Sitting of 6 December 1993

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

    Family Support
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for families.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): We have fulfilled our manifesto commitment to increase child benefit in line with prices. We have also already made extra help worth around £1 billion a year available to low-income families with children. From October 1994, we are introducing a £40 disregard of child care costs for claimants of family credit and housing benefit. This will remove one of the major stumbling blocks in enabling low-income parents to be better off in work and thus to reduce dependency on benefits.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £40 disregard in respect of child care costs is very much less than many organisations were pressing for? Does that not show the Government's determination to assist parents to get back into work?
    Mr. Lilley: I think that my hon. Friend meant to say "more" than many institutions were pressing for. The
    2
    booklet, "Becoming a Breadwinner", issued by the Day Care trust, advocated a £35 a week disregard. We are going for slightly more than that—a £40 a week disregard, which will be worth £28 a week for lone parents and working married couples returning to work.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that future provision for families is part of the long-term series of reviews that his Department is conducting? Putting it neutrally, it is very difficult for people to conduct and engage him in sensible discussions about long-term future provision. In every speech that he makes and every television interview that he gives the Secretary of State is interpreted, rightly or wrongly, in different ways at different times. It is difficult to know whether the Secretary of State is coming or going. Would it not be better for him and for us if he were to make clear the remit of all the internal Government committees and what papers they are working to? We could then all engage in a proper public debate.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his positive contribution to the debate. I advise him to listen to what I say and to regard what I do, and not to listen to second-hand commentaries. He will then see a consistent theme. We believe in supporting and sustaining the traditional family and, wherever possible, encouraging families to consist of two loving parents. We accept that that is not always the case, and where families break up we want to provide support with the interests of the child in mind. That lies behind the measures announced in the Budget to enable parents to work and improve their well-being while providing proper child care for their children. That is consistent with everything that I have said and the Government have done. We would welcome any positive contributions from the Liberal Democrats, unusual as that might be
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the remarks made by the Secretary of State yesterday, is it not clear that child benefit will not be retained as a universal benefit if the Tories were to cling to office? In view of that, is there not every reason for people to be very concerned? The welfare state is being eroded and undermined at every stage. No one has any

    3
    confidence that the Secretary of State or the Government believe in the welfare state, and there is every expectation that they will use their power to undermine it.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is peculiarly ill informed. There have been two statements about child benefit in the past 24 hours. I have reaffirmed the Government's manifesto pledge to maintain child benefit as part of our provision for families with children. The Commission for Social Justice, established by the Labour party, suggested that it should be abandoned and replaced by national child care.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will suspend the operations of the Child Support Agency.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The Child Support Agency was set up to secure more maintenance more reliably for more children, and that is what it is doing. I have, of course, been examining the criticisms that have been made of some aspects of the new scheme. The work of the Child Support Agency in securing maintenance for children will continue.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that most people—including the authors of the Select Committee report that was published this afternoon—acknowledge the principle that fathers, including absent fathers, should pay for the upkeep of their children? Will he bear in mind, however, that in areas such as Chelmsford, and even St. Albans, a significant proportion of the working population commute down to London and that total commuting costs are in excess of £200 per month? Given that the average non-endowment mortgage repayment is now just over that amount, would my hon. Friend be prepared to look again at the formula in respect of travel-to-work costs to establish whether something could be done to alleviate the burden for fathers?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, and for picking up the fact that the Select Committee has today endorsed the basic principles and operation of the Child Support Agency.
    My hon. Friend's point about provision in the formula for specific expenses was discussed extensively with the Select Committee. I believe that the Committee is coming to the same conclusion as the Government—that it is very difficult to make extra allowances for different kinds of expenses because what is essential to one is not essential to another. We have endorsed that principle and have therefore tried to ensure that the amount of income available to the absent parent is around 70 to 85 per cent. of net income in order to cover the costs.
    The Select Committee made some recommendations, as well as making supportive comments. I shall examine those recommendations together with other aspects that have been raised with us in connection with our own review.
    Mr. Spellar: Regrettably, the Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory. Although he welcomed the report, he did not specify the parts to which the Government would respond.
    Mr. Miller: We are usually given a statement in that time.
    Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend points out, we seem to be given statements very quickly. These problems have been going on for a long time. Some Conservative Members may not have noticed that thousands of families across the country are being thrown into chaos. We have already had the first suicide resulting from the operation of the Child Support Agency. Does the Minister recognise that the fundamental problem has been caused by an attempt to force all the individual circumstances of thousands of different families into a national straitjacket? Is it not time to suspend the agency's operations until proper guidelines can be incorporated and the matter returned to local determination?
    Mr. Burt: I think that what has made the hon. Gentleman unhappy is the fact that his own campaign for the agency's suspension has not been endorsed by the Select Committee in any way. That is because the Committee understands that the agency is already working to produce maintenance for children and that the suspension of its operations would cause chaos for many families who are receiving the money.
    With respect, I feel that we must all be extremely careful in dealing with press reports, particularly those concerned with such sensitive issues as suicide. There can be many reasons for such tragic events, and we are certainly not aware that the Child Support Agency has been deliberately and provenly linked to any of them.
    It is, of course, much too early to respond to Select Committee recommendations published less than an hour ago. I have given the hon. Gentleman an undertaking—as I did in last Thursday's Adjournment debate—to examine all these matters carefully, and we shall continue to do that. It should be noted, however, that the basic principle of what we are doing—that is, moving away from a discretionary system to a national system based on a formula—has been endorsed.
    Mr. Madel: May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about travel-to-work costs? Will my hon. Friend also note that people cannot appeal against their assessment until a review has taken place? The reviews need to be more thorough, as mistakes are being made. They also need to be carried out more quickly. Will my hon. Friend try to improve the efficiency of the Child Support Agency and speed up its operations?
    Mr. Burt: I am sure that to ensure the acceptance of the principles of the Child Support Act it is essential that the agency should operate administratively as effectively as it can. To date, we have had only 174 appeals coming through the system. We shall keep a careful eye on the work of the independent tribunal service which considers those appeals. I understand my hon. Friend's point, which was well made.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that, as other hon. Members have said, the Child Support Agency should take account not only of travel expenses but of

    5
    items such as council tax, insurance costs and fuel bills? Does he further agree that it is totally unreasonable to expect one of my constituents—who is one of many—to be asked to live on a meagre £6·49 a week after he has paid his bills and met the increased maintenance costs, which he has always paid up to now? Does the Minister agree that response is considerably overdue on the points that I raised with him in October and early November about my general concerns about the operation of the CSA, especially the way in which responsible parents who have always paid maintenance are targets who are asked to pay more, while those who are irresponsible and have paid nothing continually get away with it?
    Mr. Burt: I am not happy to accept the figures offered by the hon. Lady and I would welcome her clarification of them as they do not correspond with what should be the situation. The matter of targeting has been considerably distorted by media reports which do not give due credibility to the fact that some half of the work going on at the CSA at the moment is concerned with cases in which no maintenance has been in payment at all. In response to whether there are soft targets and people being unduly picked on, I will quote briefly from one paragraph of the Select Committee report because it considered the matter carefully—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What paragraph?
    Mr. Burt: Paragraph 18. It states:
    "A large part of the public debate about the Child Support Agency has centred on the accusation that it was picking unfairly on 'soft targets', that is, those absent parents who were already making maintenance payments. Behind this accusation has been an allegation that the Agency's work is governed by the requirement to make substantial savings in the social security budget. We believe this objective to be an important one—"
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that it is Question Time.
    Mr. Burt: Yes, Madam Speaker. It continues:
    "The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."
    We strongly agree.
    Mr. Barry Porter: I am pleased to have an opportunity to back the Government's policy of getting "back to basics", but does my hon. Friend accept that when we voted overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation we thought that it made sense that the evil absent father was to be the target. However, after all the letters that I and other hon. Members have had about the matter, surely the Government must now take into account all the objections, which I share with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), that there is something wrong and it ought to be put right.
    Mr. Burt: The agency is indeed pursuing those who have not paid. Its take-on strategy was clearly declared before the Act came into force and the Select Committee considered that. We are looking at the matters of concern that have been raised, but I urge my hon. Friend to acknowledge that some parents have been traced by the agency who would never have been traced under the previous system. We are delivering what the public want through the agency.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that it is essential to consider urgently the important recommendations made
    6
    in the Select Committee report, especially those which add safeguards for second families, and deal with the protected income provisions? Will he also give an undertaking to look beyond the Select Committee report, especially at the experience in Australia, where it is possible to go to a review officer and depart from the usual rigid financial formula if special circumstances can be established? Will he consider the possibility of a disregard for income support to ensure that the children who are at most economic risk—those in families living on income support —gain support from a system which was introduced in their name and from which they often miss out?
    Is not the Minister conscious of the very real danger that without urgent action there will be a breakdown of consent and that at the end of the day damage will be done to the very principle of parental responsibility?
    Mr. Burt: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The Select Committee report will be due a proper reply when its recommendations are looked at carefully. I undertake that the Government will give that reply. In relation to the principle behind the agency, it will help if it is recognised that the Select Committee has looked carefully at the fundamental objections put to it, but that it has essentially endorsed the existing principle and the work of the agency.
    In the majority report, the Committee has recognised the importance of shifting the burden from taxpayers to those who should be most responsible for paying—the parents. That is the principle to which the whole House previously held, and it has now been further endorsed. If the work of the agency in dealing with parents who have not paid and in tracing parents who have been difficult to trace were recognised as it should be, there would be greater understanding and acceptance of the principles of the work of the agency.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that priority is now being given to cases in which a court order can no longer be given? Does he further agree that it is vital that parents who are already paying successfully should not in any way be victimised?
    Mr. Burt: First, my hon. Friend is right to say that we give priority to parents who must use the agency because they have no other mechanism to use. That involves people who have some dependence on benefit as well as those who do not. Secondly, it cannot be classed as any form of victimisation to ask people to pay sums towards their children which they are due to pay under the law. We recognised from the start that there would have to be an increase in the amount paid in many cases to provide a realistic sum of maintenance. That work is going on and is another principle endorsed by the Select Committee. Given time, the principles will be accepted and the work of the House in passing the Act, with immense good will on both sides, will be vindicated.

    Invalidity Benefit
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to safeguard the needs of those dependent on invalidity benefit; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that my right hon. Friend made to the House last

    7
    week. He said—and I repeat—that there will be no cash losers among existing beneficiaries of invalidity benefit at the point of change.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that citizens advice bureaux in all parts of these islands are reporting cases of severely disabled people having their invalidity benefit withdrawn? They say that when the cases go to appeal, the independent tribunal service comes out against the Benefits Agency. Is he aware of the cases of disabled people being told that they should be looking for jobs such as swimming pool attendants, embalmers or artists' models? Surely that is not the road we should be going down. Will the Minister give an assurance that in any new regime severely disabled people will not be put in an invidious position?
    Mr. Scott: The simple target set by the replacement of invalidity benefit with incapacity benefit will be to ensure that those who are rendered incapable of work by reason of their medical condition will receive benefit. Those who do not pass that test will not.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people who will most welcome a more rigorous medical check for cases of invalidity benefit are those of our constituents who are genuinely incapable of work due to disability of one sort or another?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Another group who will widely welcome the reforms being introduced are general practitioners who have not found it an attractive duty to be gate-keepers for the existing benefit.
    Mr. Bradley: Is not the truth about the new incapacity benefit best summed up by the Disability Alliance, which described it as
    "penny pinching at its most callous"?
    Will the Minister confirm that terminally ill people who are eligible for the new benefit will have to wait 12 months before they receive the full rate of entitlement? Will he explain today the objective difference in employment prospects for persons who, according to the new test, will receive 25 points if they "cannot remain standing unassisted" and for persons who will receive only 21 points because they cannot remain
    "standing unassisted for more than a few minutes"?
    Mr. Scott: On the medical tests, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have published a consultation document which is now being considered by a number of organisations and individuals. A panel of some 80 people is being recruited to analyse the tests and to make judgments on their effectiveness. We believe that that is the right way—it is based, after all, on the methodology used by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on which the disability living allowance was based. That is a sound way of judging entitlement to the new benefit. We shall consult widely, and we will listen in particular to medical opinion about the effectiveness of the tests.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that special arrangements have been made under the DLA for all claims from terminally ill people to be put on to a special fast track. That target is now being met and exceeded for those benefits.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend take no nonsense from the Opposition on this, as benefits paid to the sick and the disabled have trebled to £15 billion up to
    8
    this year? Does that not show the Government's commitment? Will my hon. Friend confirm that existing beneficiaries will not have to pay tax on their benefits under the new arrangements? Will my right hon. Friend restate the Government's concern, and will he make sure that there is no misunderstanding or scaremongering by the Opposition?
    Mr. Scott: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. Existing beneficiaries are not to be taxed. In general, we have taken the view that benefits paid as income replacement should be subject to tax; that is why the new benefit will be taxable.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability claims are outstanding at the present time.
    Mr. Scott: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to claims for disability living allowance. At 30 November, the latest date for which information is available, there were 25,372 such claims on hand.
    Mr. Skinner: Are not the Government more interested in looking after themselves and their big business allies than in looking after the disabled? Is it not a scandal that they are now talking about imposing new tests on people who claim disability, invalidity and unemployment benefits? Why can Ministers who fall ill get money every week and every month without having to go through one of these ludicrous tests? The Secretary of State is sitting next to the Minister. How would the right hon. Gentleman like to have to push a wheelbarrow, hold a 5 lb bag of potatoes in either hand or wear a saucepan on his head? And is that not all that he is fit for?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will calm down slightly, he will learn that the Government have a record of helping the disabled unparalleled by any previous Administration. We have trebled the resources which go to the long-term sick and the disabled through the benefits system and a number of other improvements have been made to provisions for the disabled.
    I find it objectionable that the hon. Gentleman makes mock, in essence, of the system that we are endeavouring to provide. That system was properly prepared to introduce DLA, which has had widespread support from organisations of and for disabled people. We intend to use that system for a new benefit and we are consulting widely —not least with those organisations.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have benefited from DLA? Does my hon. Friend remember the speeches in Committee from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) implying that few people would benefit? Does my hon. Friend agree that many have done so?
    Mr. Scott: More than 1 million people have now benefited from the introduction of DLA, and their claims are being dealt with at an ever-increasing rate. We know that there were difficulties when DLA was introduced, due to a surge in claims which came because of the attractiveness of the benefit. The Benefits Agency now is exceeding by a considerable margin each target that it has been set for the delivery of benefit.
    Mr. Sheerman: Whatever happened to basic values? In the good old days of basic values, when there was incompetence from a Secretary of State and a mix-up of the kind that happened with DLA, did not Ministers resign? Will not all the trouble, distress, heartache and ill-health which was brought on disabled people by the delays and the incompetence be repeated by the incapacity benefit? Is it not a fact that disabled people who are now on those benefits do not know what the criteria will be? Will the Minister start saying something about the criteria—in particular in relation to the sensitive subject of mental ill health and people suffering from stress-related diseases?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I apologised for the difficulties over the introduction of DLA both to the House and to those who suffered distress as a result. That is all behind us now and I do not believe that the new benefit will run into such difficulties. Let me make it clear, not so much to the House as to the audience outside, that the new benefit will not come in until 1995 and that there is ample time for proper provision to be made for its introduction and for all decisions about the nature and operation of the tests to be properly considered before that date.

    Child Benefit
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many increases in child benefit have been announced in the past two years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): Child benefit has already been increased three times since October 1991 and my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday a further increase to take effect in April 1994.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Can my hon. Friend confirm that Government spending on families with children has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979—over and above price increases in that time—and that our child benefit scheme compared favourably with European equivalents? Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that it is wise not to exclude the possibility of any change in the scheme in the future, given the Government's strategy of targeting assistance on those most in need?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large increase on spending on families with children —a 50 per cent. increase since 1979, compared with an 8 per cent. reduction between 1974 and 1979, which Opposition Members should remember. On the question of future policy, I should say to my hon. Friend that the manifesto commitment remains absolutely clear: child benefit remains the cornerstone of our policies for families and children, helping mothers who remain at home as well as those who work.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will conduct an urgent review into the operation of the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Lilley: I have always made it clear that we will be keeping the policy under review. We are looking at the comments and concerns raised and testing them against the
    10
    basic principles of the new scheme, which were endorsed by members of all parties. If, after examination, we think that we can make the scheme better still, we will do so.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Child Support Agency is expected to raise £550 million in this financial year and that, of that total, only £50 million will go to help support children? Will he tell us what the agency is really for? Is it simply to help the Treasury, or does it have a role in supporting children?
    Mr. Lilley: The purpose of the agency is twofold—first, to ensure that both parents accept responsibility for maintaining their children and, secondly, that the taxpayer should contribute only if parents do not have the resources to maintain their children. I was glad that that principle was endorsed by the Select Committee on Social Security in its report published earlier today.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Paragraph?
    Mr. Lilley: Eighteen again. The report states:
    "The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend note that half the questions asked today have been related to the Child Support Agency? We are delighted to hear that he is suggesting that the whole matter could be reviewed in the light of what the Select Committee said today and because of the common-sense practical approach that he takes to such matters. I have come across a number of serious problems in my constituency. I am absolutely convinced that the 60 or so people who came to see me the other day are not inventing the difficulties about which they told me and I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the representations that he has received and, if necessary, to make the appropriate adjustments to the statutory formula, to ensure that the agency works as intended in line with the principles on which we all agree.
    Mr. Lilley: I am glad that, like most hon. Members, my hon. Friend accepts the principles on which the agency is based. There have, of course, been widespread protests. My hon. Friend will remember that, before the agency began its work, I spoke to him and to many other colleagues in the House and warned them that although the expectation would be resistance from and difficulties for women when the agency was introduced, in fact the reaction would come from men who were reluctant to pay in full the costs of maintaining their children. We must recognise that there is inevitably some resistance to paying in full the costs of maintaining children if people have not been doing so until now.
    Mr. Ingram: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is real anger—as evidenced in questions that have been raised by Conservative Members, and, not least, by hon. Members from other parts of the House—at the way in which the Act has been implemented in practice and that the patience of those who have been targeted by the agency is rapidly running out? When does he expect his Minister to report to the House on the Department's review of the agency? Will he give an assurance that the review will rest on the needs of the children, not the Treasury?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman talked about targeting and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained that the take-on schedule of the agency has not been

