE's point of view has been taken into consideration by MAFF? We have heard that the number of organic farms in the United Kingdom is beginning to decline. That seems to me a stupid thing to happen at a time when we all know that the market for these products is growing in this country and that the supermarkets cannot meet the demand for organic produce. Something must be done to reverse the trend.
The National Farmers' Union has expressed disappointment at the present low level of support for organic farming and I understand that the Government usually listen to the NFU. Therefore I hope that they will listen in this case. Obviously the support for new entrants is welcome but, as the noble Earl said, it is much more important to support those who are already in business. The introduction of organic farming is a long haul and cannot be done overnight. It takes many years. It is even possible that in the long term we may have to move away from the present strains of crops which are being grown because they are heavily dependent on pesticides and chemicals generally. We may have to return to the older strains, or indeed to new strains which have the same qualities of disease resistance which crops had in the past.

723
I am always a little surprised to hear chemical farming referred to as conventional farming. I can remember when conventional farming was organic farming. We could well come round to that view again.
Our organic farmers are competing in the marketplace with producers from other countries where, as we have heard, they are realistically encouraged. In Germany, for example—and I cannot remember whether the noble Earl mentioned the figure—organic farmers can expect £200 a hectare for new entrants and £150 a hectare for existing producers. That compares with £70 per hectare for new entrants in the United Kingdom, which falls to £25 per hectare after a five-year period.
If we had sensible, realistic policies from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food, we could reach a point where we could at least satisfy our own demands for organic produce in this country. That would make a contribution to our balance of trade and also have considerable beneficial effects on our countryside. It seems to me that that would represent very good value for money, to use the Government's current phrase for everything.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Kitchener: My Lords, I shall concentrate on the question of research into organic farming.
The manufacturers of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilisers naturally make the best case they can for the use of their products. However, the potential benefits of organic farming, such as the long-term health of the soil and the many beneficial organisms which live in it, the increase in natural predators and in birds and other wildlife, are of general benefit and should therefore be investigated by the Government.
An economic way of doing that would be to find farmers, some with organic policies, who are already keeping good financial and farming records, including information on such matters as earthworm population, water-holding capacity and amount of humus, and to supervise their record-keeping. That would give the results a validity which they would not have if they were merely done by the farmer, who might be thought to have a bias towards his own system. That work would, of course, have to continue for a number of years.
My noble friend the Minister who is to reply has kindly referred me to a MAFF document, Arable Crops and Horticulture Research Strategy and Requirements 1992–94, which details the Government's work and plans in this area. I am glad to say that MAFF has supported work on green manures and on non-chemical weed control done by the Henry Doubleday Research Association, of which I am president. Because of the long-term nature of this work it would help such bodies to know well in advance what grants they are to receive. We have heard that nearly £1 million is to be spent on this in the current financial year. It will be most interesting to see the results.
Another step which the Government could usefully and cheaply take would be to make clear to consumers of organic food that, in spite of the name "common agricultural policy" their fellow countrymen growing
724
this food are at present, but not I hope for long, playing uphill against many countries in Europe where producers are more favourably treated than those in this country. It is not in the food sector alone that we should benefit if consumers were to seek out home-produced goods.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, at a glance, organic farming would seem an ideal way of making inroads into surplus production. But what are the justifications for expecting aid in, during and after organic conversion? To a certain extent I have sympathy with current organic farmers because they had expected funding but that funding appears now to be available only to those farmers now converting to organic production. No longer does it seem that organic food is a buzzword. While marketing dictates at the end of the day, then marketing is probably what is needed in the form of new incentives.
The organic sector represents less than 1 per cent. of the total farmed area. Therefore, generally the size of organic enterprises is small while husbandry and additional costs are high. The bulk of organic output in England and Scotland has been sold to wholesalers and co-operatives. In Scotland on average nearly 80 per cent. of output went through co-operatives.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a Mintel International Group press release concerning the record growth of vegetarian and organic food sales. It states that:
"'The number of vegetarians has increased steadily over the last 10 years,' says Mintel analyst, Helen Ruddick. 'The Vegetarian Society puts the number at up to 7% of the population, but our figures show that the proportion of people whose diet is mainly vegetarian is now over one in ten, and is actually as high as 17% among teenagers'."
Vegetarian does not mean organic. A vegetarian is one who abstains from eating animal food, while organic food is food produced without the use of artificial fertilisers or pesticides. Without meaning any offence, perhaps we should call these people "organns".