    11
    changed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 96 per cent. of the cases so far contacted by the agency, the mother and child are on benefit and the father usually has a reasonable income. That fact has not come over in many of the representations that have been made. It is rare for the fathers to mention that they have been content to leave their child, and the mother of their child, on benefit.
    Two thirds of those whom we are taking on this year have been paying no benefit at all and we have been much more successful than many people suggest in tracking down absent fathers who had left without any trace—92 per cent. have now been traced. We will take those facts into account while keeping the agency under review, as well as the points that the hon. Gentleman made, which, of course, I recognise also have a significance.
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which Child Support Agency decisions have resulted in a second wife making a contribution to the maintenance of the first wife.
    Mr. Burt: There are no circumstances in which a second wife of an absent parent will be required to contribute to the maintenance of the first. Details of the earnings of an absent parent's new partner are needed for just two reasons: first, to assess whether she can afford to contribute towards the upkeep of her own children in the new relationship; and, secondly, to determine whether the amount of maintenance that the absent parent has been assessed to pay can be reduced under the protected income provisions.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, however laudable his aims, there are real problems faced by fathers when they receive a bill for 15 weeks' maintenance if they have not been quick enough off the mark in getting the form in? Does he further agree that that, for whatever reasons, is causing real hardship and that there is a danger that the second family will end up trying to support the first family through a circuitous route?
    Mr. Burt: On my hon. Friend's point about arrears, it is not the case that those arrears need to be paid off immediately; the agency fully understands the impact that a sizeable amount of arrears might have on a family and it is possible to negotiate with the agency how the arrears should be paid off. It should also be remembered that there is another voice, which tends not to come out in press reports, and has not come out much here, although it has been commented on by the Select Committee. At the end of all this, there is a parent and a child who are entitled to receive the maintenance. That voice is all too rarely heard.
    As to my hon. Friend's point about protection of the second family, they are protected through the formulae. Matters that my hon. Friend and others have raised will be taken into account.
    Mr. Rooney: Does the Minister accept that the principle of the absent parent paying maintenance was accepted at the time before the formula was published? The formula was published some time after the Bill went through Committee and the House. Does he further accept that, if children are in a family situation where benefit is paid, the involvement of the Child Support Agency should be limited to the amount of benefit in payment for those children and that any additional maintenance recovered should go to the family?
    Mr. Burt: The formula was part of the Act. It was debated and consulted on. As to social security,
    "it was always intended that, in cases where it was assessed that the absent parent could afford to do so, the financial responsibility for the care of children should move from the social security system to the absent parent. In some cases maintenance will be a substitute for Income Support; in others, the sums received by the children will certainly improve their circumstances."
    That is a quote from paragraph 20 of today's Select Committee report.
    Mr. Harris: Is not it clear to my hon. Friend that every hon. Member accepts that the agency is a good idea—
    Mr. Skinner: No.
    Mr. Harris: As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is the odd man out. However, most of us feel that the agency has gone drastically wrong in the details and the implications of the scheme. Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask him whether he remembers the warning that I gave him, that all hell would break out if court settlements were retrospectively overturned by the agency rather than by the courts? That is what has happened, particularly where husbands have made over houses to their wives. Much of the resentment and many of the difficulties stem from that.
    Mr. Burt: The principles have been broadly endorsed by the House on a number of occasions and again today by the Select Committee and I do not accept that the way in which the agency has worked has been contrary to the character envisaged. However, some adjustments have been suggested and we are conscious of the criticisms that have been made and are endeavouring to meet them. We have tried to address the central point and the central principles, including the difficulty with the so-called clean break principle. I spent a lot of time on that with the Select Committee, which recognises that there is no other way for the formula to deal with the situation than the way in which we are dealing with it now.
    We tried to ensure that we were fair to both sides after the clean break has been made. We are pleased with the endorsement of principle. We shall look at the criticisms and difficulties raised—we do not minimise them. Today has been a good day for the Child Support Agency and for the House, which originally wanted that change. It is up to us to make sure that it happens in a manner that the House finds fully acceptable.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Market Testing
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received urging him to impose a moratorium on the market testing programme.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): First, the Chancellor regrets that he cannot be here today. He is attending a conference in Brussels of the Council of Ministers, discussing the future of the framework for research programmes.
    The Council of Civil Service Unions has asked me to impose a moratorium. I note also that early-day motion 2587, dated 3 November 1993, called on the Government to halt the market testing programme.
    Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a moratorium would be a grave setback to other welfare spending projects? Has not the present system enabled £100 million worth of savings to be made—savings that will continue to be made every year? Will he confirm that, in encouraging market testing, he is, contrary to the behaviour of the Labour party, which is backed by trade unions, putting the public first and not the providers?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. That sort of money would pay for a couple of hospitals, 50,000 primary school places or 10 secondary schools. All those items of expenditure would be in the public interest, as is low taxation, although the Labour party never seems to learn that.
    Mr. Garrett: Why does not the Minister call for a moratorium on market testing until it can be shown to have led to any improvement in service to the customer? That is the one element missing from any statement that Ministers make on market testing. They cannot show that it leads to an improvement in service to the customer.
    Mr. Davis: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The market testing programme carried out this year was followed up by a review by my Department, with the managers of the individual services, asking what has happened to the quality of service provision. In every case, it was at least as good as that preceding it and, in 32 per cent. of cases, it was better.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will indicate the size of his Department's 1993–94 market testing programme and what it was in 1991–92.
    Mr. David Davis: The size of the market testing programme for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Department in 1993–94 is some £23·7 million, which is about the same as for the whole Government in 1991–92, and some 30 times higher than in their own earlier programme.
    Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the good example set by his Department in saving money and improving services to its customers. Does he agree that it is necessary to find service improvements and cash savings through the market testing programme, to enable the Government to achieve the public expenditure totals that they set themselves in the Budget? Is not it also important to realise that that can be done while improving quality for the customer?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. Our programme has identified savings of some £5 million, which is about 28 per cent. on the base cost of what has been addressed and roughly four times the cost of the analysis programme. We have heard a great deal of barracking from the Opposition about worse service or the absence of quality improvements. I will give them one example that centres solely on service improvement. I refer to the Strangeways prison market test, which was one by—
    Mr. Garrett: Group 4?
    Mr. Davis: No, by the in-house team. That programme made small cost savings but improved the service delivered. It provides prisoners with 35 hours work per week and 60 hours of structured activity. When I think
    14
    about it, structured activity is the opposite of what was happening at Strangeways the last time that I saw it on television.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that many people's experience of market testing—for example, in the health service—is of managers giving themselves massive salary increases? Given the scandals involving the misuse of huge amounts of public money, particularly in places such as Wessex health authority, will the Minister acknowledge that the public are wary of the much-trumpeted advantages of market testing? They see it as just another way of making a quick buck for the Government's friends.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Lady has wandered off into the realm of health service reforms, but my answer to her is entirely in line with the remarks of members of the Opposition Front Bench. They ask, "Ask the customers." For every 100 people treated by the health service before the reforms, 115 are treated now. That is the acid test of any reform.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the value for money is much more important than jobs for the boys and that where market testing and competitive tendering take place, the customer gets a better service at less cost to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend and add to his point about jobs for the boys. Sometimes, the virtues of the market testing programme are lost in the propaganda that flies across from the Opposition. The last component of this year's market testing programme was the Inland Revenue's decision to award an information technology contract to EDS-Sicon. It is worth reading the four key objectives of the selection process:
    "Substantial improvements in cost-effectiveness of IT servicess. Improved speed of delivery in development and enhancement of systems. Rapid access to 1990s skills, tools and technologies."
    The final objective—although this is jobs for the boys it also means benefits for the boys, and girls—is to "optimise career opportunities" for the 2,000 existing information technology staff. Market testing can be a programme by which everybody gains.
    Mr. Meacher: The Minister confuses objectives with achievement. If the Government really believe in fair competition between the public and private sectors, why are they still trying to wriggle out of the TUPE regulations by claiming that this is a matter of subsidiarity? Does not that make it obvious that the Government know that the private sector can only win on the basis of lower pay and worse terms and conditions for employees, not on the basis of greater efficiency? When the private sector cannot win even on that basis, is not the whole exercise reduced to farce when the Minister refuses to accept an in-house bid that is £1 million lower—as at the driver and vehicle licensing centre in Swansea—or even refuses an in-house bid altogether, as with the Inland Revenue's information technology work? It is clear that that has nothing to do with efficiency but has everything to do with political dogma.
    Mr. Davis: I shall answer the six or seven questions that I can remember. The first question was on the DVLA. The exercise to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the so-called £1 million lower exercise—was a bench-marking, theoretical exercise. In case he is worried about that, I inform him that the DVLA will be allowed to bid for

    15
    the contract in the next year or so. I do not think that he was listening to what I said about the EDS exercise. One of the points that emerged was the great benefit to staff as a result of EDS being able to find more work and introduce better technology. That helped staff and kept them in their jobs with more and better prospects. Not everybody in the private sector views TUPE as difficult. Indeed, Mr. Cox of Hoskyns has said that TUPE is an advantage because it gives some security in dealing with staff.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is planned on implementing the citizens charter in next steps agencies.
    Mr. David Davis: We expect all agencies that serve the public direct to publish a charter or charter standard statement and to report on performance against it over time. Many agencies, such as the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, already have a charter. Those that do not are to consider publishing one when their framework document is reviewed. New agencies should have a charter on launch. In the near future, the Department will publish a White Paper—the 1993 review—on next steps agencies in Government.
    Mr. Hain: At a time when the DVLA in Swansea is being market tested, is the Minister aware that its staff feel deeply insulted by their special chartermark award, especially as £3,970 was spent on public relations trinkets —money that would have been better donated to a local charity—one of which was a tax disc holder that was illegal according to the DVLA's specification? Is he further aware that they feel deeply insulted that more than £300,000 has been spent on fees to consultancies to oversee the market testing programme, when their jobs are at stake and their futures being destroyed?
    Mr. Davis: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman the comments that have been made by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen: the first test of the market testing programme is in the eyes of the customer. The DVLA was awarded a chartermark for providing a good service to the customer, which will help it in winning the next contract. I should not underestimate that. The DVLA staff whom I met were certainly not as he described but were very much in favour of and pleased with winning the award.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the point of these agencies is to make the service more responsive and sensitive to the customer and to enable Ministers to raise standards and to ensure that we go more for total quality? Will he let us know what he is doing to ensure that improvements are more widely recognised?
    Mr. Skinner: Give him a chartermark pullover.
    Mr. Davis: I think that my hon. Friend has enough pullovers of his own.
    My hon. Friend is quite right. The aim of the programme is to raise standards year on year. Many processes exist to help to convey the improvements that are being achieved already and to enable best practice to be disseminated throughout the public service. A measure of that is the 10 charter forums that have been held throughout the country, at which public service providers have
    16
    compared notes on how they have improved their service to the public and how they can continue the process of development and improvement.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government intend to increase or reduce the number of citizens charters in the forthcoming year.
    Mr. David Davis: The citizens charter covers all public services. Thirty eight charters and many statements of charter standards have been published by Government Departments, agencies and public services. I expect a further two charters to be published in 1994 and up to 10 to be reissued with improved standards.
    In addition, a wide range of local services have issued local charters. They cover activities such as police and fire services, hospitals, GPs and local authorities.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman see the need to protect the quality of service and the efficient use of public money spent by the Franchising Director in purchasing public service rail services by extending the passengers charter to the private sector companies which will be running rail services in the future, or is there to be a different quality threshold for private rail operators than there is for British Rail?
    Mr. Davis: The whole point of the franchise exercise is to improve services, to ensure that better services are provided after they have been privatised.
    Mrs. Lait: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Strathclyde university on becoming the first university to win a chartermark for the excellence of its career service? Does he agree that it is proof of improving standards in the higher education sector as a response to the market? Does he also agree that there is a great need for continuing improvement in the standards of service offered by the public services?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend goes to the nub of the charter, market testing and, indeed, of all Government reform activities. They are aimed at improving the quality and value for money of services. The value-for-money component is by no means in opposition to quality. Often delivering better quality—getting things right first time —means that things do not have to be done twice and that it costs less to do so.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Has the Minister examined the way in which compensation schemes work under the charters, for example, in the public transport sector where lack of investment means more breakdowns, an increase in compensation payments and, therefore, even less money being available to tackle the causes of those breakdowns? In view of the lack of capital investment, which has been seen most starkly on London Transport in recent weeks, is not it obvious that those compensation packages could tackle the problem that the customer wants to see tackled, which is to get from A to B on time?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman picked an extraordinary example because London Transport has four times the level of capital investment that it received under the Labour Greater London council. He is pinning down the wrong problem. One of the most important components of improving the reliability of delivery in public as in private service is management. Compensation does two things: the

    17
    first is to give proper and appropriate recompense to those who have suffered from poor service and the second—the other side of the coin—is to give a strong signal to management that they must do something to deliver better service, which is what the charter is all about.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much Government activity will be market tested in 1993–94; and what was the size of the 1991–92 programme.
    Mr. David Davis: We plan to subject central Government activities costing more than £800 million to competition in the 12 months to 30 September 1994. This is a 30-fold increase over the 1991–92 outturn of just under £25 million.
    Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend encourage all Government Departments to examine further ways in which they could increase market testing and embrace it vigorously? As he has already mentioned the Inland Revenue, will he welcome its decision to enter negotiations with a private company to introduce market testing in its strategic information and technical services?
    Mr. Davis: I welcome that company, as I have already said. The programme has delivered virtues and benefits throughout Government services and does so not only in terms of the direct public services that we have already mentioned—it delivers the capacity to give wider service, including perhaps more defence, which was discussed at the weekend.
    One example of the improvement in efficiency that has arisen in Departments, even though it has not yet got as far as market testing, was the maintenance of the main battle tank. It used to take 34 weeks to maintain but now takes only 19. That means that there is a cost saving and a benefit to the people who use the main battle tank.
    Dr. Howells: It is a pity that the Minister did not also quote the sums which, between 1991 and now, each of the Departments that had pushed out its charters and its market tests had spent on management consultants. Before he does any more of that, will he speak to the Secretary of State for Wales, who reportedly called in the heads of the quangos and the next steps agencies in Wales and warned them that they were to cut off the gravy train to the management consultants who had been doing very well out of that exercise?
    Mr. Davis: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address the latter part of his question to the Secretary of State for
    18
    Wales. In my Department the costs that were incurred at the beginning of the market testing programme were matched 4·4 times over by the savings that arose. That has been the experience right across the board—four times or better.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my hon. Friend believe that in setting priorities for market testing in Government activity he should use some type of scientific endeavour? Would he consider using technology foresight, for example, as a method of choosing the areas of Government activity in which he wants market testing to occur?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend's suggestion is ingenious. In the process of market testing we discuss with the Departments the areas in which they think that they will obtain the most value for money and the best service provision improvement. That has turned out so far to be a very effective process.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister recall telling me on 25 October that the First Division Association of civil servants was supportive of market testing? Subsequently he received a letter from the secretary of the association, saying that she could not conceive how he could possibly have reached that conclusion because of the letters that she sent to him before and after his answer. Will he now honestly admit, without quoting selectively from those letters, that he has seriously inadvertently misled the House and will he now apologise, because the First Division Association of civil servants very much opposes the present system of market testing?
    Mr. Davis: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to hear what I have already written to him and told him. I was speaking from memory last time, but I am now speaking from the text. This is Elizabeth Symons, writing to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 26 May:
    "Perhaps I should make it clear from the beginning that the FDA does not oppose the principle of market testing; indeed there is much in your recently published pamphlet devoted to the subject with which our members would agree. The public sector cannot be immune from reform, and should not hold itself aloof from new management methods, where such methods can be shown to be delivering better standards, and better value for money for service users and for all tax payers."
    To put the matter absolutely in context, Elizabeth Symons went on to say that she thought that the Government were not taking sufficiently seriously some items, such as confidentiality and several other issues. We take all those issues absolutely seriously and will continue to do so when we make this programme work through the next several years.

Hong Kong
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I will, with permission, make a statement about Hong Kong.
We have an important job to do in the remaining years of British sovereignty in Hong Kong. We intend to carry out those responsibilities, with the support of the House. Part of our task will be to make arrangements for the elections to the district boards, the municipal councils and the Legislative Council in 1994 and 1995.
There is no argument between Britain and China over the principle that Hong Kong's democratic institutions should continue to develop. That is set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It provides that, by 1 July 1997, Hong Kong's legislature will be "constituted by elections". China's Basic Law for Hong Kong after that date spells out more fully the process of political development.
The issue is how those principles should be turned into practical arrangements. The proposals which the Governor put forward in October 1992, with our full support, were carefully framed to be consistent with the Chinese Basic Law. We have all along wished to proceed in agreement with China, in order to assure continuity. That is why we have put so much effort since April into the talks with China.
The talks have been concerned with complex electoral issues, and I apologise for the complexity of this statement. But the underlying question is simple: will we bequeath to Hong Kong an open and democratic system offering the electorate a genuine choice, or will we settle for a system based on small electorates open to manipulation and corruption?
The answer to this question affects the character of Hong Kong. As many right hon. and hon. Members know, Hong Kong owes its success in large measure to the rule of law, supported by a clean and efficient administration. If that asset is to be preserved in modern circumstances, the territory needs an elected and credible legislature which can stand up for its way of life.
That is why we believe that elections held under British administration in Hong Kong need to be fair and open, and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. On that basis, we have made a concerted effort through 17 rounds of talks to reach agreement with China. I have discussed matters twice with the Chinese Foreign Minister during this period. The Prime Minister sent a message to the Chinese Premier. We have offered to make important moves to accommodate Chinese views, without compromising our essential requirements, as part of an acceptable overall agreement.
We made it plain from the outset that the talks cannot continue indefinitely and that it must be for the Legislative Council to consider and pass the necessary legislation. This will take time. Some 48 constitutional and electoral instruments in Hong Kong are affected and may need amendment. All the primary legislation needs to be in place by July 1994. Some of the more important measures need to be on the statute book by February.
When time began to press, we therefore explored fully the possibility of an interim agreement, which would
20
enable us to get on with legislation on the more urgent issues, and gain a little more time to resolve the remainder with the Chinese.
I explained to the Chinese Foreign Minister in New York on 1 October that this aim would not be achieved by an interim package limited only to the elections in 1994 —the district board and municipal council elections. To deal with all the more urgent issues, an interim package needs to include the voting age and the voting method for all three sets of elections, and the abolition of appointed membership in the district boards and municipal councils.
The Chinese side evidently had no difficulty of principle with an interim package covering some of the 1995 LegCo issues. The Chinese accepted our proposal that the voting age should be lowered to 18 for all three elections. They also seem to have had no difficulty of principle with our proposal that the voting method should be single seat, single vote. They accepted that this should apply to the district board and municipal council elections. But they refused to accept as part of this possible interim package that the single seat, single vote method should apply to the Legislative Council.
We and the Governor believe that there are compelling reasons for including this proposal on the voting method in the interim package. In practical terms, it would otherwise be necessary to legislate twice on the voting system, using up legislative time which will be in short supply next year.
The single seat, single vote system enjoys widespread support in the Legislative Council. If we had accepted the Chinese position and introduced legislation to apply this voting method to the district boards and municipal councils only, the council might have extended the measure to apply to the elections to its own body, since we know that it is in favour of that. That would have led straight back to further difficulties with the Chinese Government. We would not have saved time: we would have wasted it.
Despite our best efforts, it has not been possible to reach agreement on this issue. The question of abolishing appointed members also remains unsolved. Time has now run out for pursuing these points. The Governor has therefore announced that he will publish draft legislation on the 10th of this month, for introduction on the 15th of this month. That will allow work to begin straight away in a Bills Committee of the Legislative Council.
The proposals on which the Governor intends to legislate this month are largely uncontroversial in Hong Kong. We had thought that they were uncontroversial with China. On a number of them, it was possible to reach a common view in the talks. In those cases, the legislation will reflect that. The Governor is not at this stage legislating on the main issues which remain in dispute—the functional constituencies, the composition of the election committee, and objective criteria for the through train.
We are not breaking off the talks: we have proposed a further round in December to pursue agreement on remaining issues. We are prepared to work seriously and constructively to that end. We strongly hope that the talks will continue in spite of what has been said, because Britain and China have to carry out what they agreed—I repeat, what they agreed—which is to preserve Hong Kong's way of life and success while transferring sovereignty. We all know that that is a unique task and one that we have not had to do in this form before. It is also difficult, and it is best carried out together.

21
The Joint Declaration makes clear the fundamental British responsibility up to the middle of 1997. We and the Governor are committed to working with China in the interests of Hong Kong, and we look for corresponding commitment from their side.
Dr. John Cunningham: The House will welcome the opportunity to question the Home Secretary on his important and rather serious statement about developments over Hong Kong. I reiterate that we have always supported these proposals. Modest though they are, we have given them a fair wind, because, I guess like most democrats, we wanted, albeit a little late in the day, a widening of the franchise and a broadening of the democratic process in Hong Kong.
Given that the Joint Declaration accepts the evolution of democracy and that it is enshrined in the Basic Law enacted by the People's Republic of China, the central question in response to the right hon. Gentleman's statement is, what on earth has gone wrong?
There is quite clearly a fundamental divide between the Government of the People's Republic of China and Her Majesty's Government. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, that the dispute is about the detailed implementation of procedures for elections. Everyone accepts that whatever proposals emerge must ensure fair and open elections that are acceptable to the people of Hong Kong; otherwise, there would be no point in going through the process.
Who was suggesting that any counter-proposals from China are not intended to be fair, open and acceptable? Is that the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Perhaps I had better reiterate something else. I do not have any particularly fond feelings for the perpetrators of the Tiananmen square massacre or other details of human and democratic rights in the People's Republic of China, but it is not conciliatory or constructive to imply, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently did in his statement, that the Chinese are suggesting alternatives that are open to abuse and corruption. If that is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention, he should make that clear to the House.
The statement has serious implications for relations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the People's Republic of China, but they are even more serious for the future of Hong Kong's people. If it is impossible to reach agreement on the simpler details, what real hope can there be for a deal on the more complex issues that have yet to be discussed and negotiated? It seems as though the through train of democratic reform has just come off the rails in these talks.
Why has not it been possible to persuade the Government of the People's Republic of China to accept even these simplest of proposals? There is a great lacuna in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, because nowhere does it say why there has been any disagreement. If it is simply intransigence and obstinacy on the part of the People's Republic, the Home Secretary should say so, especially in view of Mr. Deng Xiaoping's statement in the early 1980s:
"We hope that the Chinese and British Governments will engage in friendly consultations on this question, and we shall be glad to listen to the suggestions put forward by the British Government."
If that remains the position of the Government of the People's Republic of China, we need to know more about why no progress has been made. Is it, as Sir Percy Cradock
22
suggests, that these discussions got off on the wrong foot in October 1992, and that Her Majesty's Government have been unable to recover the situation since then?
For example, what will the right hon. Gentleman do if, as a result of unilateral action on legislation—I understand the time scale and accept that the Governor cannot wait indefinitely—the Chinese Government refuse to be involved in any further discussions? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that pressing ahead with the proposals will not jeopardise developments such as the new Hong Kong airport and other joint projects?
Is it not clear that China intends to set these proposals aside in 1997 and introduce its own plans? Is it not also clear that, without a substantial recovery of trust and further serious negotiations which end in agreement, there is nothing that Her Majesty's Government would be able to do about that?
Mr. Hurd: The bulk of the right hon. Gentleman's questions should be addressed to the Government in Peking. My responsibility to the House is to explain and justify what the Government and the Governor are proposing. It is for the Chinese Government to explain why, if our proposals were not reasonable—as I believe they are—they have not so far been accepted. In the early autumn of last year, I informed the Chinese Foreign Minister of what the Governor of Hong Kong proposed to say. Weeks passed, with no Chinese reaction except a request that he should not say it. He said it, and then there was a Chinese protest. After several months, the Chinese began the discussions which took the course that I have described.
Issues of very substantial importance remain unresolved. We want the electorates for the functional constituencies to expand. We want the composition of the election committee to be in itself elected. We want an objective-criteria through train, so that the people elected in 1995 know what they have to do—for example, taking an oath to the new special administrative region—in order to stay on the council after the transfer of sovereignty.
Those are all outstanding issues, and on all of them we have put forward proposals that we think are modest and reasonable, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. What is immediately in question are not those matters but matters that, until recently, we thought were not controversial.
The right hon. Gentleman talked in very gloomy terms, but he will have noticed the very robust confidence of Hong Kong in recent days and weeks, which is a change from when I first began to deal with these matters some years ago. The people of Hong Kong know what is going on, because Hong Kong is not a place where matters are long or successfully concealed, but they have not allowed it to deter the colony from going ahead. That is a change from the days when the slightest rumblings of differences between Britain and China caused a great deal of gloom and despondency in Hong Kong. It is very much a change for the better.
The right hon. Gentleman's basic point is right. Some people—for example, Sir Percy Cradock in his article yesterday—talked as if we were running up against a Chinese reluctance to contemplate future democracy. The scheme is that, in 1999, two years after the transfer of sovereignty, the number of directly elected members should rise from 18 to 24 and then to 30 in the year 2003. The functional constituencies should rise to 30, and

23
members of the LegCo appointed by the Governor should disappear altogether. Whose scheme is that? That is in the Basic Law.
We are not talking about a difference of principle; we are talking about the way in which to move towards implementing the principles in the Chinese Basic Law.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the erosion of the development of a trustworthy system of democracy in Hong Kong will also erode the whole basis of law—including law affecting commerce and business—on which Hong Kong's prosperity has been built, and will continue to be built? Will not that be greatly to the disadvantage of the business community, and, indeed, that of Beijing?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is no suggestion in any of the evidence that we have been able to muster in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—evidence from independent and expert witnesses—that any of Governor Patten's reform proposals have in any way violated the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law or the exchange of letters between himself and the Chinese Foreign Minister?
In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend accept that he has my full support in making every effort first to explain to Beijing—with the backing of many others in Asia—that it is vital in the long term for the reforms to proceed steadily, and secondly to ensure that everything possible is done to maintain friendly talks and arrangements with Beijing? It must be brought home to Beijing that its benefit, and that of Hong Kong, will be at stake if the talks break down completely, and obstruction replaces consultation and co-operation.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His Committee is carrying out a thorough investigation, and we look forward very much to its report. I am also grateful for the issue today of what I suppose is in part an interim report.
My right hon. Friend has put it exactly right. It is in the interests of China, Britain and, above all, Hong Kong for Hong Kong to retain its character—which, as all who visit it will know, is capitalist. Recently—in the past decade or so—there has been an increasing and justified demand in Hong Kong for democratic institutions: that, too, is now part of its character. Mr. Deng Xiaoping—who has already been quoted—is, after all, the author of the concept of two systems in one country. It is in the interests of all concerned that that concept exists not as just a phrase, but as a reality.
Sir David Steel: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Governor and indeed Her Majesty's Government have been reasonable with the Government of China, almost to the point of being unreasonable with the people of Hong Kong? As one who knows China, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it too has changed dramatically over the past decade? It is no longer a political or an economic monolith; the provinces have all developed in different ways.
What can the right hon. Gentleman do to reassure the Chinese that the same would be true of Hong Kong, and that the idea that it would be used as a base for undermining the system of government in Beijing is an entirely unreal fear?
24
Does the Foreign Secretary also accept that, if we compromise too much on elections to the legislature, we shall undermine the very foundation of the rule of law in Hong Kong?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with those points. I think it wise for the Governor to continue to operate and to make proposals to the Legislative Council—which will make decisions accordingly—within the scope of the Chinese Basic Law. As the right hon. Gentleman says, China is changing very fast. No one can say quite how far those changes will go between now and midnight on 30 June 1997, and it is therefore right to maintain the line that we have been taking—the principle of "two systems, one country".
That implies that, if the Chinese wish to intend to continue on a communist line inside the People's Republic, that is a matter for them and not for Hong Kong—and equally that, within Chinese sovereignty, Hong Kong should be free to retain its own character.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is it not the case that, although the holding of the elections is contained in the Sino-British agreement, the form in which they should be held is not detailed? That being the case, surely doing nothing is not an option. It is incumbent on the Government of Hong Kong to introduce some measures to explain how the elections shall be held. The Governor can hardly be accused of being precipitate, after waiting 12 months and engaging in 17 rounds of talks. Will my right hon. Friend assure him that he will have the support of many hon. Members in proceeding with his very modest proposals?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that that is exactly right. We have not gone into some stampede, and certainly have not tried to bulldoze proposals through. The original proposals were modest and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, were in line with the Basic Law, with the correspondence that I had with the Chinese in 1990 and with the Joint Declaration.
We have discussed them at great length with the Chinese Government, and hope to discuss them further concerning the main issues that are still in dispute. There comes a time when elections have to be held and, as the House knows, if they have to be held, electoral law must be passed.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Foreign Secretary agree that, after the Tiananmen square incident and the response of the people of Hong Kong and the rest of the world to those events, it was necessary to rebuild the confidence of the Hong Kong people in their future in China?
Does he agree that the October 1992 proposals were consistent with that, and that the subsequent developments and the improved atmosphere in China in its attitude to Hong Kong in comparison with even a year ago is such that we can look forward to a continuing, smooth transition? Does he agree that the Governor should have the support of all hon. Members in making the wishes of the people of Hong Kong paramount in the context of the debate on the Joint Declaration?
Mr. Hurd: I think that, over the next months, we shall have some bumping and grinding on that issue, such as we

25
have today. However, I am optimistic about the remaining period of British sovereignty over the following three and a half years.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Would my right hon. Friend accept from me, as a recent visitor to Hong Kong, that the economy of the colony is thriving, not only internally but due to the great amount of direct investment in China? Will he therefore impress on the Government of China that it is contrary to their own interests to stifle the democratic and thus entrepreneurial spirit of the colony, as democratically expressed through the Legislative Council; and will he encourage the Governor to continue the work that he is doing?
Mr. Hurd: I will indeed do that. The Chinese Government, the Government of the People's Republic, will make up their own mind about their own interests, but the evidence pours in all the time that the relationship between Hong Kong and China, instead of weakening, is developing fast in the economic field. That development enriches both sides. Hong Kong is growing as an asset, but the growth of that asset depends on it being an effective channel, an outlet, for China to the outside world. That in turn depends on retaining, ensuring, the present characteristics of Hong Kong, which are unique in the world and make it, in my view, the most exciting place that I visit.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be widespread support for his declaration that the Government stand in defence of democratic principles, and that they wish those principles to be pressed through the ballot box, if necessary with the backing of international opinion, to ensure that the will of the greater number prevails?
Mr. Hurd: That is an admirable general principle, which the right hon. Gentleman and I had an opportunity yesterday to express in another context. I am glad that we agree as widely on that issue as we did yesterday morning.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is not only support in the House for his statement, but considerable rejoicing that the Government and the Governor are taking these steps, because there appears to be a degree of intransigence—not the most diplomatic term, but one that many of us may use—on the part of the Chinese Government?
There appear to be delaying tactics which could continue for a long time and which would work against the best interests of the people living in Hong Kong. If that intransigence continues, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is given a great deal of publicity? The rest of the world needs to know exactly what we are doing, and what the Chinese are trying to do.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. There is always a difficulty, when one hopes to continue discussions with somebody, deciding how much one says about the discussions that have taken place already. We have to strike that balance. I believe that the reason why the Governor and his proposals continue to enjoy such wide support in Hong Kong is that he is no slouch in explaining them in terms that people in Hong Kong readily understand and accept.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what worries the Chinese
26
Government is not that there will be capitalism in Hong Kong, but that there could be democracy in Hong Kong? Does he accept that, although the House should accept and support the Patten package, it is a watered-down version of the consensus of the Office of the Members of the Legislative and Executive Councils? After 14 months of negotiations, we shall have a watered-down version of the watered-down version.
Will he therefore press ahead with what he has announced today? Will he press ahead as soon as possible with the rest of the Patten package? With only three and a half years to go, unless action is taken quickly, it will not be worth taking at all.
Mr. Hurd: Action has to be taken in time to provide for greater democracy in 1995. The Governor will work out —he has not yet decided it—exactly what package he will put in terms of the main proposals for the elections in 1995 to the Legislative Council. We obviously hope, as I said, that we shall be able to resume discussions with the Chinese Government on some of the outstanding issues. However, that is not sure at present.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Foreign Secretary understand that the modest proposals he has made today will have wide support?
To return to the question of what has gone wrong, which was asked by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), does the Foreign Secretary recall the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee four years ago? The Committee reported having discussions on that very issue in Beijing. The Chinese officials concerned emphasised that the timetable for the introduction of representative government was a matter for Hong Kong.
Will my right hon. Friend continue to press on the Chinese the fact that many people here cannot understand why it was right then to move more quickly towards democracy, with the support of the Chinese Administration, whereas now, for some reason, the position seems to have changed?
Mr. Hurd: That is a fair question. The agreement that I made with the Chinese in 1990 for the elections in 1991 was for 18 directly elected members out of 60. That is the position in LegCo today. However, the Basic Law proposes to move that figure up to 30 by 2003 and to 24 by 1999. The principle is there is Chinese law—in the Basic Law—which was passed after my right hon. Friend first went to Peking. The question why, in those circumstances, the Chinese Government are not willing to accept the Governor's modest proposals is one to put to them.
Dr. John Marek: Does the Foreign Secretary accept my support for his modest proposals? I believe that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members of all parties support his proposals. Will he pass that support on to the Governor and to LegCo?
Can the Foreign Secretary give an unequivocal assurance to the House? If he is to hold his head up after 1997 as having done his duty for Hong Kong, and if all of us, as Members of Parliament, are to hold our heads up, he and the Governor must not settle for one iota less than a system for the election committee and for the functional constituencies which is democratic, open and incapable of manipulation.
Mr. Hurd: In the end, it will not be for me or for the Governor to decide; the arrangements and decisions on the

27
points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be for the Legislative Council. That is a point that the Chinese find it hard to accept, but it is a fact that we constantly press on them.
Dr. Liam Fox: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if the Chinese Government have the best interests of the people of Hong Kong at heart, the best thing they can do is give the go-ahead for the airport and other projects as soon as possible?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Governor of Hong Kong is pressing ahead with the airport, as anyone who flies over Hong Kong and over Lan Tao island can see. However, it is important that the remaining part of the project receives the Chinese consent which is needed. That is another practical example of an asset which is being created day by day, both on the ground and in the sea. It is powerfully in the interests of China that that should be successfully and rapidly completed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: To sum it up, could it not be argued that there are all sorts of democracies, which come in all shapes and sizes? When the right hon. Gentleman is negotiating with the Chinese Government, will he perhaps consider that many Opposition Members would like to see a system evolve based on the House of Commons and direct elections? Do not the Chinese Government perhaps want a system based on the House of Lords? As the British Government support the House of Lords, might they not put themselves in a dodgy position?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has a distinctive view of the House of Lords, which used to be shared widely in the country. However, his view is not shared any more, and the hon. Gentleman is being a little old-fashioned on the matter. I have not yet heard a proposal based on the House of Lords from the Chinese Foreign Minister or from the Chinese Premier. Were we to do so, we would be intrigued rather than persuaded.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to safeguard the human and constitutional rights of the people of Hong Kong under Chinese rule is to ensure that as many as possible of the democratic proposals agreed under the Joint Declaration of Basic Law are implemented beforehand? Given the somewhat questionable record of the Chinese Government in human rights, both in China and in Tibet, is not the Governor wise indeed to push ahead with democratic proposals to ensure that as many proposals as possible are implemented before the changeover takes place?
Mr. Hurd: The Hong Kong Bill of Rights gives effect in local to the provisions in the international covenant on civil and political rights as applied to Hong Kong. The Joint Declaration—that is to say, the declaration which we made with China—provides that the international covenant will continue to apply to Hong Kong after 1997. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of that.
Mr. Mark Fisher: If we are serious about helping the development of democracy in Hong Kong, does the Foreign Secretary accept that it is not just a matter of electoral mechanics, important though those are, such as the age of voting or the number of elected
28
members? Are not open government and the freedom of information from censorship key elements in underpinning democracy?
Will the Government encourage Governor Patten to look at censorship and self-censorship of the Hong Kong media, and will they give support to the freedom of information Bill which will come before LegCo next spring? If not, and if the Government are solely concerned with negotiating on the mechanics of democracy, will not their rhetorical support for the widening of democracy be somewhat hollow, as it is not just a matter of electoral mechanics?
Mr. Hurd: No, indeed it is not. I do not know the details of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I will certainly pass on the message to the Governor. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not a mechanical matter. We have seen relatively recently the growth of a democratic spirit. Until recently, the pressure for that spirit did not exist. However, there is that pressure now. We all have ideas about how that spirit arose and why it is now so strong, but it is there. Therefore, it is not a matter of mechanics. The mechanics are finding the machinery through which that spirit can find expression.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only in the interests of China to see the continuing success and prosperity of Hong Kong for the value which Hong Kong can bring to China, but also for the international community to see that an agreement can be reached, so that trade can be opened up with China and that future British investments in China will go ahead? That is something of great value. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we maintain a working dialogue throughout all the difficulties, small and large, which may occur in future negotiations?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. The consensus may be broken immediately, but it is notable that every single right hon. and hon. Member on both sides of the House—even, I think, the idiosyncratic hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—has supported what the Government are attempting to do and the way in which we are seeking to handle this matter. There may be criticisms of the way in which the matter has been handled in the past, but, as regards the path that we are now on, there has been unanimous support, and that is extremely helpful to Hong Kong.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Welcome though the Foreign Secretary's decision to introduce some form of limited democracy in Hong Kong may be, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we suffer from something of a credibility problem in that regard? I say that because we have had 100 or so years to sort out democracy: if it is such a good idea, we could presumably have done so some years ago. Now that we are to stand up to the Chinese on this issue, will we be adopting a less supine attitude to one or two other important human rights issues in China, particularly in relation to Tibet?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that our attitude to Tibet has been in the least bit supine. The way in which we have taken the matter up and our discussions with the Dalai Lama prove the reverse. I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman in one of my earlier answers. I first went to Hong Kong in 1954. No one who knew the colony then

29
—or for many years thereafter—would have sensed a pressure for democratic institutions. Everybody knew that Hong Kong was in a unique position.
That has changed, however. It has changed since 1989 in particular, but it had begun to change before that. We are therefore responding, as the colonial power, to a change in the feeling and wishes of people in Hong Kong. That feeling and those wishes are now part of the character of Hong Kong, which has to be respected, and is respected, under the Joint Declaration and, indeed, the Basic Law.
Mr. David Harris: May I revert to the question posed by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who spoke for the Opposition, about what has gone wrong? When members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Beijing a few weeks ago, we unfortunately found a mood of complete intransigence on these issues. I suggest that that is what has gone wrong.
Does my right hon. Friend share my view that it is important that the House should have an early opportunity to express in a formal way what I believe is our overwhelming support for the Governor of Hong Kong —particularly in the light of what I fear are considerable attempts among some business men to undermine his position in Hong Kong itself?
Mr. Hurd: I note my hon. Friend's point, and will draw it to the attention of the House authorities; it may be a matter for the usual channels.
May I also say in passing that I hope that the Select Committee will not include among its recommendations the use of the word "Beijing". I know that it is a matter of personal taste, but I do not talk about "Roma", Bruxelles" or "Moskva", and I do not see any reason to abandon a perfectly reputable English word for a very distinguished Chinese city.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not the beauty of democracy the fact that it is open-ended and can encompass moves to the left or the right in different circumstances? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that democracy in Hong Kong should not be regarded as a defence of capitalist arrangements, as those arrangements have often been defended by methods that are far from democratic?
Mr. Hurd: I think that even the hon. Gentleman would agree that, in most societies, there is a link—although not an absolute link—between the free market and free political institutions. What has happened is that, after many years of practising with unique success the principles of the free market, Hong Kong has in recent years developed an appetite—a pressure—for free political institutions.
Mr. Peter Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during my recent visit to Hong Kong, I encountered precisely that growing confidence and self-assertiveness of which he spoke, and also a great groundswell of support for the Governor's general approach to all the affairs of the colony, and specifically to democracy for the colony? Does my right hon. Friend not think that one of the most effective ways in which Peking could demonstrate that it has the best interests of Hong Kong at heart is to enable more rapid progress to be made with the negotiations surrounding the work of the Joint Liaison Group?
Mr. Hurd: In addition to the constitutional talks that I have described to the House, there is, as my hon. Friend says, the work of the Joint Liaison Group and the airport committee. The JLG is trying to carry through a whole series of changes, many of them completely technical and legal—legalistic, even—to enable the law of Hong Kong to pass without difficulty into the period following the change of sovereignty. It is important for things such as air services out of Hong Kong that that technical legal work should continue, and, indeed, accelerate.
Mr. David Winnick: Although I have only contempt for the manner in which China treats its citizens—the complete denial of all democratic rights—is the Secretary of State aware that we should be careful not to adopt a "holier than thou" attitude, and that some sort of apology is due to the people of Hong Kong, because previous Governments, including this Government in the past 14 years, did not take steps to establish the form of democracy that we are now talking about, and are right to talk about? If those democratic steps had been taken in the past, China would have little to criticise.
Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have dealt with that point twice already. It is not historically correct.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the understandable concerns of the business community in Hong Kong? Notwithstanding that, does he agree that we should give priority to protecting those institutions that have made Hong Kong special, and in particular to the rule of law?
Mr. Hurd: It is right that someone in these exchanges should mention the anxieties of the business community, and my hon. Friend is quite right to do so. He is right also to put it in context and draw the conclusion that he has.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend reminded the House, through his liking for the word "Peking", that he was once based there. He knows that the Chinese will not respect us if we do not fulfil our commitments under the agreements with China to hand over in 1997 with still strong economic and social stability. It must be the Government's judgment, with the Governor, how that can best be fulfilled. The previous Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I was a member, wanted us to go faster on democracy so that the Governor's current proposals should have the full and whole-hearted support of the House, and the Chinese should understand why.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right in his history, and I agree with his latter point.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a question of the Chinese not understanding, or not wanting to understand, that greater democracy is an essential guarantee of the British legacy to the Chinese after 1997, particularly the rule of law, the efficient and relatively corruption-free administration, and the free enterprise system that prevails in that colony?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. In trying to answer the questions that have come from many parts of the House about the reasons for the Chinese attitude, in fairness one must say that they feel a good deal of suspicion that, with its institutions, Hong Kong could

31
become a centre for what they would regard as subversion, of advocating violent change in China. They feel a certain suspicion of the British Government and of the Governor.
It must be our job and the job of the people in Hong Kong over the next three and a half years to get those suspicions put on one side and pushed into the history books, because the present interests of Britain, Hong Kong and China in all those matters coincide to a remarkable extent.