The report goes on to say that:
"Mintel's consumer research reveals that only 2% of housewives always buy organic food but more than half would buy them at least occasionally if they were cheaper."
If a premium price is not achieved for the producer then a wide margin, a disparity in returns between standard farming practice and organic methods, looms. It is evident then that organic producers cannot grow their produce at a competitive cost.
On the subject of profits and margins, Farmers' Weekly of 19th March 1993 stated that the gross margin for organic Mercia was £555.48 per hectare (£222.20 an acre) but £607.46 per hectare (£24.98 an acre) for conventional Hereward. That means that the price for organic wheat was less than expected at £187 a tonne, compared with £147 a tonne for conventional milling wheat sold just after harvest. The cost of organic fertiliser is high, which dramatically reduces the organic gross margin. Weed, pest and disease pressures were comparatively low last season in organic wheat due to the dry early and mid-season weather, but I guess that those organic farmers who suffered from a high rainfall during the autumn must have had very bad problems

725
with their wheat. Therefore, it seems that missing out the middleman is the only justifiable way of pulling back lost income where gross margins are concerned.
The main argument concerning government support relates to the lost income of possibly £800 a hectare, or £320 an acre, resulting from the two-year grass ley conversion period which is required by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards. However, I hope that the Minister will explain that land undergoing organic conversion can be included in the set-aside area. That additional income would make a difference.
Organic produce sold through farm shops and consumer co-ops, where customers get together to buy from producers who pool and deliver their produce, works well. That is the best way of short-circuiting the food chain. It also enhances income. It therefore appears that niche markets and local retailing offer the only opportunity.
I do not feel that there is any great future for the organic farming of livestock. For example, organically farmed lamb differs only in that different parasite treatments are used and organophosphorous dips are not used. The consumer will picture a contented sheep grazing on the hillside, but it should be remembered that vegetarians do not eat meat anyway. The fact remains that organic producers have never been able to prove that ordinary food is dangerous. We have the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Food Safety Directorate as watchdog in that respect.
It is worthy of note that a typical organic farm receives an extra helping of nitrogen from the atmosphere equivalent to 8,000 cowpats falling on each hectare of land every year. The old school used to say, "Where there's muck there's money", although in this case the muck can be classified only as invisible earnings.
Organic vegetables are not as organic as one is led to believe. Shall we be flooded, I wonder, with genetically engineered flavour-savour tomatoes, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield in the previous debate? An intensively farmed carrot receives in nitrates 30 per cent. from the soil, 30 per cent. from chemical fertiliser and 40 per cent. from airborne chemical fertiliser, while an organically grown carrot receives 60 per cent. nitrates from the soil and manure, and 40 per cent. from airborne chemical fertiliser. Acid rain has a great deal to answer for, so one cannot guarantee that any food is free from residues in today's polluted world.
In surveys, many shoppers express interest in green products but when they hear that they have to pay premium prices, enthusiasm fades. I cannot see any great future for organic farming if the public are not prepared to pay the price. Even when taking into account the benefit for eligible organic farmers of farm and conservation grant schemes, arable aid schemes and set-aside arrangements, and less favoured area payments, any shortfall in income would have to be made up by the consumer.
I regret that I do not have enough information to comment on imports of organic produce but I trust that other noble Lords will do so.
726
There is mileage in the group marketing grant, which encourages farmers and growers to develop effective marketing structures, because freshness of produce and its marketing hold the key to the survival of organic farming, in my opinion. All of us farmers know the problems of difficult land in a wet time. We know what slugs, septoria and yellow rust will do. I feel sure that those producers who get the right balance of production to a known market and off the right land from a well managed and marketed outfit will do at least as well as the well managed input farmer. I shall not refer to him as the "conventional" farmer. However. every farm situation is different, and one cannot expect a bottomless pot of gold to be on hand to balance the books. That is farming and that is how it has always been. The market may well be there but, if that market is not on the doorstep, then the costs are disproportionately high.
I admire the efforts of the director of the British Organic Farms and Organic Growers Association, Patrick Holden, who puts forward a sound case for the survival of organic farming. I should like to see more support for the horticultural sector, especially where there is an absence of pesticide use on crops under glass.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he knows of any agricultural college-run organic farming courses in existence.