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
  Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have seen fit to limit speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 pm to 10 minutes.
  4.17 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): The whole House will agree that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor presented a skilful and imaginative Budget last week. He tackled the deficit decisively and set public borrowing on a downward path with the robust and penetrating help of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He cut no less than £10 billion from previous spending plans, with tough measures to reduce the cost of government and bring spending on social security under control. His tax increases are carefully targeted to protect incentives, as the House would want, and help the supply side of the economy. The Budget has new measures to help businesses and jobs.
  The Budget creates the right climate for business and for investors. It will foster the economic recovery that is clearly gathering momentum. [Laughter.] Already unemployment is falling and output is expanding—a laughing matter to the Labour Front Bench. Industry is more competitive and exports are at record levels. Our inflation and interest rates are among the lowest in Europe. This year and next year, we should have faster growth than any of our major partners on the continent.
  As part of that picture, education will be critical in the next three years. That is why I am all the more sorry that the Labour party did not think the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) sufficiently weighty to field for a debate such as this. Quite properly, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment spoke in a similar debate last Friday, the shadow spokesman on employment also spoke. It is unusual in House of Commons practice for an Opposition spokesman not to take part in a debate, but not surprising considering the shambles to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury has reduced Labour's education policy after only 18 months in the job.

  33
  Let us take higher education policy. Had the hon. Lady been here to speak, she might have been able to tell us a bit more about Labour's "Now you see it, now you don't" policy on higher education. After she became Front-Bench spokesman on education, she was telling anyone who would listen that she would have the guts to tackle the issues and that Labour would produce a green paper with radical proposals on the future funding of higher education.

  The hon. Lady instructed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—unfortunately, he is not here—who was then the Labour party spokeman on higher education, to go away and draft a paper on higher education. Following her instructions, that is precisely what he did. The paper was prepared and copies were sent, as part of a pitch-rolling exercise, to a number of journalists. Vice-chancellors were briefed and sent a copy of the paper. Yet, at the eleventh hour, and on the specific orders of the leader of the Labour party, the green paper was withdrawn. As the author later conceded, it did not even contain any concrete proposals, yet it was obviously thought that to commit itself to any form of action was too risky for a party that had been in opposition for only 14 years.
  As some hon. Members may recall, a copy of the paper fell into my hands. In the interests of open government, I published the green paper during a press conference. It stated piously:
  "Labour will not simply stand on the side … We will not simply wring our hands. This would not be a serious response from a mature political party".
  I agree: it would not. So why is Labour still standing on the side and wringing its hands? Could it be because of some of the barmy ideas in its green paper—ideas such as a new corporate levy on business to pay for higher education? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment never fails to point out about Labour's training levy, that would be just another job-destroying tax.
  What was the reward of the hon. Member for Perry Barr for producing that radical document? He told us all about it in an article in The Times on 8 November last month, in which he said:
  "unfortunately, I wrote myself off the front bench".
  In other words, he was sacked. He was forced to fall on his sword for following the instructions of the principal Front-Bench spokesman. No wonder he went on to write in exasperated terms:
  "One of the greatest dangers facing Labour after such a long period outside office is that of becoming a professional Opposition. That is, a party that opposes the government, but never risks upsetting the vested interests … a responsible political party cannot hide its head in the sand".
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I have some difficulty with the concept of Labour "becoming a professional Opposition". As my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will no doubt agree, we see Labour remaining an amateur Opposition.
  Winding up the debate in the House on the Loyal Address a week or so ago, I asked the Front-Bench spokesman on home affairs, the ever Peter Panish hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), "Where's the beef?" I was asking that about Labour's policy on law and order, but when it comes to education, I can equally ask, "Where's the bottle?" Now, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has suffered the ultimate indignity of being dragged off the bench and substituted for the hon. Member for Dewsbury. I ask the hon. Gentleman, where is the intellectual honesty? I hope
  34
  that it will be displayed this afternoon, and that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the Budget specifically and in terms—particularly in regard to the help given to all pensioners paying value added tax on domestic fuel.
  Not long ago, the hon. Gentleman was interviewed in another article. I love it when Opposition Members write newspaper articles—whether it is the hon. Member for Perry Barr or the hon. Member for Garscadden—because they are always most revealing. The hon. Member for Garscadden was revealing in his article in The People on 21 November, when he said of the VAT issue that
  "the Government has to add something on to take account of that"
  He went on to say that we
  "could do it with an extra 50p on pensions".
  That is exactly what was done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
  Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
  Mr. Patten: I will give way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that he will congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Dewar: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman raised that issue because it allows me to put the record straight—as I have already done in letters to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Social Security. I make it clear that I did not write an article but was quoted in a way that did not represent my views. At no time have I said or suggested that 50p would be adequate. How could I, when—to take one example—a married couple with two children under I1 will receive only 45p as a result of the so-called compensation package?
  If the Secretary of State wants the truth, and as he seems to be so keen on reading The People, no doubt he read in that newspaper on Sunday an excellent article by the interviewer who spoke to me for the article that is at the centre of this argument, who described the use made of the quote as "a load of cobblers".
  Mr. Patten: It is wonderful to see the hon. Gentleman wriggle on the hook. He had four or five days to think about that matter and has made a pretty pathetic response in trying to get away from his quoted remarks in The People. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to eat his words, he should take his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. Otherwise, my right hon. and learned Friend, who used to be an advocate at the criminal Bar, will have him bang to rights.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has provided a focus on public expenditure, maintaining expenditure on law and order and, with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, allowed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to introduce the excellent new apprenticeship schemes that were so warmly welcomed last Friday by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), Labour's new Front-Bench spokesman on employment—for which we were most grateful.
  A similar focus on public expenditure has come with the additional money made available for "The Health of the Nation" and with the targeting of record amounts for the education of the nation's young—to which I now turn. If at any stage the otherwise mute and inglorious hon. Member for Dewsbury, who has been gagged by members of her own Front Bench, wants me to give way on any point, I will do so. I believe in freedom of information, and

  35
  I think that it is rotten that Labour's Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition have conspired to stop that fine public servant having her say.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary rightly focused on measures designed to give this country a competitive edge in a fiercely competitive world. Among those measures, none is more important than investment in human capital, represented by our education system. We must ask much of our schools, colleges and universities, and we must ensure that consumers of education—pupils and students, parents and employers—have more information available than ever before to help them to make increasingly informed choices.
  It is our responsibility to give more money where we can, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have. It is our responsibility to set higher standards and to give more information, but we must also look for responsibility from those in the education system.
  It is a matter of grave distress to me to have to report the irresponsible acts that have happened on various university campuses over the past couple of days. I am sure that no hon. Member would support those activities. The first matter was the outrageous attack and jostling of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Liverpool. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members think that it is a joke. Eggs were thrown at my right hon. Friend and his staff, at least one of which struck my right hon. Friend. Luckily, he was wearing his campaigning suit. That was disgraceful behaviour by university students.
  Mr. David Shaw: Was it a socialist egg?
  Mr. Patten: Yes, it was a smelly egg.
  On Friday, students at the University of East Anglia in Norwich displayed equally disagreeable and yobbish behaviour. I expect that that will be supported by Labour Members, some of whom, of course, made their careers early on through agitation on campuses, but it is a serious matter. A large number of students invaded the registry at the university. They sat in at the weekend and were removed from the university this morning, having caused damage and trouble, only when a writ was served on them. They had particularly targeted the university loans office, which was shut as a result last Friday.
  Such events are not only happening in Norwich and Liverpool. Last Friday, some disagreeable events occurred even in the eternal city, Oxford, which I have the honour to represent. I hope that Opposition Members will treat the matter seriously because I was giving my constituents the opportunity to see me at my advice centre, which is the proper thing for any hon. Member to do. I hope that all democrats support that.
  I was not allowed to leave the parish hall in Botley—more than 100 students were sitting outside and blocking my way. They refused to let me and my helper, Mr. Austin Griffiths, a man in his seventies and a parish councillor, leave. They were led by a lot of yobs from Balliol college, who were easily identifiable by a large banner that had "Balliol JCR" on it. We were driven back into the hall, the doors had to be locked and the police had to be called. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Oppposition Members treat
  36
  the matter as such a joke because it was a great waste of police time. The police had to send two cars to break a way through the students and make it possible for me to leave my surgery.
  Worse than that—and I suspect that the hon. Member for Dewsbury will laugh even louder at this—were the disgraceful scenes that happened earlier in the sort of parish hall that many of us use for our surgeries: a prefabricated building with windows. As my constituents queued to see me, the hall was surrounded by yobbish students from Oxford university, who I am ashamed to represent in Parliament, and from Oxford Brookes university. They form a tiny minority—most of the students are hard working. They hammered on windows and walls and put my constituents in considerable fear.
  The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford Brookes university, Dr. Booth, had been to see me earlier. It is a pity that he could not stay on a bit to remonstrate with the students outside. I was equally surprised when the chaplain to Oxford Brookes university—he came to see me during the demonstration, which was upsetting my constituents, who, like all constituents, want to see us to raise problems; that is our democratic job—said that the behaviour of the students was the type of thing that we should expect.
  I have detailed three examples of extraordinarily bad behaviour by university students. If nothing else, it shows the need for the Education Bill, which will be debated in the other place tomorrow, including the necessary reforms of student union matters.
  Mr. Mike Watson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The attitude of the Labour party throughout has been entirely frivolous. It obviously approves of such demonstrations and does not care if the democratic process is disturbed.
  I exonerate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) who, I think, probably has some sympathy. At least he has been allowed to speak this afternoon. For one dreadful moment, I thought that the Liberal Democrats might have let out the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the afternoon but, luckily, we shall hear from the hon. Member for Bath.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State complains about the behaviour of students. Does he agree that the best way to ensure that there was better behaviour generally throughout the education system would be to invest in pre-school and nursery education? Will he take this opportunity to answer the question that he refused to answer during the debate on the Queen's Speech concerning the Prime Minister's reported enthusiasm for nursery education? Two weeks ago, we heard that the Prime Minister was mad keen on nursery education and had plans for 1 million new places. Does the Secretary of State know anything about that?
  Mr. Patten: We debated these issues last Friday week when the House discussed the national education and training targets. The Labour party is so keen on education and training that it did not field one person to support the hon. Lady. The Benches behind her were completely empty, which shows the lack of support for her policies. She had the opportunity then—and will have it again at Question Time—to debate nursery education.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State answer the question—where are the plans for nursery education? Do they exist or not?
  Mr. Patten: As I have told the House many times, the plans are there. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has asked me a question; does she want me to answer? At the moment, 56 per cent. of three and four-year-olds receive nursery education, and 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds receive nursery education, pre-school playgroup help or other forms of help, and the number is increasing. The position here is very different from that on the continent—most children in this country start school at rising five, and we have a better record on combined nursery help and primary school education for three and four-year-olds than any other western European country.
  I have said many times, although the hon. Member for Dewsbury does not seem to understand—perhaps that is why she is not usually allowed out to speak these days —that the parents, higher education and further education charters have signalled a revolution in the availability of information. There is more and more evidence that performance tables are stimulating individual schools and colleges to look hard at what their students achieve and how they can be helped to do better. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) want me to give way, as he appears to be muttering to himself rather menacingly?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) who asked when the Government are going to plan for nursery education for all. I was saying that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is in a public school debating society and that his going to various colleges means that he has been educated beyond his intelligence.
  Mr. Patten: That is uncharacteristically ungenerous from one of the few members of the Labour party who can oppose. We leave nursery education largely as a matter for local decision: whether in Tory-controlled Wandsworth or in Labour-controlled Tyneside, nursery education is provided as a matter of local choice.
  The combination of ambitious public targets and informed consumer choice will raise standards, and is already doing so. I pay tribute to the devoted teachers throughout the education service who are already—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A collection of about six intelligent students, led by the president of the students union, came to see me on Friday. They were later joined by some rather less intelligent ones but one of their number made a fair point. He was a mature student who pointed out that he was too old to get a loan and would therefore lose 10 per cent. of his income. That could be a difficulty for the small number of students in that category.
  Mr. Patten: We are proud of the fact that about half of the 100,000 additional entrants into the university sector this autumn—the equivalent of 12 new universities created by the Government—are aged 24 or over. One of the problems is that a large number of local authorities do not seem to use their discretionary grants in the way that we believe is right in order to help—as they have the discretion to help from time to time—people aged over 24.
  I pay tribute to the devoted teachers throughout the education service, who already make an enormous
  38
  contribution to the improvements that are made each year, but we constantly need to keep an eye on the international competition. No part of our economy—neither the private sector nor the public services to which, as a nation, we rightly attach importance—can flourish unless the wealth-creating sector flourishes. That sector can flourish only if it has a work force—at all levels, technician and graduate—whose skills are equal, if not superior, to those of our rivals.
  Public spending on education is today a higher proportion of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom than in Germany or Japan—a point which I have endlessly made to the hon. Member for Dewsbury during the past 18 months. She is a very slow learner and does not yet seem to have picked up the substantial proportion of GDP that we spend on education in this country compared with our competitors. That means that some aspects of the British education service are the envy of the world, but we want that to be true for the whole of the service. That is why, since we were returned at the last general election, we have given, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, priority to education.
  We have made it a manifesto priority that one young person in three should benefit from higher education by the end of the decade. As a result of a magnificent effort by the universities and colleges, we have almost achieved that target seven years early. We made it a priority last year to increase the numbers of students in further education by 25 per cent. We are on target to achieve that. The plans that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced will continue that growth. We have made it a priority to support the continued expansion of the self-governing schools—grant-maintained schools —which are a central part of our strategy for levering up standards throughout the education service.
  The Government's achievements in each sector of education are, therefore, linked. Our policies for raising standards in school, including the introduction of the GCSE under a Conservative Government and the establishment of a national curriculum, were designed specifically to lead to improved examination performance. They are doing so and they have led in turn to record numbers of young people staying on after the age of 16. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that last year more than 70 per cent. of 16-year-olds were in full-time education; in 1987, the year before the GCSE was introduced, the figure was only 48 per cent. Those improvements have produced the record A-level passes that we are now witnessing and the record numbers of students entering further and higher education—a great success story, backed by substantial sums of money, but we have to get better value for money out of our education system.
  In a moment, I shall consider the Government's achievements and plans for each sector of education, but I should first say what is obvious to all, at least on the Conservative Benches. We have promoted levels of participation, for example, in higher and further education, beyond the dreams of the last Labour Government, but we have done so cost-effectively. While the numbers in higher education have increased dramatically, so has the universities' productivity—by 20 per cent. during the past five years. I pay tribute to that.
  The expansion of further education and its new independence from local authority control means that we can expect the same increases in productivity from our 480

  39
  further education colleges and sixth form colleges. In education, we are getting more for taxpayers' money than ever before, but I think that we can do more and should do more.
  I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said about the Government's private finance initiative. Co-operation between the public and private sectors means valuable new flexibility in funding capital projects. We are already seeing results in higher education, where, I can report to the House, in 1991 the universities were able to add a third again to the funding that was provided by central Government. That is a considerable improvement. The different scale of schools and further education colleges means that we shall have to work even harder to make progress there, but I can assure the House that we are closely considering the application of the private finance initiative to all of education, including schools, especially the secondary sector. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I are working hard to those ends at the moment.
  Let me say clearly that this initiative is about introducing additional resources into the school capital programme where we can, and certainly additional flexibility into the capital funding of education. Public funding will, I can reassure the House, remain an essential element of our capital expenditure, but if, by working closely with the private sector, schools and colleges can make public money go further and use it more effectively, I trust that no one in the House will quarrel with that.
  I said earlier that I would speak in more detail about each of the sectors of education and I think that it is important to do that in the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement. I shall start with those aspects of education for which I am directly responsible —higher and further education—before moving on to schools, where local authorities are still the channel for most of the funding.
  I make no apologies for highlighting higher education. The scale of the success story here is still far too little recognised. When the last Labour Administration left office, only one in eight of our young people was entering higher education. This autumn, the figure will be almost one in three. We have moved from an elitist education system under Labour in 1978–79 to a system with much greater and wider access, after 14 years of Conservative Government. Although I am certainly not complacent, judged by the evidence of A-level entry scores, of completion rates and of degree classes, I think that it has been achieved without compromising quality.
  We must watch quality extremely carefully as we expand university education. Universities and colleges have maintained the quality of higher education while achieving large increases in productivity. Productivity has improved by 20 per cent. between 1989 and 1992 and new approaches to teaching and learning should allow further productivity gains to be achieved in future while maintaining quality. Some especially good ideas were put out last week by Lord Flowers in another place about the more intensive use of university buildings.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Can the Secretary of State now tell the House what he anticipates would be the impact of
  40
  charging students tuition fees, as proposed in the Government document that was under discussion before the Budget?
  Mr. Patten: I never comment on stolen documents inside or outside the House. [Interruption.] I never comment on stolen Government documents inside or outside the House. I am grateful for all others from all other sources. I am easily found at Sanctuary buildings, SW1.
  As far as participation is concerned, the fact that participation among young people is already held close to our target for the year 2000 is excellent news.
  Mr. Skinner: Too clever by half.
  Mr. Patten: That is something that I will never be able to say about the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  However, the recent growth places a large burden on the taxpayer as well as on the institutions. That is why we plan to stabalise participation at its current record level for the next three years. The proportion of young people who are admitted during the next three years will stay the same. It will give universities a welcome breathing space after the recent pell-mell pace of change and an opportunity to ensure that every mechanism is in place to maintain quality. Quality must be the touchstone of our world-beating university system.
  It will, of course, be for each university to decide precisely how many students to admit, but we are helping that stabilisation by reducing the level of tuition fees while boosting by an equivalent amount the grant that is paid to universities through the Higher Education Funding Councils. I must emphasise that that shift will have no effect on the overall level of resources that are available to universities, but it will mean that the funding council is able to influence recruitment more closely than in previous years.
  Within the new fee levels, we are retaining the differential between the lecture room and the laboratory. We do—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Minister for Further and Higher Education, building on the earlier important work of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) when he was Minister for Further and Higher Education—wish there to be an increase in the proportion of students in engineering and technology: a fundamental underpinning for the country's future prosperity. The fee differential is one way of encouraging that. Another is our new engineering bursaries scheme, which we hope will start next year, giving 2,000 of the most able young people each year an extra £500 a year for starting on accredited engineering courses. We need that for simple supply side reasons.
  The Government's plans provide for capital grant to universities to increase by 20 per cent. in real terms during the next three years. That is good news for universities. In addition, universities' ability to raise from the private sector a significant proportion of the capital that they need is greatly enhanced by changes in the capital regime this year. These allow universities to borrow against Exchequer-funded assets and they relax the rules governing the reinvestment of proceeds of sales of such assets. That demonstrates the great strides being made by the private finance initiative.
  Investment in higher education is certainly investment in the economic, as well as the cultural and social, future