7.43 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, almost everything that I would have said has been said. I shall therefore simply emphasise a few points. I grew up on an organic market garden. It is perhaps therefore bred into me that I prefer farming to go in the direction of organic farming. It frustrates me that we seem to be lagging behind our Continental competitors. It does not make sense to me that we produce only about £37.5 million worth of organic food out of the current market value of £125 million. That figure is obtained by a simple calculation; I do not have the figure as a statistic. It surely makes sense to give greater encouragement to organic farming so that we do not import unnecessarily.
There is a second reason for encouraging farmers and growers to produce organic food. As many noble Lords have said, if we are serious about improving the quality of our soil and retaining or restoring previous bio-diversity levels, we must move in such a direction.
I remember that in the mid-1970s Fisons took double page advertisements in national magazines such as the Radio Times. On the left-hand page was a picture of a wonderful garden with healthy, succulent vegetables. The caption said, "This is what happens if you have a Fisons garden". On the right-hand page was a picture of a garden with yellow, withered, stunted vegetables and the advertisement was indicating that that is what occurs if one lets mother nature do the job. I had a friend who wrote on organic matters and organic gardening. He protested to the Advertising Standards Authority at what he called "eco pornography". I agreed with him. I thought that such an advertisement libelled mother nature. I now see that Fisons is selling its own range of organic fertilisers. It must have decided that if you cannot beat them, you might as well join them.

727
Your Lordships will be delighted to hear that that is all I have to say because I have mislaid the last page of my speech. I urge the Minister to listen to the encouragement that he has been given to consider these issues closely.
7.48 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I speak, not as an agricultural expert, but as someone who has taken a keen interest for some time now in nutritional matters and in environmental questions affecting human health. It often surprises me how concerned we can be at the global level—and quite rightly—on issues such as the destruction of forests and whales, and bio-diversity, and how little we follow it through to questions of how pollutants affect our health as individuals here and now. At the heart of this is the low status accorded to environmental medicine (which is strange in the 1990s), and to nutritional medicine after a long period in which the link between food and human health was almost severed in the medical mind except for cases of gross malnutrition.
It seems to me that the chemicalisation of the food supply poses significant dangers to the populations of the developed world, and it is not enough to say that the evidence of widespread harm is inconclusive by reason of the dearth of good scientific studies and the weaknesses of toxicology. I believe that the indications are already there. We know of the dangers to the water supply from intensive farming. We are aware of the incidents of damage to individuals from pesticides and herbicides, which may quite possibly turn out to be the tip of a considerable iceberg; and we are discovering how these substances linger on produce we buy in the shops. Three years ago the British Medical Association shifted its stance in a report on pesticides which drew attention to the dangers and commented that absence of proof was not proof of absence.
A more subtle danger with the use of artificial chemicals lies in the loss of micronutrients and the consequent imbalance in the overall environment. We are learning more and more about the importance to human health of zinc, selenium and other nutrients, to say nothing of vitamins whose benefits feature almost weekly in the medical press; yet these are often seriously depleted by our farming and production methods. This cannot possibly be good for our health. It would probably be simplistic to attribute the rise in chronic disease and allergic illness, to say nothing of the dramatic recent decline in the sperm count in men, to this factor alone. But it is all part of a pattern of pollution in the late 20th century which is drifting dangerously near the point of no return, for which we cannot afford to await the definitive scientific evidence.
There was a German-American doctor called Max Gerson for whom I have a great admiration (Albert Schweizer described him as "one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine"), who devised a treatment for TB and cancer 50 years ago based on organic wholefoods. He described the soil as the human body's external metabolism—a fine phrase—and forecast that as agriculture departed ever further from
728
natural methods so patients would become harder to cure. That has certainly proved true of the Gerson treatment, where recoveries that could be seen within 12 months 40 years ago now take a year-and-a-half or even two years.
But health is not just the absence of disease. Claims have been made that organically grown food has qualities that set it apart from other food, not just by reason of the absence of toxic residues. Again, this is an under-researched area, but evidence from animal studies and from techniques near the frontiers of current scientific practice suggest that there may be something in it—something positively health-giving.
The organic market is an important market. It is supported by a growing number of consumers, as we have heard, who are increasingly conscious of the interlinking needs of health and the environment. It is sad that this demand cannot remotely be met from the home market. For all the reasons I have given, and more, this market surely deserves the maximum support from the Government.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, my name is immediately below the gap on the list of speakers, but I really do not think that this debate calls for that kind of speech. Therefore your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall confine myself to a short contribution to the case which has already been massively put forward.
The Government are to be congratulated on introducing the Organic Aid Scheme, the OAS, but it is generally recognised by everyone, and I am told even by the Minister, that the limited support given in the OAS may act as a disincentive to farmers to convert to organic production when measured against the grotesquely large amounts of money which can flow into the bank accounts of what we must now learn not to call "conventional farmers" who have been receiving arable aid payments.
The OAS is flawed in a number of ways. The main one is that it excludes existing organic farmers whose land was registered as organic on 10th August 1993. I have not been able to find any reason why that should be so and maybe the Minister will, in replying, give a reason which makes sense for it being so.
Set-aside is politically unpopular and is inefficient. Organic farmers can achieve the targets which set-aside is meant to achieve as part of normal farming practice. Set-aside should be scrapped. I know that that will take Europe-wide agreement, but it should not be unachievable. It should be scrapped and the money invested in organic research and extending and supporting organic farming.
The MAFF is to be congratulated in that it has contracted Elm Farm Research Centre to carry out a small part of its £7 million research programme on limiting nitrate leaching, one of the many ills which, as has been mentioned, is caused by non-organic farming. Elm Farm is owned by the private charity, the Progressive Farming Trust, and is the only organisation in the country doing vital research work on organic farming, as well as providing professional consultancy services to farmers wishing to convert to organic. It

729
deserves all possible support and it is good that it is receiving support. If other bodies are also doing that, then I apologise to them and I should like to hear of them, but I think that the trust is the only one.
Now that it is becoming increasingly recognised by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, by the EC and by MAFF that organic farming provides the best available approach to sustainable farming—and what a change that has been over the past few years, that one can make that remark truthfully—there is an urgent need for money to be invested in research. The research is needed not so much to compare or demonstrate the effects of organic versus other forms of farming, but rather to improve and develop well tried organic systems which are already operating to everyone's benefit.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, for putting down this Unstarred Question. I cannot help reflecting that this afternoon we have gone from one extreme to the other, from biotechnology at the extremes of the new information and new techniques to organic farming, a very old system indeed.
We have come a long way from the days of what we used to call "muck, mystery and magic". I have been a student of the words and works of Newman Turner, Frend Sykes, Lady Balfour and Basil Furneaux and, to bring us up to date, the interesting work being done by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as well as Barry Wookey, in my own county of Wiltshire. Having said that, it is still obviously a small sector of agriculture, amounting to only about 90,000 acres and 800 producers. With 70 per cent. of the market supplied by imports, I certainly agree with my noble friend Lady Nicol in questioning the controls on the integrity of imported products. It was said to me rather cynically by someone in the food industry that the further away from the UK the food was produced, the more organic it became.
We have already had reference to the perverse effect of the CAP reforms where the lower cropping and stocking rates of the organic farmer mean that the farmers are penalised. I should like to ask the Minister a question which has already been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont: what produced the change of mind in the Ministry? There was a feeling for some time that the existing organic producers were to be included in the grant aid scheme. Why were they excluded when the scheme was finally produced? What would it cost to extend the aid scheme to existing producers, as has been suggested? After all, existing traditional or conventional producers—whatever word we use—receive their aid and organic farmers are doubly disadvantaged.
It seems to me that the whole concept of the organic management agreement is similar to the ESA approach. It is an adaptation of the environmentally friendly farming approach. Obviously, as part of a matrix of conservation-grade farming, there is environmentally friendly farming and, for those who want it, organic farming. It is a logical extension which of course involves the reduction of surpluses and increased
730
environmental protection. It seems to me to be logical to extend that approach to organic farming. My own feeling is that the less intensive or environmentally friendly farming will become the logical alternative to set-aside. I think that the Minister should be doing more work on this, and I shall come back to that point.
I ask again the reason for our support for organic farming being at rates which are so much lower than in some other member states of the EC. What is the rationale for that? Is it a typically perverse Treasury policy? There is a policy which, if it were adopted, could reduce surpluses, would add to environmental protection and would reduce the import bill. It seems to me to be one of the examples that we always get in government, irrespective of party, of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
The evidence from the RSPB shows that there are now higher breeding densities for some bird species and I am sure that that also applies to other flora and fauna on organic farms. I fear that, if the Ministry persists in its policy, it could have a serious effect on organic farming, which, though it will not be wiped out, will be, much reduced from its already very low level.