  41
  of the country. In a demanding Budget, we are providing for recurrent funding to universities to rise by 6·7 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend accept that an important element in this higher education improvement is the export opportunities for British education which it will throw up? Indeed, increasingly it already throws them up; and there is great interest world wide in British education. Is this not a promising field?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry informs me that more than 100,000 foreign students are studying in this country today. That represents massive foreign exchange earnings. We recently welcomed 12,000 students from Malaysia, and when His Majesty the King of Malaysia was here only a few weeks ago, the Malaysian royal party spoke warmly of the education that those students receive here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is of course right, although I am somewhat alarmed by the fact that we do not command a bigger share of the teaching of English abroad. Of the £6 billion market world wide, all too much is in the hands of colleges in Australia and Ireland. I should prefer more of this teaching to be in the hands of our home countries.
  Mr. David Shaw: May I suggest that one of the ways in which more foreign students could be attracted to learn English here would be for state-run schools in my constituency and in east Kent to be allowed to take fee-paying students from Europe? It is an anomaly of the Education Act 1944 that we cannot expand an industry that is just sitting in east Kent waiting to be expanded, to the benefit of the public exchequer, of contacts with students from abroad and of helping to develop business contracts abroad.
  Mr. Patten: That is an interesting idea which I have not heard before. I shall look into it and write to my hon. Friend whereupon perhaps we will have the chance to talk more about it.
  I referred earlier to the burden that the expansion of higher education has placed on taxpayers, the great majority of whom have not enjoyed the economic and other benefits that higher education brings. As the Chancellor said in his Budget statement:
  "Tuition is free; but why should the bus driver or the pensioner also pay higher taxes to finance all the living costs of tomorrow's lawyers?"—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c 929.]
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is not the answer to question the fact that it is the son of the taxi driver or bus driver who becomes tomorrow's lawyer—if he has an opportunity to go to university? Without a grant, he may miss that opportunity.
  Mr. Patten: It is precisely the sons and daughters of taxi drivers, pensioners and others who have been going to university in ever greater numbers. In 1979, only one in eight of them went to university; now one in three goes. I am proud of that record. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic fairness, will at least recognise that progress.
  The Government are not alone in believing that the time has come to redress the balance. We want to do so in a way which does not deter qualified young people from entering
  42
  higher education and which builds on the success of the Government's policies of recent years. There is a strong moral case for doing that—for not asking those who do not have a lifetime's benefit from higher education to contribute too much from their hard-earned lower incomes. That is socially just, and I am surprised that the Labour party does not agree. There is an equally strong case on the ground of motivation. I cannot stress enough the fact that people value more what they have to pay towards, and are much less likely to drop out, thereby wasting our money and their efforts.
  That is exactly the story of mature students—the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred earlier. Mature students have to struggle to pay for their courses; they work exceptionally hard, they do not drop out and they get their qualifications. The best way of ensuring that graduates bear more of the cost of their attendance in higher education is to accelerate the already planned shift in student support from the grant to the student loan.
  That does not mean that students will be poorer. The total resources available through the main rates of maintenance grant and loan will be 4 per cent. higher next year than this, maintaining their value in real terms. The change will not adversely affect parents either. The average parental contribution will continue to fall in real terms. Nor will it affect graduates who are unemployed, at home with children or in low-paid occupations. Borrowers do not have to repay a penny until their income exceeds the threshold for deferment: about £14,000 a year at today's prices.
  I should like to say a word about the contribution that further education makes, and will increasingly make, to economic regeneration. As we come out of the recession, it will be essential to have a highly skilled, up-to-date work force. Further education has a key role to play in improving the level and quality of our skills base, among young people and among those already in employment.
  That is why we value so much the national targets for education and training which were the subject of such lively debate among Conservative Members two Fridays ago, when not one Labour Member, apart from the hon. Member for Dewsbury, turned up. That was disgraceful.
  These targets enjoy the absolute commitment of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Employment and all of us involved in the education service. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garscadden disputes what I have said, but he has only to look at the pages of Hansard. He will learn that not a single Labour Member spoke in the debate, apart from the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
  Our reforms of further education have given colleges new freedoms to meet the needs of their customers—students and local employers. Our expenditure plans will allow them to increase participation and will help to sustain progress towards achievement of the targets. Our commitment to further education is clear: we are expanding the sector by 25 per cent. over the next three years, taking student numbers to more than 1 million full-time equivalents in the coming financial year—
  Mr. David Shaw: A remarkable achievement.
  Mr. Patten: It is indeed, and by a Conservative Government. Next year, for the first time, more than 2 million students will be in further education.

  43
  The basis on which the higher and further education sectors build is the output from schools. Our school reforms are founded on our commitment to raise standards. The improvements in examination performance and in staying-on rates are a vote of confidence from pupils that their education is both relevant and worth while.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on capital expenditure in the FE sector? Will he acknowledge that the increase in capital expenditure is extremely modest and will do little to meet the real needs created by the increased number of students in the sector?
  Mr. Patten: The FE sector has never had so much money, relatively speaking, spent on it this century. We have increased the amount of money available for capital expenditure in the FE funding council's remit this year and, together with the Financial Secretary, I hope soon, through the private finance initiative, to be able to lever in much more private money, in exactly the same way as we already do in the university sector.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I recently had the pleasure of attending a management development centre's opening ceremony at my further education college. It has successfully obtained funds from local firms to start this excellent venture, where an old shell which used to be used for decorating courses has now become a wonderful college.
  Mr. Patten: I am pleased to hear it. We want further education colleges to be linked with local training and enterprise councils and with the business community, both in terms of teaching and of sharing management skills. Investment of this kind will expand the sector even more quickly.
  At the heart of any good school is good teaching. That is why the Government have produced proposals on teacher training which will be debated in another place tomorrow. They are radical proposals, building on the progress that we have already made.
  When the new teachers come out of their teacher training colleges they will go into grant-maintained schools or LEA-maintained schools. Although well over 1,000 schools have voted to go grant maintained, the majority of schools are still maintained by local authorities. The settlement announced for local authorities last Thursday allows for more than £17 billion to be spent on them and on other local authority education services next year. That represents an increase of 2·4 per cent. on this year's settlement, so education has fully maintained its share of the local government total. That is a reasonable and realistic settlement.
  Doubtless in his winding-up speech the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will issue terrible threats about what will happen if the settlement works out in the way he thinks it will. Speaking about last year's settlement, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "this can only mean job losses, even with a … pay freeze".
  That did not materialise: there are as many teachers this year as there were last year. The hon. Gentleman also said:
  "councils will be short of £200 million in cash, comparing this year's budgets with next year's settlement;"—[0fficial Report, 26 November, 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1012.]
  The hon. Gentleman said that there would be huge cuts in education, but LEAs increased their spending by more than
  44
  2 per cent. at a time of low inflation—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn will not treat us to more scare stories in his winding-up speech, which I shall return from dinner to hear.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am sure that my hon. Friend looks forward to that. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Audit Commission has shown that class sizes have risen in the past year?
  Mr. Patten: I shall be coming to the Audit Commission shortly when I deal with efficiency in schools. Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait until I come to that. What matters is not just spending money, although it seems that that is all Labour wants. The issue is all about raising school performance. That requires action on a number of fronts, and we are tackling it through our wide-ranging programme of education reforms.
  No doubt Opposition Members will speak about resources rather than performance. They will deal with percentages of this and that, but I remind them that there is no link between money and performance, as recent reports by the independent inspectorate, the Office for Standards in Education and the recently published performance tables have shown. I am not at all afraid to defend the Government's record on raising resources for schooling. There has been a huge increase of 47 per cent. in real terms on funding per pupil between 1978–80 and 1991–92, and next year's settlement allows for a further increase above the rate of inflation.
  We have radically increased the amount that we spend on books, repairs and maintenance and school support staff, and I am keen to see that efficiency continue, because efficiency is important. The more that local education authorities can cut waste and bureaucracy, the more they can put into school budgets. For example, authorities are wasting huge sums maintaining up to 1·3 million surplus school places. That is costing LEAs £250 million a year.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury spoke about the Audit Commission. It found that LEAs could make savings of more than £20 million on, for example, home-to-school transport without any change in provision. Authorities continue to spend far too much on the administration of their LEAs. For example, in 1991, they spent £880 million on running those departments and covering the cost of corporate services which were charged to schools.
  Many LEAs waste an enormous amount of time on debating frivolous issues rather than getting down to the serious business of running their schools properly. At a meeting of the Lib-Lab-controlled Oxfordshire county council 10 days ago, about half the time was spent attacking fox hunters and the other half was spent attacking me. That is a real case of the inarticulate and the politically irrelevant pursuing the splendid—in both cases. The sooner local authorities such as Oxfordshire county council —[Interruption.] and those in Lancashire and particularly the one in Derbyshire, which has made a real pig's ear of running education, are abolished, the better. Several Opposition Members leapt to their feet to defend Derbyshire.
  Schools must keep under careful review the size of administration overheads to ensure that money is spent wisely. We shall keep a close eye on that. The Audit Commission reported that some schools were developing their resources efficiently and well, but it also found that schools of similar size serving similar areas with similar

  45
  socio-economic backgrounds and circumstances could sometimes show a fivefold difference in administration costs. That money should be spent not on administration but on children, books, teachers and buildings.
  The Government's principal aims for education are to raise standards of achievement; to secure the best possible return from education resources, in which we invest more than Germany or Japan; to enhance parental choice, ensure rigorous testing and transfer responsibility to individual schools and their governors; to increase participation in higher and further education; and to maintain the present record level of participation in higher education while ensuring its continuing quality.
  In my brief speech, I have spoken mainly, but not exclusively, about the spending programmes for which I have responsibility, but I could have made the same pionts about efficiency, effectiveness and the targeting of resources had I been speaking about any of the Government's proposals. The Budget statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made clear the Government's continuing intellectual vigour and our readiness to scrutinise without preconceptions all areas of Government activity. It also made plain our determination to clear the way for the private sector in areas where it can produce results most effectively, whether in social or capital spending, and to concentrate public investment where it is likely to do most good. For those reasons, I commend to the House the Budget and the Government's excellent spending plans.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am always slightly puzzled by the Secretary of State for Education because he likes to make himself unpopular. I can assure him that in the past 50 rather tiresome minutes he has entirely succeeded. I shall not spend much time complaining bitterly that the Secretary of State for Social Security will not speak in the debate because to do so would be rather puerile. I console myself with the thought that the Secretary of State for Education managed to sound remarkably like a slightly upmarket Oxford yob—the sort of person he complained about in his speech. We should be grateful that he spoke for only 50 minutes and not for one and a half hours, which was the time that he spent on an earlier speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech started by being offensive and deteriorated into boredom. It was largely cold kale reheated, and I shall not spend much time on some of the issues that he raised. Predictably, he mentioned the quote from The People. I hope that this is the last time that I shall have to refer to it, but I am happy to do so. The Secretary of State will know what I am about to say because he has had a letter on the subject.
  I received a telephone call before the Budget from a journalist who wished to run past me—I think that that was the phrase used—some possibilities to see whether I thought that they were likely to be in the Budget— [Interruption.] The journalist was Mr. Nigel Nelson of The People. He tried out a number of rumours. He said he had heard that the Government might put 50p on every pensioner. I said that they might do that if they wanted to try to go beyond the uprating machinery. At no time, as Mr. Nelson has confirmed—personally through the Chancellor,
  46
  I understand, and certainly through me—did I suggest that I approved of that possibility, although I certainly said that it was a possible starter for what the Government might do.
  When I first raised the matter with Mr. Nelson he said that the very contrary was the case. It is easy to quote from The People, but it is obviously far too much trouble to read it. In his column, Mr. Nelson deals with the matter at some length. He quotes the Prime Minister's suggestion that I had endorsed the proposition and says:
  "What a load of cobblers, as I told Ken Clarke when he brought the matter up again over a drink of white wine in his Treasury office … Donald said nothing of the sort."
  I do not necessarily endorse all the robust language in the column, but the facts are perfectly clear. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not continue deliberately to misrepresent them now that he knows what they are.
  Mr. Patten: The initial fact is that my right hon. and learned Friend wastes public expenditure by giving white wine to journalists from The People.
  If the hon. Gentleman is recanting on what he said earlier and taking back the words quoted in The People newspaper, will he say exactly and precisely what additional sums of public expenditure he would wish to see spent on relief for pensioners, whether he has the approval of his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer for that, and where the money will come from?
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little less than gracious. I hope that he will accept my word and the word of the journalist about the way the quote originated. It makes it clear that at no time can I be unfairly accused of the interpretation rather tendentiously put upon it by Ministers, who must be very unconfident of their own case.
  We believe that value added tax on domestic fuel is a regressive tax. It should not have been imposed in the first place and will undoubtedly do damage. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can sell to pensioners the idea that an increased charge of £1 a week, or if it is a family with young children approximately £1·.30 or £1·40, is adequately compensated by 50p—and if it is an uprating of benefits it will be less—then he is living in a fool's paradise and he will be very quickly awakened.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have looked at The People again. I realise that Mr. Nelson has made these comments about it—I had an exchange with him about it also—but the original report actually quotes the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that Mr. Nelson has retracted the accuracy of his report. It says:
  "The Government has to add something on to take account of that, and they could do it with an extra 50p on pensions."
  Nothing follows that quotation. It is capable of only one meaning, and the hon. Gentleman, with the assistance of a journalist—who is entitled to his political sympathies and is no doubt sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman—is trying to retract it in order to maintain a fairly useless course of opposition to the proposed measure.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking that attitude. I have explained to him how the conversation progressed. The 50p was put to me as a possibility for inclusion in the Budget. I said that it could be done. That is what happened. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House have my word for that, and it is backed up by the journalist who carried out the interview. I will be sorry if

  47
  the Minister is not prepared to accept that. If the Minister offered me that explanation in similar circumstances, I would accept it from him. I hope that on wiser consideration he will do the same.
  I have said my piece on that, so let me turn to the Budget.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is, but I want to turn to the Budget.
  Mr. Richards rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he must resume his seat if the person who has the Floor does not give way.
  Mr. Dewar: I now turn to the Budget, and particularly to some of the social security implications, which are of importance.
  I have heard some complementary things said about the Budget. I have heard it said that it is adroit and agile. I have heard some of the Chancellor's hon. Friends saying that he got away with it—"They bought it", was one of the phrases that frequently arose. There is a degree of truth in that.
  There may be some hon. Members who believe that the Budget has been a success; in the same way that they thought that the Budget of Lord Lawson, when he was in his unassailable period, was a success; and thought that the Budget of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who is now a pundit on the less popular television programmes, was a success.
  One simple judgment of the Budget will endure: the public will see it as a "pay-more-get-less" Budget. The old adage that politicians give with one hand and take with the other is, sadly, singularly inappropriate in this case. We have seen a tax hike of £24 billion over three years, the largest since 1945 and perhaps in history, and a tough public expenditure round that will take another £3·5 billion or £4 billion out of the expected total.
  It is a Budget with a mark of dishonesty about it. Others have been left to do the dirty work. I suppose it was ever thus that local government is to bear the bad news and take the blame. Other Ministers will also be in the firing line.
  I do not like violence of any sort—it does not help the course of public and political debate—and I do not sympathise with people who throw eggs or offer violent conduct in the way that the Secretary of State has described. I would be sorry if there were yobs at Balliol, as I would be if there were yobs in any other institute of higher education. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the cuts, year by year over the next three years, are not likely to be forgotten and will be persistently resented, as will the rumours that the Treasury has its eye on tuition fees as the next nice little earner.

  We face difficult times and I take no pleasure from that. There are some neat calculations on public expenditure. The contingency fund has been heavily raided and almost eliminated. It is unlikely that those neat calculations will hold; they will pinch and turn out to be too neat. There is something of a sleight of hand about the accountancy, and the word "creative" springs to mind.
  48
  The root cause of our problems is that within a year a £36 billion public sector borrowing requirement escalated to £50 billion. The Chief Secretary offered an explanation the other day to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong). He said, "We thought the recession was coming to an end." That might help some people to decide whether it was deceit or incompetence. I presume that was a plea in mitigation, but it was the latter. If the Minister thought that he had no problems with the public sector borrowing requirement because he anticipated sudden and exponential growth, he is living in some sort of extended fool's paradise. That is the sort of optimism that has been the hallmark of Conservative predictions for several years.
  People will remember the Prime Minister telling the electorate, with all the panache of an under-manager of the local building society—[Interruption.] I imagine that the Secretary of State for Education is writing that line down; I take it that he thinks it is worthy of himself. The Prime Minister said, "Vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery continues on Friday." Since then we have had increasingly difficult times. Even the most loyal of Government apologists can only describe the recovery as fragile.
  We have learnt quite a lot from what the Chancellor has said about social spending and, particularly, the social security budget. He said that a 3 per cent. per annum increase in the social security budget was unsustainable because it was out of line with growth in the economy as a whole. In some ways that is a fair point. It underlines the fact that one of the problems of the Budget is that it is aiming for low growth again. It assumes that there will be a period of continuing high unemployment. The assumption—I accept that it is not a prediction —over the next two or three years is 2·75 million unemployed and a continuing sluggish growth rate, which will be further depressed by the public sector cuts and the hikes in taxation.
  We will get an increase in social security spending—people are talking about £92 million or £93 million in three years' time—but that is not a rush of generosity to the Minister's head. It does not tackle with renewed vigour the problems of poverty and deprivation in our society but funds the social fall-out of recession, which continues to dog everyone involved in the social security field.
  It is important to point out that this country is not unusually spendthrift in social matters, especially social security. The Secretary of State for Social Security, who is not present now—I make no complaint about that, and I am glad to see that one of his senior colleagues is here—published some very helpful international comparisons. As the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, the comparisons showed that in 1992—the last year for which figures were available—social protection expenditure, which comprises social security and health spending, accounted for 23 per cent. of our gross domestic product and 26 per cent. of that of the European Community, as it was then known, so in that sense our spending was below the European average. I am the first to accept that we should take account of certain problems, but those figures provide a useful corrective for the dangerous fallacy that we should rush into instant, damaging and irrevocable decisions because the whole structure is about to implode and crash down on us.
  I must confess to being fascinated by what is currently happening in the Treasury. I am particularly pleased that

  49
  both the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have had the courtesy to be present this afternoon. Perhaps they, or the Financial Secretry when he winds up the debate, will be able to throw some light on what has been happening.
  The Chief Secretary is very much the leader of the pack. He is the central figure in what the Prime Minister once defined as the bastard tendency—the leading figure of the hard right. I have read with considerable interest what the right hon. Gentleman has said in recent months. I have read a number of his lectures—for instance, the lecture that he delivered to the "Church at Work" conference, and the series of lectures that he gave to try to secure the spotlight at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool.
  We all know that the Chief Secretary is deeply committed to the minimalist state. He is deeply committed to the idea that the state should withdraw from major areas of provision—that public sector spending as a percentage of national income is currently far too high and should be reduced as a matter of political faith. I believe that that is an honourably held opinion and I have no doubt that although the right hon. Gentleman is 100 per cent. wrong he is also 100 per cent. convinced—I know a zealot when I see one. Honest Tory Back Benchers have been astonished to discover that public spending, for example, brings moral evils in its wake, that the state should withdraw from whole areas of provision and that the Chief Secretary is worried about what he has described as the
  "giddy atmosphere of high generosity with other people's money"
  which apparently marked the days of Lady Thatcher and her Conservative Administration.
  I realise that "back to basics" is important. The Chief Secretary wants to get away from what he has described in another of his phrases as the
  "studied amorality of the state".
  That is all of a piece. Therefore, I, too, was astonished when I read the other day about the Chancellor's on-the-record briefing, which dominated the front pages of The Times and a number of other papers. Following our opening exchanges, I recognise that journalists can be fallible, and the Chancellor may have been misquoted. According to the journalists who attended the briefing, however, the Chancellor denied every one of the principles that the Chief Secretary has paraded so energetically: indeed he almost went out of his way to tick them off. The Chancellor went out of his way to say that he did not believe in the minimalist state. He wanted no part of the revivalist "back to basics" campaign. He said that the
  "'day to day practicalities of politics' had to deal with society as it was … 'But I do not think we should use things like the welfare state as an instrument for trying to move those changes in any particular direction.—
  Some of us may have considerable sympathy with that view, but it is a very odd comment on "back to basics", and the beliefs expressed—and widely advertised—not only by the Chief Secretary but by the Prime Minister.
  The Chancellor went on to say that there was to be no nonsense about contracting out of the basic pension. The Secretary of State for Social Security has been hinting at that— nudging it up the political agenda—for months.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is out of date.
  Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Lady wishes to speak, she will have to wait.
  I was told by journalists at the briefing that, when it was suggested that the Secretary of State for Social Security
  50
  might say that contracting out of the basic state pension was a runner, the Chancellor told him very brusquely that it was not. It could not have been clearer. That shows an interesting tension—optimists, I suppose, might call it constructive—in the Treasury team: one Minister seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what the other is saying. I can only say that the Chancellor has given short shrift to the Prime Minister and summary execution to the Secretary of State for Social Security, and his advice to the Chief Secretary is clearly "Button up and shut up". I do not think that the Treasury can be a very happy place.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I am anxious to give way to the Chancellor, and I shall do so in a moment.
  We come next to a particularly interesting case study. I have mentioned contracting out of the state pension. According to The Times, the Chancellor said:
  "I do not see that"—
  the basic state pension—
  "as being opted out of—or left as a vestigial remain for those who cannot provide for themselves."
  That little bit of fractured grammar has the ring of truth: it sounds like a genuine quote to me. The Chancellor has specifically ruled out such a move, but we know that the Department of Social Security has been hinting at it—indeed, talking it up in a very deliberate way. Moreover, we know from documents that have reached the public domain that the Department has set up a working party to prepare the ground for a report in February 1994 on a scheme to encourage people to opt out of the basic contributory pension. That is one of the central strategies, but the Chancellor is apparently denying its existence.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pausing for breath, and for his courtesy in giving way to me.
  The hon. Gentleman has quoted my remarks to journalists—indicating where quotation marks appeared—with precisely the same degree of accuracy that I used in quoting what he had said, again in quotation marks, to The People. The hon. Gentleman, however, added embellishments that bore no relation to what appeared in the newspaper. I certainly made no disparaging remarks about "back to basics".
  The basics that all Conservative Members agree should be returned to are the proper running of a free-market economy and the reform of a welfare state that needs to be kept modern. So far, the hon. Gentleman's speech has betrayed no views on the proper running of an economy, or on the reform of the welfare state. Presumably it is all in abeyance: presumably he will try to explain to the great and the good on the commission that his party has set up how the welfare state should be kept modern and affordable.
  Mr. Dewar: I am not being sarcastic. Of course I understand that politicians can be misquoted. The Chancellor says that I am "embellishing" when I say that "back to basics" is not an issue as a result of what he has been quoted as saying. Given what has been said by the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Social Security, by the Chief Secretary and by various others, I understand "back to basics" to mean that we can use the social security system to try to reshape the moral climate.

  51
  That is the whole point of a "runner" which I do not think will become Government policy, but which has been much discussed: the New Jersey experiment. Under the system, the more children people have, the less chance they have of being recognised in the benefits system. I do not think that anything dishonourable is involved, but the Chancellor should recognise that some of his views are not compatible with "back to basics" as it is understood by a good many of his hon. Friends, quite apart from my party. For instance, he has said that we should not use the welfare state
  "as an instrument for trying to move those changes in any particular direction."
  I have the papers here, and there is no doubt that the Department of Social Security intends to set up a working party
  "To examine the scope for extending the opting out of contributory benefits, and the greater use of private provision for contingencies, including unemployment, sickness, invalidity and, in particular, retirement".
  The party is to report, by February 1994,
  "a progressive move towards voluntary opting out of entitlement to basic state pension through private provision being made initially by younger people".
  There is no doubt that that was on the stocks, although I understand that it was ruled out by the Chancellor at the meeting.
  As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was about to draw to my attention, it was fascinating when the Secretary of State for Social Security appeared on the "Walden" show on Sunday. I have never doubted that the Secretary of State for Social Security is a man who is with the hard right heart and soul, who has been picked out again and again as one of their leaders—perhaps not as intellectually distinguished as the Chief Secretary, but certainly a man of considerable intelligence—and is a true heir to the Conservative party's former leader.
  Strangely, Mr. Walden appealed to the Secretary of State not to disappoint his fans and to stand his ground, but he appealed in vain. The Secretary of State said that he would never contemplate people contracting out of the basic state pension. It was for him a case of not now, not ever. Of course, he could not talk for Governments in future, but while he was there that heresy would never see the light of day. To say that I was astonished is not meant lightly. It is an interesting example of the dynamics of the Government at the moment. The Secretary of State for Social Security was reduced to acting like a naughty boy caught defaulting—over-protesting innocence by saying "cross my heart, hope to die" or "I'll never do it again, Guv,". It was a humiliating climb-down.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The gist of the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to be that all the thinking is going on among the Conservative Members. Would he enlighten us about Labour party policy? Is it still to spend vast sums of money increasing child benefit and reducing the common age for pensions?
  Mr. Dewar: There were many opportunities for such debates, which shall continue. There has been some interesting speculation in the press, which is flattering, but not always well informed. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we are debating the Queen's Speech and what the Government are doing—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Budget.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) now sees himself so much as some sort of colossus bestriding the scene that that slip of tongue is perhaps understandable.
  Allow me to give the Chancellor some warning words of advice—they are well meant: "Watch your back because zealots do not give up". I notice that in the Glasgow Herald today, Mr. Geoffrey Parkhouse refers to the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chief Secretary as squashed and having to bear it, but that they would bide their time. I have no doubt that they will. As the economic strategy falls apart and the reality of the Budget becomes apparent, the Chancellor is very much at risk.
  Mr. Clarke: I am not entering into combat again with the hon. Gentleman, but I must follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). We are debating the Budget, yet the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is spending all his time voicing what he thought we could have done, what he thinks that we may do in future, what he hoped that we had done and, so far, he has not dealt with what we have done. Does he have any views on equalising the state pension age, the affordability of the system into the next century and whether invalidity benefit should be subject to an objective medical test to determine whether somebody is fit for work? Will he deal with the Budget at all or is his speech merely a handful of speculation about what may or may not be going on in that lively intellectual tumult of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has some difficulty in recognising well-documented events when they are drawn to his attention.
  I shall not speak for much longer, but will now turn to some of the issues that the Chancellor raised because they are important. He is not going to get many brownie points for his rather depressing selection of social proposals. I shall begin by mentioning what I welcome. I welcome the disregard on family credit to help with child care provision. My advisors—I make no bones about taking advice on such a complicated scheme, which has not yet been spelt out in great detail—tell me that it is nothing like as generous as was first suggested when one gets down to the fine print. As I understand the scheme, if one is working and receiving the maximum family credit—the cut-off point of £71.70 a week—one does not benefit at all from the special proposition. Perhaps the Financial Secretary, who is well informed, can confirm, as I am told, that over 90 per cent. of lone parents with one child who currently receive family credit are receiving the maximum amount and, therefore, will get no help whatever from the new concession. If that startling figure is true, the gratitude with which the proposition was greeted will be heavily muted.
  We knew that invalidity benefit was marked for execution. It was a long, contemplated strike, but before it, the "thought police" had to go to work. The Prime Minister may be astonished at the extent to which the numbers had risen—I think the phrase that he used was that it "beggars belief'—but people such as the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People remember evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee in 1990 by the present permanent secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, who took the view that the increase in numbers was partly demographic and partly due to rising unemployment and the direct

  53
  connection between the two phenomena. I have no doubt that Sir Michael has rethought his position—civil servants have to adopt the stance of their masters. The current Leader of the House has left the Department of Social Security and a much more harsh regime now rules in its place.
  The incapacity benefit is not an attempt to reform or improve the welfare system. It is a rather petty change that has more to do with achieving minor savings for the Treasury and feeding some of the prejudices found among Conservative Members. The scheme will create an odd situation in which an enormous number of people—many who are anxious are already contacting me and other hon. Members—imagine that they will be at risk even if they are not. Of course, the whole point of the scheme is to ensure that 70,000—a figure quoted by Ministers—who were geniuinely eligible for invalidity benefit will not be eligible under the new benefit. Whether it is worth all that trouble, misery and uncertainty, I beg to doubt.
  We shall have to wait and see the effects of the taxation, as it will be carefully phased, but it will be odd that some people on invalidity benefit will not pay tax, while other people in receipt of incapacity benefit will be taxed. I remember asking a parliamentary question on that subject and the answer given was that if invalidity benefit was taxed—admittedly, including everyone—900,000 people would face increased tax bills of about £500 a year and 200,000 people would pay tax although their only income was invalidity benefit. When the Financial Secretary replies, will he confirm that that is the kind of pattern that he expects to emerge? He may be aware of one of the arguments of the working party studies that have reached the public domain against taxing invalidity benefit in the way in which it has now been decided was that it would be a considerable disincentive to people trying to enter the Labour market. If they took a job and it collapsed under them—perhaps through no fault of their own—they would then go back on incapacity benefit for which they would worry whether they would qualify and over which they would certainly have an encounter with the tax man. Apparently, that scruple has been overcome.
  There is also the matter of sick pay transfer and the burden of it shifting on to the larger firm. Again, many responsible people—I am not talking of partisan politicians—see that as a double squeeze. People are worried about their eligibility under the new benefit scheme. They are worried that if they move into employment and experience genuine illness, it may affect their record, because there is no rebate on statutory sick pay and therefore an incentive to get rid of them or not to hire them in the first place. Given the rather paltry and mean change, it is clear that the difficulties have not been properly assessed.
  I do not intend to go into great detail on the job seeker's allowance. However, I protest about one aspect. We are told that if the cut from 12 months to six months were applied now to unemployment benefit, 240,000 people would lose entitlement. That would mean—in Ministers' minds, this is possibly a fortunate by-product—that 240,000 people would also be removed from the unemployment roll. I recognise, of course, that Parliament can change the rules; that is what parliamentary sovereignty means. I recognise that Ministers are irritated if one says that if one was paying into a policy and building up an entitlement for unemployment cover, and if the company suddenly changed the terms so dramatically, one would shout from the roof tops. It is not the same. We can
  54
  do that. The question is not, "Can we do it?" The questions are, "Should we do it? What does it do to confidence? What does it do to the contributory principle?"
  I remember the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, a few months ago, eloquently defending that principle as an important part of the Government's programme. Again, there is a nasty element of expediency. That is especially wounding when, on Monday, we shall give a Second Reading to the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, which will put up national insurance contributions by 1 per cent. That will rake in about £2 billion—£300 million more than would come from a penny on income tax. We are cutting entitlement on the one hand and asking for more on the other hand in an especially unpleasant fashion. The Budget is about paying more and getting less.
  I recognise that some people—the Secretary of State for Education may be a candidate—will sneer a little bit about the politics of envy. However, when I open the Evening Standard this evening, when I look at the financial pages of two or three days ago and when I read about the settlements taking place in Goldman Sachs, where executives have been made millionaires by their Christmas bonuses, over and above their salaries, I wonder about the poor society that cannot deal with the problems of poverty and about a Government who feel that they must send in the demolition men simply because we cannot afford to deal with the problems.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman has an unerring ability to sound like Eeyore every time he speaks because of his depressing remarks. He cannot see a piece of silver without wrapping a dark cloud round it. Will he tell the House of one sentence in his speech, which has gone on now for 35 minutes, which is designed to boost the confidence of consumers, of businesses or of international investors who look to this country? is it not his job, as a responsible politician and as a responsible Member of Parliament, to try to help the country out of recession? Can he tell us of one point in his speech that has contributed towards that end?
  Mr. Dewar: I concede right away that I am dealing with one particular aspect of the Budget—its impact on social policy. I have not dealt with industry and I make no apology for that. Many of my colleagues have and will, no doubt, return to the subject.
  I do not believe that we can extract ourselves from our difficulties by the battening-down approach that is the mark of this Budget. I unashamedly accept that we are in difficulties. This Government, who used to be amazingly arrogant about the performance of their predecessors, are now borrowing £1 billion a week to balance the books. That position cannot be shrugged off. However, I am not sure that we get out of it simply by battening down the hatches, by cutting public expenditure and by hiking up taxation, certainly not in the way that the Government have chosen. We have a Chancellor who is determined to ride out a storm. That is very uncomfortable and is not always the best way in which to deal with the problems.
  My difficulties with the Budget are the Government's attitude and ambitions. Their ambitions and their approach to infrastructure development and to the building of the nation's future are depressing. I listened the other night to

  55
  the debate on transport and on investment in the transport industry. I have seldom seen a Government more taken apart and more on the defensive.
  When I read reports on Europe—I only read them because I am not involved—I read of the dog-in-the-manger attitude taken by Ministers to the, no doubt, halting and sometimes insecure but genuine efforts to try to work out a European approach to dealing with the problems of unemployment and to combating unemploymemt. When I talk to friends in politics, who are on the left and on the right, in other countries, I find that one thing certainly unites them—the belief that this Government are consistently unhelpful and consistently obstructive.
  This Budget is about yesterday's problems and how we scramble out of them; it is not about creating any sort of opportunity. I fear that it will become more and more painfully apparent that we are making mistakes as the months unfold. We talk a lot about morality and we talk a lot about the need for economic success. It seems to me that we are combining in many ways the worst of both worlds in this Budget. We shall all come to regret it.
  5.44 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his presentation on Budget day, which was extremely effective. The Select Committee on Procedure has just published its responses to the Government's proposals on budgetary procedure and I very much hope that we shall have the opportunity before long to debate that report. It is important that we should appraise the way in which the new format is working.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in a Freudian slip, referred to the debate on the Queen's Speech. That was a rather understandable slip. We had an economic debate on the Queen's Speech, at the choice of the Opposition, just a few days before the Budget statement and we now have a wide-ranging debate on the Budget this afternoon. That does not really fulfil the objective set by the Government, who said:
  "this improved presentation should contribute to a more informed and focused debate … on public expenditure, taxation and borrowing".
  We shall need to look carefully at the extent to which the change in timing and the change in format are achieving the Government's objectives.
  The centrepiece of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget is, in a very real sense, the proposal for putting VAT on fuel and the proposal for compensating pensioners and people on low incomes who are affected seriously. My feeling, as my right hon. and learned Friend well knows, is that this is a political time bomb. No tax, not even the community charge, has caused as much furore as this tax before a single penny of it has been paid. I felt that there was a strong caes for going to the 17·5 per cent. rate straight away rather than for moving to 8 per cent. next spring and then to 17·5 per cent. after that.
  I in no way complain about—on the contrary, I greatly welcome—my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal for helping those on pensions and those on low incomes who will be affected by the tax. My right hon. and learned Friend has emerged as a kind of Robin Hood. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nottingham."] Indeed, he comes from Nottingham. I sometimes thought that he might make a
  56
  rather good Friar Tuck; Robin Hood was not the role in which I envisaged him. My right hon. and learned Friend now proposes to impose VAT on fuel on virtually the entire population and then to spend almost half the money raised on 15 million people. That action cannot be described, as the hon. Member for Garscadden did, as a regressive move. On the contrary, it is a move in the opposite direction.
  I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has resisted the temptation to extend VAT to other items that are presently zero rated. The experience of extending VAT to fuel should give us a clear indication of what the consequences of extending VAT to other items would be. We should be likely to lose half the revenue in compensating the people affected. Be that as it may, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be tempted to stick at 8 per cent. for fuel. The introduction of multiple rates in VAT is a move that should not be made. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend will have to be pretty tough with members of the European Community in resisting their pressures to abolish zero rating here. Perhaps I might also express a general concern about the tendency of Chancellors of the Exchequer—perhaps two of the recent Chancellors—to anticipate future tax changes. If the Treasury forecast was brilliantly accurate and could be relied upon, there might be a case for that. Any attempt to pre-empt the view of the Chancellor 18 months or two years ahead, when the forecast clearly is not accurate, should be done with considerable restraint.
  Another thing that has worried me since the last Budget has been the extent to which many proposals for tax increases or public expenditure cuts have been floating around. Despite my right hon. and learned Friend's view on purdah, the case for both the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary going into purdah in the period up to the Budget is considerable.
  Of course, there is great relief once we have heard in the Budget that many of the scare stories have not come to fruition. We should not underestimate the concern which scare stories about the closing of sub-post offices or the means-testing of pensions can cause to our constituents. Their fears are real, and the fact that those fears turn out not to be realised in no way should diminish the concern that is felt in the intervening period.
  Mr. Dewar: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that the disinformation sometimes comes from the Government, not from the Opposition?
  Sir Terence Higgins: I said that it had been a rather general tendency lately and it is important to bear that in mind.
  Having got through the Budget, there are other proposals which have been floated immediately. I refer in particular to the proposal for negative income tax or a tax credit scheme which has been going around for the past few days. Long ago in 1974, the Conservative Government did a great deal of work on that subject. Had we not lost the 1974 election, we had every intention of legislating and we had gone a long way towards drafting the proposals.
  There is a great case for a tax credit scheme. We recognised at that time that we did not have the money to make the change. It is an expensive change and we proposed to legislate and to implement gradually over time. The same idea came up 10 years ago, when a study

  57
  group on the subject, which I happened to chair, was set up in the Conservative party. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was much involved at that time. We were concerned that changes had been made in the interim by the Labour Government, because Joel Barnett and Barbara Castle—as they then were—had stopped our proposals. It was felt that, in the intervening space of time, we had probably diverted from the direction which a tax credit scheme would require. That turned out not to be the case.
  If one looks in detail, it is no more difficult now than it would have been earlier to implement a tax credit scheme. In some ways, it would solve the problem of child benefit and similar problems. The problem with child benefit is that it is universal, because it is a tax allowance which applies to everyone, whatever tax rate they might pay. That is why we are stuck with the universal child benefit handout. However, if we were to move to a tax credit scheme, that would mould automatically to the arrangements where, as income goes up, so benefits decline and tax payments increase.
  Mr. Jack Straw: It is no secret that the Labour Government which came in in 1974 also looked at the tax credit proposal. For similar reasons to which the right hon. Gentleman adverted, they decided that they could not go ahead at that time because of the additional cost, over and above the existing and separate schemes of tax allowances and social security benefits. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cost of implementing such a scheme would still be substantial?
  Sir Terence Higgins: That is certainly the case, but I do not think that that was the reason why the proposal was killed. It was killed by a Committee which contained—as I remember—Barbara Castle, Joel Barnett and someone else.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was on the Committee also.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I apologise to my hon. Friend.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know my feelings about seated Interventions.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I said so a moment ago. We were proposing to legislate and then bring in the proposal as soon as it could be afforded without wrecking the economy.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I was also a member of that Select Committee. The major reason why the proposal was not brought in was the cost, but also 44 benefits would not have been included. That would have produced a large number of falsifications of the amounts of money which were going to be paid to an individual. That was the complexity on which the proposals foundered.
  Sir Terence Higgins: That is true—I am agreeing with everyone. It is true that we could not have a tax credit scheme that was totally comprehensive.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Terence Higgins: With respect to my hon. Friend, I must press on. I will now leave what turned out to be a remarkably controversial remark and speak on the Budget judgments.
  I will speak about two of the broad issues raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. We are having the old debate between Keynesians and monetarists. It does not seem inappropriate that, in the present economic situation, we should run a large budget deficit. I understand the points which have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend about the need to reduce that in time. There are arguments for delaying that until such time as the recovery has proceeded further, and one could then see to what extent the PSBR had diminished because of increases in tax revenues and reductions in unemployment benefit.
  I fear that, if anything, there is a danger that my right hon. and learned Friend may have planned to take out rather too much too soon. After all, a swing from £50 billion to £38 billion on the PSBR is a pretty massive shift. On the other hand, it may well be taking coutervailing action with regard to the money supply, because my right hon. and learned Friend persisted in the rather strange arrangements which were announced by the previous Chancellor, who confused the issue with regard to funding policy.
  The Red Book states that funding policy would continue on the basis set out in the 1993–94 medium-term financial strategy, with sales of debts to banks and building societies from 1993–94 onward counting as funding in the same way as debts to other sectors. That, of course, is a complete perversion of the normal terminology. When one says something is "fully funded", one means that it is being fully funded from the non-bank sector. Therefore, what is involved is that it is being fully funded, including payments to the banks. I will not go into the usual rigmarole about printing money and so on.
  It reassures me that, if my first proposition were true, my right hon. and learned Friend may have overdone the reduction in size of the PSBR or, at least, in not funding it completely. We must hope that the overall effect of those difficult matters of judgment will be to lead us to recovery without an upsurge of inflation. The forecast of 2·25 per cent. growth in non-oil GDP during the next year, against the present background of unemployment, is not a highly ambitious target.
  I will say a final word, and I will finish as I began. It is important that we should look at the new procedures. It has always been the case that, at the time of the autumn statement, the House has debated both public expenditure and taxation. The same has been true in the spring. However, the Budget was not a unified Budget in the sense that any hon. Member could say that he would like to put up taxes on this or put up public expenditure on that, with the two being taken together. That is not so.
  We are precluded by the rules of order and by rules about money resolutions and about Ways and Means resolutions from debating all the proposals which might be made for increasing taxation or public expenditure. The Procedure Committee's recommendations are worth while, but it is not even a unified Budget in terms of the Government. I have a strong suspicion that, when various Ministers went to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary or my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, they did not say that they would have more money if my right hon. and learned Friend was prepared to put up tax on this or that. The Budget is not unified even within the