We know that the Prime Minister has organised a study of the effects on the balance of payments of the import penetration of foods which I think is being chaired by David Naish, the President of the National Farmers' Union. There is also the Strathclyde initiative, looking at the sourcing of food products in this country. If we put those two together, I would ask the Minister whether in those two studies there is any consideration of the effect on the balance of payments of the expansion of organic farming. That should be brought into the equation. As an alternative to set-aside, it would be very popular publicly. Not every farmer will do it—very few will in total—but it will be extremely popular.
To give just one example of the absurdity of the set-aside policy, we know that this coming year the increase in the compensation for set-aside will be in the order of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. That increase was the price of the French agreement in the run-up to the Blair House agreement, about which there is still argument. It was part of the price of the deal. When the cheque comes, it will be extremely welcome, but the policy is completely barmy.
In conclusion, I should like to make some more general points. Why do so few farmers farm organically? I believe that there are three main reasons. The first is the lack of objective economic evidence on the costs and the profitability of organic farming. I declare an interest here. I have had a long-running interest in the management accounting approach to agriculture. Most farmers suspect that it loses money. But how much does it lose? Research has been done in the past, I believe at the University of Aberystwyth, but I do not believe that there is a strong body of objective economic and accounting evidence to show the costs and returns of organic farming over a period of years.
The second reason is linked with the first. It is, I believe, the fear that the organic premium might suddenly disappear as the result of a sudden change of policy by a supermarket group or some other body. To

731
refer back to the lack of objective economic evidence, how important economically is the premium? That question is crucial. Obviously, the economic success of organic farming depends on the premium. It would be extremely important to know at the margin how important in financial terms that premium is.
The third reason is very rarely mentioned but is in my view as strong as the other two put together. Organic farming is much more skilled and intellectually demanding than is, if I dare say so, traditional or conventional farming. It is much easier to reach for the spray-can or the syringe than it is to work with nature. I believe that many farmers are unsure of their ability to meet the considerable technical demands.
That point brings me to a specific question that I wish to ask the Minister: what research is the Ministry doing or supporting to overcome what I would call the technical barrier? A figure was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. I believe he mentioned a figure of £950,000. Is that the total of the Ministry's support for research into organic farming, or is there a larger figure? That would be helpful to know.
I have already asked what is the rationale for excluding current growers and limiting grant aid only to converters. Why are our grant levels less than those of our European competitors? Have sums been done on the effect on the balance of payments? And, as I have already asked, what research is the Ministry doing?
Another reason that there are difficulties with organic farming and its promotion lies in the culture of the Ministry. It has had nearly 50 years of intensive farming, or conventional farming, or however one would like to describe it. Some years ago I attempted to mount a seminar on low input farming, a subject in which I am extremely interested. I do not refer to organic farming, but to low input farming. I asked ADAS to take part, but it refused to take part unless we changed the title to "lower" input farming. That would seem to be a connoisseur's distinction, but it was very important to ADAS at the time. It says a lot about the culture of ADAS and of the Ministry; and that culture still persists. It is very difficult for people who have been brought up, technically, with nearly 50 years (since the end of the war) of intensive, chemically-aided and capital-intensive farming to have the mindset which enables them to switch over to organic farming, which is much more intellectually demanding, and in its own way is more technically demanding. It is a niche market. It is no good pretending that it would solve our agricultural problems. It would always be a niche market. Demand is expanding, while our supply is likely to decrease if present policies continue. It is perverse not to support organic farming in the way that has been suggested. Why is it not put (to coin a phrase) on a level playing field with conventional farming? I must say that my noble friend Lady Nicol has put us all in some difficulty. Every time we say "conventional farming" now we feel ashamed of ourselves. I see it not as the complete answer, but as part of a matrix, or group, of policies which would involve conservation grade production, environmentally friendly farming, and, for
732
those who want it, organic farming. The three should be seen as an organic whole, and the Ministry should produce a policy which supports all three.
8.4 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam is always a most eloquent defender of the cause of organic farming, and his speech this evening has in no way tarnished that accolade. I am sure that the House will be grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to debate this many-faceted subject.
It was, I confess, with some disappointment that I detected in my noble friend's speech a note of criticism for the level of backing which the Government have provided to the organic movement. The Government have every reason to be proud of their record in relation to organic farming. We were the first to press for organic methods to be integrated into Community environmental measures. We have taken the lead in developing Community marketing standards for organic goods. We have developed an effective and independent mechanism for regulating organic standards domestically, in the form of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) and we have emphasised our intention of preserving its independence. We have developed and funded a coherent programme of research on organic farming methods, about which I shall say more in a moment. And, in close consultation with organic sector organisations, we have developed proposals for financial aid for conversion to organic status.
As my noble friend will know, Ministers and officials in my department maintain close contacts with the organic sector. I myself met their representatives during the summer, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food herself met them again on 15th November. On that occasion she was glad to confirm that improving the impact of the CAP on the environment is one of her main aims and that we believe that an increase in organic farming can play a part in measures to achieve that objective. She also reiterated that the Government are keen to encourage our farmers to meet the demand from consumers for organic produce. At the same time it is important that consumers should be able to buy organic food with confidence that it is truly organic and that genuine producers should not be undercut by fraudsters.
My noble friend was somewhat critical of the Government's approach to financial support for organic farming. That support must, however, be seen in the context of our overall approach to the CAP. Our aim is to reduce agricultural support generally, so that farmers come to rely more on the market. Against that background I believe it is perfectly legitimate, as well as desirable, to help farmers who want to convert to organic methods with the initial cost of doing so. But it makes no sense to pay such high sums of continuing aid that organic farmers become wholly dependent on subsidy. To do that not only distorts the market, but it does nothing to help the long-term stability of the organic sector. I have to tell my noble friend that we will not try to compete with the high levels of aid that we understand some member states intend to pay; indeed

733
we will be urging our Community colleagues to look very carefully at the justification for them. Incidentally, I understand that the scheme in Germany which was quoted is soon to expire.
It was on that basis that my right honourable friend's predecessor, John Gummer, made a commitment to seek agreement for an aid scheme to encourage those wishing to convert to organic agriculture. That commitment has been translated into an organic aid scheme the proposals for which feature in each of the agriculture department's agri-environment programmes. Those plans form the UK's response to the agri-environment regulation. The announcement followed careful consideration of responses to a consultation document which was issued in March this year. Providing the EC Commission agrees, the aid will be paid on an area basis with a minimum eligible size of one hectare. It will be paid for five years on any parcel of land entered into the scheme up to a maximum of 300 hectares. In non-LFA areas the rate is £70 per hectare decreasing over the period. There will be a premium for the first five hectares of £30 per hectare per annum for the full five years. That will particularly help smaller producers, including horticulwrists, for whom the cost of registration and inspection are proportionally greater. Those producers who already farm using organic methods will be able to receive aid for new land entered into conversion. We have thought about the scheme structure very carefully, and I believe that it will prove attractive.
I am of course well aware that the organic sector bodies are disappointed that no aid will be paid on existing organic land. But as I explained to their representatives in July, public resources are limited and any scheme that we devise should maximise value for money. With that in mind it was important to devise a scheme that would offer encouragement to those who wish to convert, especially during the initial period of conversion when there are additional costs as well as declining yields and when the produce of the farm is by definition not organic and therefore unable to attract a premium. Given that our express aim is to see the area of organically farmed land triple over the next few years, it would have been very difficult to justify utilising part of an already tight budget on something which did not directly contribute to that expansion.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, how does the Minister believe that he will attract more people into this form of farming when they already see organic farms going out of business and out of organic farming because they do not have the money to pay their way?
Earl Howe: The reported drop in numbers in organic registrations is regrettable. But as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated, there are a number of reasons for that, which are not by any means wholly associated with the structure of the scheme that the Government have introduced. I shall come in a moment to some other considerations that bear on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
Existing organic farmers can benefit already under a number of schemes open to farmers generally. For example, under the farm and conservation grant scheme, grants are available for a wide range of investments.
734
They include the provision or improvement of facilities for the handling of what are sometimes called farm "wastes", such as manure and slurry, which for the organic farmer are important sources of nutrients. Grant is also available for the establishment and upkeep of a number of features such as hedges. Farmers may enter existing organic land in some of the other environmental management schemes, such as that for environmentally sensitive areas.
Nor should we ignore the assistance that is available by way of the arable area payments scheme and livestock subsidies, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Addison. These are as valuable to organic farmers as they are to those whom we now call conventional farmers. Indeed, I believe that arable area payments are proportionately more generous to organic farmers, because they are calculated on the basis of average regional yields, not organic yields. The advent of rotational set-aside is also helpful because it provides organic farmers with a payment for what is often a standard element in organic arable procedures, namely fallowing.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The Minister is absolutely right on a per acre basis because the yield is worked out on the regional yield and the organic farmer will probably have fewer cereals in rotation than the traditional arable producer. It is a case of swings and roundabouts and he will probably end up worse off.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in that respect he is no worse off than the conventional mixed farmer in the example that the noble Lord gives.