  59
  Government. So we are a long way from becoming a Parliament that has a properly unified Budget. There was initially a lack of consultation on the unified Budget. The consultative document was published, then we had an election and no one thought about it any more. The next thing we knew, the unified Budget was about to happen. I hope that we shall manage to get our procedures sorted out despite that and after the event, but I am not at all convinced that the arrangements that we have brought into play are ideal. We should in any event look at what the Procedure Committee has said in response to the Government's reply to its report.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I admire the ingenuity of the Government in devising new and additional taxes. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is quietly admiring, too. I have to hand it to the Chancellor: the tax on commercial insurance is a first-class wheeze. I use the word "wheeze" because there was a previous Chancellor who used it—indeed, as I watched the present Chancellor presenting his Budget, I asked myself, "Who does he remind me of?", then banished the thought immediately from my mind. The tax on commercial insurance is extremely clever and opens up possibilities for next year, because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us, insurance is in the exempt list attached to the sixth directive, as are financial services and consumer credit. That is because—as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) knows better than anyone, having introduced this wretched tax—it is very difficult to impose VAT on insurance and commercial and financial services. How would we deal with inputs and costs, for example?
  I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have been able to invent more and more taxes—whether on aeroplanes, cars, houses, individuals or fuel. And who knows what will happen next year; we may have VAT at 17·5 per cent. on food, domestic transport, print and water services. The Government have shown themselves to be far more ingenious than Labour Governments at increasing taxes and imposing new taxes on the British public, even though Labour is supposed to be the party that imposes taxes.
  At one time, Tory Governments and Tory Chancellors defended increases in and the proliferation of indirect taxes by saying, "Ah, but we are reducing income tax. That will mean more money in the pocket and will be an incentive to business men, workers and industrialists. It will bring freedom of choice." But there is no freedom of choice when people are taxed on their homes or motor car insurance. Intellectually, therefore, the Conservatives' freedom of choice argument is fast disappearing.
  The Government cannot even argue that they are reducing income tax, because they are putting it up: it has been increased in the previous Budget and again in this Budget—very cleverly, of course. Allowances are not to be indexed. When I was on the Government Benches, Lord Lawson, as he now is, would bore us night after night about how important it was to index everything. In those days, Conservative party policy was: "If it moves, index it." Now we have moved away completely from the concept of indexing allowances. Allowances now apply not against
  60
  40 per cent. but only 30 or 25 per cent.—and down to 15 per cent. in the case of mortgage tax relief. The Government have proliferated indirect taxes and created and imposed more income tax.
  May I make a plea, as I did last year, on behalf of someone about whom we have all forgotten. I refer to the middle manager—the person who is a manager or technician in a small or medium-sized engineering or manufacturing firm. I realise that—with one or two exceptions—the modern Conservative party has little interest in manufacturing or engineering. Managers and technicians in smaller firms earn £40,000, £50,000 or perhaps even £60,000 a year. Above £30,000 or even less, their income is taxed at 40 per cent. That is an extraordinarily high rate of tax to charge people who, as much as anyone, are our wealth producers. It would be quite easy to reorganise the income tax system to increase the ceiling on the 30 per cent. band to —50,000. I have tabled some questions on that subject and I will not go over the ground again, but the Chancellor could perfectly well have done that.
  The present system is unfair. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we read on the front page of the Evening Standard that someone who happens to be a partner in an American merchant bank receives £1 million in bonus. What has he done to earn it, I do not know. But taxing a person who earns £1 million in bonus, wages or emoluments and someone who earns £35,000 a year working in an engineering firm at the same 40 per cent. rate is not the way to get Britain back into a position where it is producing again.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Did not the hon. Gentleman's own party's manifesto contain a specific pledge to raise the 40 per cent. band to 50 per cent.? Are not the people to whom he refers tonight the very people who would have paid more tax under Labour? Was that why Labour lost the election in 1992?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady is being very boring. I am advancing a proposal that I advanced last year, with which many people would agree: a 40 per cent. band that starts at £30,000 a year penalises those who produce much of this country's wealth. The old Conservative party—not the Conservative party as it is now—would have accepted that argument and I am sorry that the hon. Lady fails to see the point.
  What of the Budget itself? After 14 years of Tory Government, the national balance sheet is hopelessly out of kilter. The Tory balance sheet just does not balance: the assets cannot cover the liabilities. After four Tory Governments, our assets have shrunk. They have diminished because of the squandering of North sea oil revenues, the plundering of public assets for private gain and the wholesale destruction of our manufacturing industry in the early 1980s. I will not accept any lectures about monetarism from Conservative Members: the profligate monetary policies of the mid and late-1980s have diminished this country's assets.
  Our assets have also been diminished as a result of the extraordinary glorification of consumption and the consumer at the expense of production and the creation of wealth. We hear little from the modern Tory party about the creation of wealth. As the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, we now tax capital and

  61
  income at the same rate. Capital gains and income, emoluments and receipts alike are taxed at 40 per cent. The Tory party has forgotten the difference between capital and income, just as it has forgotten the need to produce and generate wealth before starting to consume.
  The Government's assets have shrunk and they cannot ćover their liabilities. One approach to the problem would be to try to rebuild assets in order to cover liabilities. But that is likely to be rather difficult because our manufacturing and engineering base has shrunk. The present Budget does not even begin to rebuild the assets. I do not know where the growth—we are told that it will be 2 to 2·5 per cent. some time next year—is expected to come from. Perhaps we will achieve 2 to 2·5 per cent. growth. If we do, I imagine that most of it will come from consumption and imports. It will certainly not come from the creation of wealth and assets. A growth rate of 2 to 2·5 per cent. will not begin to rebuild the assets on the balance sheet.
  There is a hidden message in the Budget—and no doubt the Financial Secretary will deal with this when he winds up—to the effect that everything will come from the reduction in interest rates. It is 5·5 per cent. now—or is it 5 per cent.; I lose count?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): It is 5·5 per cent.
  Mr. Davies: It is 5·5 per cent. now. We hear much about the reduction in interest rates, but I thought that steady Eddie was in charge of interest rates now. The Financial Secretary looks surprised, but I read it in the newspapers.
  Mr. Dorrell: I looked surprised because I was remembering our debates on the subject as the Maastricht Bill was going through the House earlier this year. The right hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that the responsibility for fixing the rate of interest rests with Ministers. Responsibility for the timing and handling of the announcement of it has been shifted to the Bank of England.
  Mr. Davies: What does one say to that? One has to admire the Treasury. It does not want to give the Bank of England any more power. I do not either. But the trendies whom one reads about in the newspapers, the Select Committee in the House of Commons and the Europeans, want to give the Bank of England all the power. The Treasury is doing a marvellous job—at least in the short term—in conning the City and stemming the fashionable tide by pretending that it fixed the rate, but steady Eddie does the timing.
  But what if steady Eddie does not do that for two years? Steady Eddie is a steady man and may decide that there will not be a further half per cent. cut before next November.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies: The Financial Secretary shakes his head. What can steady Eddie decide? He cannot decide anything, of course. We hope we know who decides: the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies: The Financial Secretary has nodded, so let us forget the notion of steady Eddie deciding on the timing. I am glad to hear it.
  I shall now move on—or back—to assets. The assets have shrunk and are getting smaller. They cannot be increased. What does one do with a balance sheet where the assets are going down and there are liabilities. One would have to start shrinking the liabilities. One cannot do anything else. That is all that public corporations can do. They might indulge in a bit of creative accounting—perhaps a lot in some of them—but at the end of the day one must shrink the liabilities if one cannot shrink the assets. That is the journey on which the Chancellor and the Government are embarked.
  I am sorry to say that the liabilities that will bear the brunt of the shrinkage, or the jettison, will be the old, the infirm, the poor and the unemployed. They are on the liability side of the balance sheet and those liabilities will be diminished. That is the best that the Government can do.
  There are three Ministers whose job it is to shrink those liabilities: the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden made some interesting remarks, which I shall try to follow in a moment; the Secretary of State for Social Security; and, of course, Top Cat himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are embarked on a venture to try to shrink the liabilities and balance the budget, in a few years' time. That now seems to be the great goal, as was the European monetary system at one time. The Government apparently need something else. They need the absolutism of a balanced budget to work towards.
  Those three Ministers are embarked on a journey to shrink the liabilities, get rid of the PSBR and balance the budget. Let us first take the Chief Secretary. I am sorry that he is not here, but I well understand that he has other duties. He will carry out his job—I watch him on television—with considerable zeal; the zeal of the righteous.
  The Chief Secretary brings to the debate the kind of intellectual veneer that he acquired at a somewhat dotty college in the backwaters of Cambridge. But allied to that veneer of intellectualism he also brings—I see it again on television—the arrogant glint of the Castilian. He is the conquistador. He is the man who will lay about them. He will lay about them with his sword. No liability will be allowed alive on the battlefield so long as the Chief Secretary is around.
  Then there is the second of the triumvirate: the Secretary of State for Social Security. He is a more complex individual. He also worships, as we have been reminded, at the shrine of the free market. That is his absolutism. In economic terms that is his totem pole. But he is no conquistador or Castilian. Perhaps he is some kind of Anglo-Catholic with a conscience and a concern. He has been left in a terrible problem. On the one hand he worships the marketplace, on the other he must try to deal with those who suffer as a result of the marketplace: the redundant; the bankrupt business man; or the unemployed.
  I would say that the Secretary of State for Social Security is the priest and the Chief Secretary is the warrior philosopher. I do not know how he will cope with those contradictions. Perhaps he will remain to the end of the journey, or perhaps there will be problems for him. Perhaps we should wait for his speech at the next Conservative party conference to see whether somehow he can work out those contradictions.

  63
  Now we come to the Chancellor himself. He has one thing in common with me—we are both Members of the class of 1970. He has done rather better than I have, but I genuinely congratulate hm on his success and his forensic triumph last Tuesday. I have admired the way in which, during the 1980s, he managed to survive, indeed prosper, as a left-wing Tory during the reign of the great dictator—a bit like those members of Stalin's politburo who kept out of the dictator's way, did good works and survived.
  The good work that the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried out was that he laid about the pressure groups, which no doubt earned him points with the great dictator. Many of us felt some sympathy with him for doing that. He engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the British Medical Association, the National Union of Teachers and the Police Federation. As a result of his successes, eventually he ended up at the Treasury.
  The trouble with the Treasury is that it is difficult to find those devils. One does not see the British Medical Association, the National Union of Teachers or the Police Federation. Because of the long corridors, one does not see any devils, but they are there. The devils are there; the sorcerers are there. Looking at the Budget, I am sorry to say that the Chancellor has fallen for the oldest and one of the cleverest sorcerers around—the balanced budget. He has fallen for it immediately, hook line and sinker.
  Now we find the Chancellor—the pragmatist; the warrior philosopher—the Chief Secretary, and the priest—the Secretary of State for Social Security—all locked together on a journey towards a balanced budget, and to jettison the liabilities. They are all in the little truck known as no turning back: the left of centre—hard centre we are now told—Chancellor and the other two who are far to the right.
  I am sorry for the Chancellor. He needs the Castilian more than the Castilian needs him. It is the Chief Secretary who, in the main, will deliver the balanced budget that he needs. He needs the right wing of the Conservative party in order to deliver on the basis of his Budget.
  If the Conservative party wants a balanced budget, so be it, but it is a rather foolish enterprise in which to be engaged. Governments have tried it before and, in many countries, they usually fail. If a Conservative Government want to be so foolish as to go down the road and eventually try to get to a balanced budget, so be it, but there is a price to be paid for a balanced budget.
  That price should be paid by the money changers and the share dealers in the City, who are now cheering the Chancellor as they go along to collect their £1 million bonuses, as we have seen in the Evening Standard. It should not be paid by the poor, the unemployed, the infirm and those least able to do so. They will get no bonus out of the Tory Budget.
  6.19 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on four points in his Budget. The first is help to the pensioners, about which we had arguments earlier today. It is morally right that we should cushion pensioners against the rise in the cost of fuel, for three reasons—they lived through the slump of the 1930s, they fought in the war and they have no expectation of increased incomes.
  64
  Secondly, I am glad that the Budget did not impose VAT on books and printed material. Taxes on knowledge were removed over 100 years ago, under Gladstone. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education told us today of the increased number of people going on to higher education, and that will mean a shortage of books in libraries. People on constricted incomes cannot buy books for themselves, so it is vital that universities have the right books in their libraries. I would not want a tax on books.
  Thirdly, I welcome the Chancellor's intention—I trust that it will be more than an intention—over the next three years, to cut from 45 to 42·5 per cent. the amount of GDP going to Government. In a free society, 40 per cent. should be the limit. Beyond that, one becomes a collective society, irrespective of the colour of the Government, because at that stage more money goes to the Government than is healthy for Government or people.
  Fourthly, as a London Member of Parliament, I welcome the green light for the extension of the Docklands light railway, which will be helpful.
  Let me return to the real problem—the growth of the Government sector. Under Gladstone, to whom I have already referred, 9 per cent. of GDP went to Government. That was 110 years ago. The percentage has increased throughout the century, until under the last Labour Government it was 49 per cent. At the beginning of their time in office, the Conservative Government got it down to about 40 per cent., but now it is back up to 45 per cent. That is £5,500 for every man, woman and child in the country. In Japan, it is held at 30 per cent. In countries such as Taiwan and Hong Kong, which have a far greater growth rate, it is held down much more.
  One reason why so much goes to Government is that there are more people in government. I do not wish to give an historical lecture, but the facts must be considered. In 1900, when we were the largest colonial power and controlled one quarter of the world, the great Lord Salisbury was both Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and he had to help him only one Minister, an Under-Secretary in the Commons.
  Now that the Empire has disappeared, the Foreign Secretary has five Ministers to help him. They all seem to be busy travelling around the world, whatever it is that they are doing. In Lord Salisbury's time, there were only 17 Ministers outside the Cabinet—36 Ministers in all. Now, there are two to three times that number.
  More Ministers means more offices. They will want to do more things, there will be more legislation and more money must be poured into Government. The best thing to do is cut the number of Ministers. Business has survived only by cutting costs. If the Government really intend to cut Government provision, they should, as an example to the country, dismiss some Ministers. It would be rash to suggest that 20 should go over the next month, but the number must be cut.
  The more Ministers we have, the more people there are in the Executive, the less that Back Benchers can challenge the Executive, and the more that the Government, irrespective of colour, can get away with what they are doing. That is unhealthy. The Chamber was created to challenge the Executive powers of the Crown. At the moment, there are few of us left to challenge the Executive. Too many are concerned about becoming a Minister at some point.

  65
  The Government may ask my advice on how that should be done. I have a solution, which I am sure will appeal to hon. Members.
  I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. He has invented league tables. I believe in them. There should be evidence of what is being done, so that the results from one school can be compared with those from another. One can then see what is happening and learn why.
  The Government should have league tables for all Departments, and possibly a year without any legislation, which would be healthy, and instead have debates about what the House should be about and the way that the country should be going. Every three months, a league table could be published showing how much money had been saved in each Department, and by how many the staff numbers had been cut.
  Furthermore, now that civil servants are getting honours based on merit, a number of knighthoods in the honours list could depend on how many people each head of Department had been able to dispense with, and how much money had been saved. That could transform the country. I give that idea free to the Minister. The leap should come not from the bottom but from the top.
  I am not asking for any more money for London. I just want money moved from one pocket to another, because the money is there. [Interruption.] I must not reply to seated interventions. I shall say only that I would expect even the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), a non-London Member, to approve of and support me in the London matter with which I am dealing.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I live in London, in Brent.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am astonished and honoured. I shall expect support for what I am saying from at least one Labour Front Bencher.
  Mr. Vaz: I live in the London borough of Brent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me how it is that the Conservative-controlled borough finds so much difficulty in emptying the dustbins in Teignmouth road.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have a simple solution for the hon. Gentleman. If he moves to Brent, North, I will ensure that the dustbins are emptied night and day. At 3 o'clock in the morning, the cart will rattle along. The offer is there to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to take it up.
  I am concerned about the state of the London Underground. It has become dangerous, difficult and a threat to safety. Some parts are 100 years old. The cables on the Central line, which caused so much trouble recently, are 70 years old. Some of the signals are 40 years old. Travelling today on a route that I had travelled last week at the same time, I saw that an escalator had still not been repaired. That is not far from here. One sees old people trying to struggle up escalators that are not working. This is the capital of the country. This is one of the five great cities of the world.
  Having lived more of my life in London than in my native Lancashire, I can say on behalf of myself and of my constituents that there is a desperate need for investment in the underground system. I prefer that to concreting over the country, with county after county being destroyed by road building. If £2 billion or £3 billion of the money for roads
  66
  were put into London, much could be improved. Without it, London will not be the capital we want it to be, with tourists coming in all the time. That is an important point.
  I have three points with which to end—three is a good number; it is like the holy trinity, so no doubt I will get the support of the House for what I have to say—two of which are non-party political.
  This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education mentioned the need to reintroduce apprenticeships. Germany has 700,000 apprentices, one third of whom complete their apprenticeships before they enter university. They can therefore both manufacture and design. We have no equivalent.
  The strength of an apprenticeship was that the pupil was linked to a craftsman, who served as a father figure. The problem with a boy in a one-parent family is the lack of a mature male figure as a model. If apprenticeships are reintroduced, they must involve fine journeymen, and apprentices will take their patterns of behaviour from their tutors—whereas, at present, many young people adopt the behaviour patterns of the running gang. I commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State apprenticeships that assign the apprentice to an individual. That will do more for law and order among young people than anything else.
  I am not over-excited about the immediate improvement in the number of young people entering higher education. I believe that a lot of that is because young people cannot get jobs. In any event, much of it is not higher education but longer education. One can keep people in schools until they are 60. A more important question is what education is provided and the speed with which it is accomplished.
  I am not against a loans system, but we must be fair and ensure that students have enough money to complete their education. If not, there will be an aggrieved minority in universities who may prove troublesome—not while they are there but when they leave—irrespective of the Government.
  Twenty per cent. of students should be given a full higher education grant—those with starred As.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong indicated dissent.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: They are the students who keep learning alive. There is no point to long-term education of the kind that the hon. Lady favours.
  Such university students would do something for the country, as well as for themselves. The top 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of students should receive full scholarships.
  Mr. Vaz: State scholarships?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, state scholarships—a full grant, with all the costs of teaching paid. That was done in the 1930s, with a mixture of the two. Such students could read whatever they wanted, because they are the students who keep learning alive.
  The other 80 or 90 per cent. could be subject to a full loan system. They should be asked, "Do you really want to go, or is it that you cannot get off that escalator? You had better go for something that will pay for your bread and butter later, so that you can pay back that loan." I refer to students on vocational courses, for which there is a desperate need thoughout the country.
  Men and women sit on a three-legged stool. If one leg falls off, something goes wrong with society. One leg is