Prior to CAP reform, fallowing was not something for which farmers derived any support at all. We have in addition allowed organic producers to enhance the fertility of their set-aside land by sowing clover-rich leys. My noble friend sought to point up a contrast between the sums of money budgeted for set-aside and the budget for the organic aid scheme.
There is no denying that the idea of promoting organic farming as an alternative to set-aside has its attractions. But we must bear in mind that the point of set-aside was to achieve a rapid reduction in arable output across the Community. With the best will in the world, organic farming, which depends for its success on specialist skills, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly said could not provide an effective solution to over-production in the short or even medium term. Set-aside, for all that it is not an ideal policy, is nevertheless with us, and we should be seeking to maximise the opportunities for environmental enhancement which it offers. My noble friend was rather too ready, I thought, to play these opportunities down.
In that context the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, laid stress on the environmental benefits of organic farming, as did the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. While I appreciate the environmental benefits of organic farming, conventional farming when it is done properly is not damaging to the environment, nor is it in any way unsafe. At the same time that we are helping farmers who choose the organic route with the difficulties of the conversion period, we are helping farmers generally

735
with advice on good farming practice. It would be wrong for the Government to provide too strong a lead either way. In the end choices should be left to farmers, consumers and the market generally.
The noble Baroness also referred to the use of pesticides, as did the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. There are very strict controls on pesticides and other chemicals used in farming and processing. So it is not generally necessary to buy organic food to ensure a good and healthy diet. But some people prefer food produced in an organic way and their demands should be recognised. As I said, in the final analysis it is for individual farmers to decide whether to go organic and whether to stay in organic farming. As I mentioned earlier, it is disappointing to hear of a decline in numbers, but it is hoped that the new scheme will provide a significant incentive to those who may think of converting.
Following the public expenditure survey, our provision for the proposed organic aid scheme in the UK is over £1 million for 1994–95 and £2 million for 1995–96 and 1996–97. These are considerable sums of money at a time when public expenditure must be firmly controlled. They exceed, I think, some speculated figures. My noble friend said that they are not enough but (if he will forgive me for saying so) he might perhaps be tempted to say that about any budget. What matters is that the scheme encourages more farmers to convert to organic systems and that it will achieve the objectives that we have set for it. I believe that it will do so. But government assistance to the organic sector does not stop at subsidies. As I mentioned earlier, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has an important research and development programme for organic farming and has commissioned a wide range of projects. The majority of the current organic programme is aimed at exploring the practical problems of converting to organic agriculture and the difficulties and benefits of farming organically.
My noble friend Lord Kitchener will be pleased to learn that my department is already adopting the approach that he mentioned of using organic farms for research purposes. In its research project on conversion to organic milk production, 10 commercial farms are participating in the collection of financial and farm practice information. I am glad that the Henry Doubleday Research Association is involved in a good deal of our research. Such research is generally placed by competitive tender. I feel sure that the HDRA is already confident that it is well able to compete for such work.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned work done by Elm Farm. I am glad to take the opportunity to acknowledge the advisory and research work of Elm Farm, some of which is MAFF supported. We are also spending a great deal at other research establishments, including the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.
My noble friend Lord Addison asked whether any agricultural colleges run courses on organic farming. The answer is yes. There are several colleges offering
736
organic courses and what are termed modules of courses. Unfortunately, I do not have the names but I shall be glad to supply them to him by letter.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for the 1993–94 financial year we shall be spending nearly £1 million on organic research—a sizeable sum for what is still a relatively small sector.
We also continue to support standards for the production of organic food. In 1987 the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) was established by Food From Britain with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This independent body, whose board includes experts from the organic sector, members concerned with processing, wholesaling and retailing, plus consumers and a trading standards officer, and which is chaired by Professor Spedding, produced a set of national standards and established an independent certification and inspection scheme. Subsequently UKROFS has become the UK body for implementing much of the EC regulation on production and labelling and maintains a register of all organic producers. It also approves organic sector bodies and authorises imports from third countries. MAFF continues to underpin that work by providing assistance and resources. The whole future of our agriculture and food industries depends on how they respond to the challenge of the market. That is no less true for the organic sector.
Our producers have the necessary technical expertise to supply demanding customers with excellent quality products. But, on its own, that is no longer enough. Organic farming must in the end justify its continuing existence, not by reference to subsidies and not simply through the quality of its product, but by its ability to satisfy the demands of the market. That point was brought out clearly by my noble friend Lord Addison. Today's market is highly competitive. The industry as a whole needs to change, to gear its organisation and its marketing to what the customer wants to buy. The Government have been doing a great deal to help bring about that change.
As my noble friend Lord Addison mentioned, we made the group marketing grant available to encourage the development of effective marketing structures so that our farmers and growers can compete more effectively and win markets at home and abroad. We drew up proposals under the 1993 Agriculture Act for a new marketing development scheme which we issued for consultation. That scheme offers scope to grant aid to a much wider range of marketing activities in the food and farming sectors. The UK provision for those grants is £6.4 million over the next two years.
Organic producers, like others, will be able to take advantage of those initiatives. The lack of a proper marketing infrastructure is often identified as one of the most significant problems for the growth of organic food sales and I hope that full advantage will be taken of what the scheme offers. Other initiatives are in train. Better communication and more collaboration within the industry are important keys to successful marketing. That is why we are keen to bring suppliers and

737
customers closer together and two of my ministerial colleagues are taking the lead on projects in the horticulture and catering sectors.
We also want to help our exporters tackle the large continental retail market and are promoting an exciting and carefully targeted initiative which will include practical help in drawing up export strategies and meeting buyers.
My noble friend asked about the recent meeting between my right honourable friend and representatives of the organic industry. We are considering carefully the points made at that meeting. My right honourable friend agreed that officials should meet organic representatives to examine whether CAP mechanisms could be made to fit the circumstances of organic farming better. However, she did no hold out the hope of aid for those who have already converted. There is to be a further meeting with the organic industry in the spring to
738
discuss the role of organic farming in relation to CAP reform. Meanwhile there is a good deal of liaison on organic issues between MAFF and the DoE both at official and ministerial level.
Much as we may wish it to prosper, we must recognise that the organic sector represents a tiny proportion of Britain's farmland—much less than 1 per cent. The Government want that proportion to grow, particularly so that our farmers can satisfy more of the demand for organic products. But that growth must be sustainable and market led. To achieve that, there is a role for the organic movement to perform as well as a role for the Government. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government's contribution is in no way lacking.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

  NIGERIA
  NIGERIA
  ENTRY CLEARANCE SERVICES: REVISED LIST
  ENTRY CLEARANCE SERVICES: REVISED LIST
  ALBANIA: EXPORT OF MINERALS
  ALBANIA: EXPORT OF MINERALS
  CRIMINAL LEGAL AID, MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  CRIMINAL LEGAL AID, MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  NEXT STEPS AGENCIES: PERFORMANCE
  NEXT STEPS AGENCIES: PERFORMANCE
  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: ALLEGED BLACKLIST
  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: ALLEGED BLACKLIST
  EC BUDGET TRANSFER ARRANGEMENTS
  EC BUDGET TRANSFER ARRANGEMENTS
  INCOME TAX FRAUD INVESTIGATION
  INCOME TAX FRAUD INVESTIGATION
  NHS GENERAL PRACTITIONERS: ISSUE AND DISPENSING OF PRIVATE PRESCRIPTIONS
  NHS GENERAL PRACTITIONERS: ISSUE AND DISPENSING OF PRIVATE PRESCRIPTIONS
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  COAL: POLICY
  COAL: POLICY
  NUCLEAR REVIEW
  NUCLEAR REVIEW
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
  TEMPORARY JUDGES, SCOTLAND
  TEMPORARY JUDGES, SCOTLAND
  PLUTONIUM: DISCHARGE INTO IRISH SEA
  PLUTONIUM: DISCHARGE INTO IRISH SEA
  NORTHERN IRELAND: IRA/GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: IRA/GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION
  PLUTONIUM: DISCHARGE INTO IRISH SEA
  PLUTONIUM: DISCHARGE INTO IRISH SEA
  LIQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTE: DISCHARGE INTO IRISH SEA
  LIQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTE: DISCHARGE INTO IRISH SEA
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD CONVENTION: ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD CONVENTION: ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
  EC HABITATS DIRECTIVE
  EC HABITATS DIRECTIVE
  AVIATION ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION: GRANTS
  AVIATION ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION: GRANTS
  PRISON SERVICE: STAFF NUMBERS AND COSTS
  PRISON SERVICE: STAFF NUMBERS AND COSTS