  67
  religion. One does not need to be religious, but one must have a view of life and what it is about. The second leg is social—the ability to work with people as a unit. The third is economic. If one gets those three legs right, society is right.
  One element of the Budget knocks one of those legs away, with the cut in the married couple's allowance. The family is under desperate attack, and we must revive it. It may make economic sense to cut that allowance, but it does not make sense in terms of society. Unless we rebuild the family structure, the future will be worse, whatever we may do in material terms.
  It should be the policy of any Government to check whether their future actions help the family. I appeal to the Government to change their mind and to ensure that the family is helped in every possible way.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Members for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). The Financial Secretary will doubtless reflect that, among today's many speeches, only that of the Secretary of State for Education seemed to support the Budget.
  An increasing number of Conservative Members may share my view that the Budget was like over-indulging in cheap champagne. When it was presented, Tory Back Benchers hailed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's champagne performance, but we are beginning to see the after-effects and hangover caused by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. In recent days, there has been revelation after revelation that the Budget will in no way tackle the real problems confronting this country, but that it has created a large number of hardships.
  Most notably, the Budget fails to tackle the urgent need to return people to employment. We heard recently of the desperate concern of the Secretary of State for Social Security to reduce spending on social security benefits. He could achieve that not in the way done in the Budget—a shameful reduction in the availability of unemployment benefit—but by getting more people back to work through a Budget that invests in the economy.
  It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Budget contains some positive elements. I welcome the modest move towards establishing child care allowances. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, that measure does not go far enough, but it makes a welcome start. I applaud also the proposals to support small businesses, and the belated recognition that work must be done on introducing measures that support small businesses that suffer as a result of the late payment of debt.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the two points that he just made are closely linked? He alleges that the Budget will not help employment prospects, but the package of measures for small businesses includes a 1 per cent. reduction in employers' national insurance contributions in respect of employees earning less than £200 a week—which is one of the best examples of the way in which the Budget will help to create future jobs.
  Mr. Foster: I made the point that some Budget measures make improvements. I acknowledge that those two proposals combined will make a small contribution to improving job opportunities. A third creates further job opportunities, in a small way. The increased investment, albeit modest, in the energy efficiency scheme will create some additional jobs.
  However, although those measures are welcome, they are insufficient. Sadly, I must share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Worthing—
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman speaks of modest measures, so why is it that every small business group in this country gave them an overwhelming welcome?
  Mr. Foster: I welcome them, but I would like them to go further. The Government have not acknowledged that small businesses will be the engine room of recovery and the source of the vast number of new jobs that must be created. If the hon. Gentleman will join in my call for a real cut in the uniform business rate, which is desperately needed, and for the removal of one-way rent reviews, I would be delighted to have his support.
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman will. know that I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill calling for just such a measure on upward-only rent review clauses.
  Mr. Foster: I was not aware that the hon. Member had done that. I give my full support to his proposal.
  The right hon. Member for Worthing talked about the fears that had been raised before the Budget. I very much share his concern about the way in which the matter was handled, and about the lingering problem that raising those fears has created.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House probably now acknowledge that investment in education is crucial. The question, therefore, is the level of investment and how it should be used. Liberal Democrats have long argued for the need significantly to increase investment in education. At the last general election, we were honest enough to tell the electorate what that increased spending would be and where the money would come from.
  We said that we would spend further money on starting to tackle the backlog of repair and maintenance work in our educational establishments. We were delighted that that view was supported by a recent report from the National Commission on Education. We continue to make that pledge, in a desire to ensure that there is increased investment in education.
  Sadly, however, despite what the Secretary of State said about the importance of investment in human capital, the Budget does not propose the significant investment that is needed. Indeed, I am disappointed that much of the information provided about the Budget and the subsequent statements has tended to hide the lack of investment it proposes.
  The largest failure of investment in the Budget is the failure to invest in nursery education. The right hon. Member for Brent, North referred to the need for increased jobs. The Library estimates that the provision of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wanted it would create an additional 40,000 jobs. Furthermore, as recent reports have shown, that would be not only a sound educational investment but a sound

  69
  financial investment, because evidence shows that expenditure on nursery education produces a net financial benefit to the nation.
  It is important that both sides of the House agree on the number of children who would be involved. The Secretary of State told the House today that more than 50 per cent. óf children were in nursery education. The Library has prepared a detailed briefing for me on those figures, which does not confirm what he said. It says that 26 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in England attend nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools. I understand where the Secretary of State obtained his figures. He has added the 20 odd per cent. of three and four-year-olds who attend infant classes in primary schools to that 26 per cent. That is different from true nursery provision. It is important that the House debates the true statistics.
  Mr. Dorrell: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he is against infant education?
  Mr. Foster: The Financial Secretary may find the briefings interesting. The evidence is now clear, and certainly growing, that nursery education for three and four-year-olds is far preferable to the early introduction of rising-fives into reception classes.
  Ms Armstrong: The Financial Secretary might be assisted by reading the recent inspectors' report on problems in primary schools. One of the most serious difficulties it identified was the number of four-year-olds who are not gaining nursery experience, because of the lack of appropriate equipment, of the appropriate staff ratios or of appropriately trained staff to lead them into infant education. There is a difference between nursery education and reception classes, and the Government will have to address it.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that intervention.
  I am sure that the Financial Secretary will now be willing to consider the issues in detail. Knowing his interest in finance as well as education, I hope that he will carefully consider the recent research, which shows that not only an educational benefit but a financial benefit can accrue to the nation from investment in nursery education.
  It would be wrong to deny that some increased money has been made available to the Department for Education and Ofsted. Unfortunately, the vast majority of it will be swallowed up in ways that will not improve the quality of education. For example, quite a lot of it will go to further feather-bed grant-maintained schools.
  I draw attention to the rather strange phrase that the Secretary of State has coined. He now calls grant-maintained schools "self-governing schools", despite the fact that his own legislation—the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education Act 1993—specifically state that such schools shall be called grant-maintained schools. Windscale's name was changed to Sellafield because it had become so unpopular that a way had to be found around it. Many hon. Members are aware that grant-maintained schools are beginning to be a very unpopular part of the education service.
  Of the increased money, some—albeit a modest amount—will go to higher education. That is hardly surprising, given the rapid and large expansion in the number of students in higher education, about which the Secretary of State boasted yet again today. He said that that expansion
  70
  was the equivalent of 12 new universities, yet when I asked him only eight or nine days ago to tell me whether the equivalent amount of capital investment that would be needed for 12 new universities had been made available, he did not respond. He failed to do so because of the Government's embarrassment at the growing backlog of repair and maintenance in our higher education institutions, the increased overcrowding of students and the many other problems in higher education which have resulted from their failure to invest in expanding education.
  Despite the modest increase in expenditure on higher education, the growing drop-out problem remains. One in eight of our university students—the highest number ever—are dropping out of higher education, and the morale of staff is at an all-time low. As the right hon. Member for Brent, North said, students in higher education are now having difficulty even in getting the books that they require.
  Students have suffered in other ways from the Budget. The cut in grant, matched of course by the increase in loans, has betrayed the earlier agreements to phase in the change from grant to loan much more slowly. The Government said that the introduction of loans has in no way affected the number of students entering higher education and, to judge from the speeding up on that process, it certainly appears that they want to test that thesis to destruction. According to documents that are alleged to have been stolen, it now appears that we have on the agenda the possibility of students also being required to pay some of their fees. I hope that time will be found as soon as possible to debate these issues.
  It was wrong to suggest that many students in higher and further education can take advantage of discretionary awards. As most hon. Members will know, the availability of discretionary awards has been significantly reduced across the country in recent years, as the squeeze on local government finances continues.
  As I said, some money has been made available for education, but it is rather like the magician's card trick—one can see the cards in his hand but one does not know what cards are up his sleeve. Since Budget day, more information about what was up the sleeve has been revealed, but on Budget day itself, and in the first few days after it, many people were misled.
  Even The Daily Telegraph managed to miss the subtle irony of having the following two statements on its front page. The first said:
  "Overall, Government spending on education in a very demanding public expenditure round will increase next year by 2·7 per cent in real terms."
  However, on the same page, a second statement read:
  "Local councils in England were told last night that they face cuts in services and job losses next year as a result of the Chancellor's decision to limit the growth in their cash spending to 2·3 per cent."
  If we are going to discuss educational expenditure, we must consider the money given directly to the DFE and Ofsted, and that available to local government. It then becomes clear that the squeeze on local government funds will mean that local education authorities will have to make further cuts in expenditure in the next 12 months, and that very few will be able to improve the level or quality of their services.
  The Secretary of State for Education proudly boasted that spending on individual pupils has increased significantly since 1979. I think that he quoted a figure in

  71
  excess of 40 per cent. Such a claim has been made many times in the House, and I thought it important to have that figure checked.
  I have here a detailed brief prepared by the Library which examines the claim of increased expenditure. The brief shows clearly that, if one takes account of appropriate education price deflators and the changes in pupil numbers, the total increase in resources is not 40–odd per cent. but just 2 per cent. It also reveals that there has been a fall in real terms in spending on secondary education, and that spending on further education, about which the Secretary of State boasted so proudly only a couple of hours ago, has fallen by some 22 per cent.
  From the total money made available to the DFE and Ofsted and the effective reductions in expenditure to local government, it is clear that the Budget does not provide the desperately needed investment for our education service. I can do no better than end by citing an editorial in the magazine Education:
  "Sweet words do not soothe the acts of fiscal brutality contained in this week's announcement. True, the battered State service continues to survive. But let's not get too excited. More than ever, the contents of the Whitehall honey pot begin to taste increasingly bitter."
  6.54 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: In the Financial Times on Saturday, there was an interesting review of Mr. Alfred Malabre's book entitled "Lost Prophets", which deals with the uselessness of economists. Mr. Malabre, who has been reporting for the Wall Street Journal for the past 35 years, said in his book that in 1958 the Wall Street Journal employed no economists; nor did Salomon Brothers or any of the principal banks in the United States. At that time, the economy in the United States and Europe, including the United Kingdom, did very well.
  With the use of computers and high-powered mathematics, the economics profession has created an aura of scientific competence and has produced various theories of which right hon. and hon. Members will be aware—Keynesianism, monetarism and even supply-side economics, which is the daft way of cutting taxes so much that growth would occur and eventually create its own revenue. Mr. Malabre states that Keynes had no effect on the United States until Kennedy in the 1960s and that "demand management" came to mean inflation plus budget deficits. Very much the same has occurred in this country.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) inserted a clause in the Industry (Amendment) Act 1976, which insisted on the Government making an economic forecast. That forecast has been included in the Red Book ever since. The seven so-called wise men, who are economists appointed to the Government, have their views printed in the Red Book, which gives them some sort of status as though they were official advisers to the Government and had some powers of economic forecast not available to ordinary men. I believe that it is ludicrous to place such weight on these forecasts.
  One begins with an absolute certainty, which is the amount of money one owes—£50 billion—and then, by sleight of hand, one arrives at the rate of growth necessary to fulfil that deficit. In two years' time, it turns out to be a rate of growth of 3 per cent. I very much hope that we shall get there, but I applaud the admirable determination of the
  72
  Treasury to bring down the deficit. That is by far the best contribution that the Government could make to the economy.
  I said at the time of the Budget that the £50 billion deficit was in any case too large. It should have been reduced in the previous Budget to about £38 billion and we should have applied value added tax to fuel and power much earlier—in April—together with the various offsets and the social security relief which have now been announced. As it was, for some time we had all the pain of the most unpopular tax without any of revenue. That cannot have been a good thing. It shows that fine tuning is a greatly exaggerated art.
  We should be aware of the substantial international flows of money, such as those that occurred during the exchange rate mechanism debacle. We must recognise the fact that not only can large sums of money be shifted around the world very quickly but the people who shift them look carefully at the public sector deficits of each country.
  I was surprised to learn that in Germany the share of interest in total public spending is likely to rise from 11 per cent. in 1989 to 16 per cent. in 1994 and to 23 per cent. in 1997. No country in Europe can afford to neglect its public sector finances and every country has to seek to reduce its deficits. That is the practical truth of the matter. We cannot simply go it alone, either, in exchange rate policy without cost if we expect foreigners to finance our deficit.
  Since 1985, the sterling index has fallen to 81 from 100 and that has meant that our long-term 10-year bonds, which have been issued, have to bear a penalty of about 1 per cent. compared with German bonds. In every respect, the best way is to reduce the amount that one has to borrow and thus to become less dependent on overseas markets.
  The position now is very different from what it was years ago, when we could with some comfort declare what the Budget was going to be and look upon settling our own Budget quite comfortably within our resources. Every country now is susceptible to the winds of fortune; to large sums of money being shifted from one country to another at the press of a button. It is not possible to engage in domestic economic policies without paying any care or attention to that phenomenon. It is a very important factor. We are, in that respect, all interdependent rather than being able to address ourselves, as we would no doubt like to do, to the importance of arriving at a correct national Budget.
  With that in mind, I would also like to follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said about the funding. I mentioned that the last time that it was produced in the Budget. I notice that my right hon. Friend proposes to issue £7 billion-worth fewer gilts to the non-bank public. I am old-fashioned enough to think that that means issuing £7 billion to the banks, which will act as the base from which they can lend in future. That is no bad thing at the moment because we are well below our productive capacity and I see no strain on inflation at the moment, but the danger will arise in two years' time, when we achieve the 3 per cent. growth that we all wish to see. I notice that the Financial Secretary is paying close attention to that matter and I wish to put it on record that I think that printing money is a most dangerous development. It has served us no good in the past and it is a mistake.
  Some very interesting things come out of the Budget statement, not least that in the Hansard of the same day the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—I am sorry

  73
  that he is not in his place—tabled a most interesting question. It appears from the answer that the top 10 per cent. of the population now pay three times as much tax as the bottom 50 per cent., whereas 14 years ago they paid rather less than twice. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question because it shows, better than any Conservative Member could have done, the benefits of low rates of taxation on direct income. I hope that the hon. Gentleman asks many more.
  As it happened, in the same volume of Hansard, there was a question about capital gains tax. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is in his place because the yield of the capital gains tax in 1988–89 was about £2·3 billion; in 1992–93 it was £980 million. That is substantially less than half. In 1988–89, 155,000 people paid capital gains tax; 85,000 paid it last year. That is a serious case of declining revenue. The capital gains tax is taking on more of the character of the development land tax, which, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends remember, was imposed by the last Labour Government and had to be dropped because it simply brought in no revenue.
  I have to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that the question of capital gains tax is now serious. It is producing less and less revenue and it is clear that the rate of tax is entirely inappropriate. It seems tragic that it brings in less than £1 billion in revenue at a time when the markets are reporting increases in capital values of several billion pounds a day. It is missing all the revenue that it could get if it had a substantially lower rate of tax.
  Suppose, for example, the rate of tax were 15 per cent. Assets would be exchanged freely and the Government would get substantially more revenue. I know what the argument is. It is the old Inland Revenue argument about people converting income into capital. We have to recognise the most important point about revenue, which is that one should get as much revenue out of taxation as one can and not impose dotty levels, which fail to get the revenue which is so badly required.
  I shall say one last word about public spending. It has long been my view that the state should not indulge in unnecessary activity. Therefore, the Department of Employment should be scrapped altogether and its functions divided between Education and Training, and Social Security for the unemployment benefit.
  I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend has seen the figures—my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and I have seen them—showing that the reform of local government will cost £1 billion when all the dispositions have been made.
  Sir Terence Higgins: Much more.
  Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend says much more. I never disagree with my right hon. Friend and in this case I certainly do not.
  We cannot afford £1 billion and in the case of West Sussex the reform is unasked for, quite unnecessary and an absurd waste of time. Of course, I realise that it is necessary to do away with Humberside and Avon and all those ridiculous authorities, but in West Sussex we require no change and it is a total waste of money. We should stop it.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that he was in the House between 1970 and 1974 and voted, with the current Secretary of State for
  74
  the Environment, for the local government changes that created Avon and Humberside. Did he vote against them and speak out against them at the time?
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was voting for West Sussex, which I thought was excellent. I do not really know about those other parts of the country, which I seldom visit. I naturally thought that those were the names that they wished to have.
  Sir Terence Higgins: People in the Treasury at the time were desperately worried about the cost.
  Sir Peter Hordern: In my experience, any reform of local government or of the health service always ends in disaster in terms of extra expense and more administrators and we do better to leave well alone.
  I commend my right hon. and learned Friend's approach. It seems to me that his approach to good house-keeping is essential. He comes with no economic or econometric baggage. It is a good, practical Budget, which deserves the support that it is getting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Madam Speaker has ruled that speeches from now until 9 o'clock shall be no longer than 10 minutes.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: It is now six days since the Chancellor delivered what he described as a "no nonsense Budget". In the intervening period and over the weekend, it was often difficult to reconcile reports by the various pundits on the Chancellor's speech with the comments that I heard from people in my constituency, most of whom were greatly concerned at the effects of the Budget. I read with interest the words of Ms. Bronwyn Curtis, chief economist with the Deutsche Bank, who commented:
  "the cuts in spending make it as painless as possible for the voters"
  as if "the voters" were a heterogeneous group who all feel the same amount of pain right across the board. That is nonsense.
  Tell that to any of the three million people who are without a job at the moment—and their families—who will see their unemployment benefit replaced by the profoundly, I think, insultingly titled job seeker's allowance. It is not the name change that will concern them most, however; it is the fact that the payment is to be cut in half and restricted to a mere six months. I come into contact all too often with people who have been denied work and none of them—not one—wants to claim unemployment benefit for any more than six days, far less six months. Implicit in the new allowance is the suggestion that many people do—that is assuming that they can get round the already oppressive "actively seeking work" conditions that are applied under the present regime.
  The proposal is also dishonest, because people in work, as we all do, pay taxes, a proportion of which is to sustain them, should they be unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed. Now, from 1996, someone who loses his or her job will be denied half the benefits for which he or she has been paying for, perhaps, 20 years or more. If an insurance company tried the same thing on us, we would describe it as a con trick and immediately phone our solicitors. I do not believe that the Government should be allowed to get away with the same thing: it is legalised robbery. A no-nonsense Budget? I think not.

  75
  Another gung-ho pundit who seemed to like the Budget was Professor David Currie of the London Business School, who described it as "politically highly astute", and said that the Chancellor had "skilfully defused" the household VAT row. These people seem to be wholly divorced from reality. I do not know what Professor Currie's domestic heating bills amount to, but we can be sure that an additional 8 per cent. or 17·5 per cent. will not cause him to lose much sleep—or much heat. If he and Ministers believe that the issue has been skilfully defused just because Tory Back Benchers—cheaply as ever—have been bought off, they should think again. Many of us see this as a campaign that must and will continue.
  The derisory 50p or 70p for pensioner couples will meet half the anticipated increase in heating costs. That is of course woefully inadequate; but what about low-income families who will not qualify for any help at all? For them, the issue has certainly not been defused. It is all too real.
  The stark fact arising from the cruel imposition of VAT on domestic fuel is that people will die as a result. I am not being dramatic. The Government may contest the figures, but they cannot dispute the fact that VAT on fuel is a killer tax. Statistics show that over the past eight years there have been 35,000 so-called "excess winter deaths" throughout the United Kingdom. That refers to deaths between January and March as compared with the period from July to September. Between 1975 and 1985 about 40,000 such deaths occurred, so a decline in the numbers had begun and the suffering had begun to be alleviated.
  VAT on fuel, it has been estimated by a wide variety of agencies, will reverse this trend and send the figures sharply upwards again. This is no startling revelation, but the fact is that cold kills. The Government, however, seem prepared to brush aside that fact in their desperation to cut their massive budget deficit. Their motto seems to be that they will impose cuts where they can be least resisted and to hell with the consequences.
  I do not raise this issue lightly or use the term "killer tax" lightly, but the evidence is clear and unequivocal. An organisation known as the campaign for cold weather credits is based in my constituency and campaigns throughout Scotland on behalf of the old and the poor. It has carried out research throughout Britain and its revelations are startling:
  "People on a low income have difficulty keeping adequately warm on their present incomes. If there is an increase in the cost of keeping warm, for instance, because the weather is colder than usual, these households cannot increase their expenditure to compensate. They get colder, their health is put at risk and more will die. The imposition of VAT on domestic energy will have the same effect. An 8 per cent. increase in VAT will cause an extra 5,000 deaths per annum. A 17·5 per cent. increase in VAT will cause an extra 10,000 deaths per annum. In both cases, the imposition of VAT will cause more deaths than occur on the roads each year (approximately 5,000)."
  Even if we reduce these horrifying statistics by 40 per cent. to take account of the offsetting 50p or 70p payments, the imposition of VAT on fuel will result in thousands of excess deaths each year.
  I challenge the Chief Secretary or the Financial Secretary to deny this. Perhaps they have simply accepted the fact that those deaths will represent a reduced burden on the state and further savings to be set against the £50
  76
  billion deficit. I should like to hear how they and their colleagues justify the move. In any case, they should not imagine that the fight against this callous tax is over.
  Moreover, we should not forget the effects on low income families of the taxing of the vastly reduced new form of invalidity benefit, the increasing of the state retirement age for women to 65, and the adding of 3 per cent. to insurance premiums—this last is a punitive tax for many of the poorer neighbourhoods in Scotland such as Glasgow, Central, where only about 40 per cent. of homes are insured already. The change will hardly be an inducement to increase insurance.
  There are to be grant reductions to local authorities, with consequent damage to—already inadequate—house building and house repairing programmes.
  Leaving aside the question whether taxing and spending have been balanced in the Budget, the bottom line is that the average family will be £10 a week worse off next April and £16 a week worse off from April 1995. These people, the victims of the Government's economic incompetence, have been pressed into service in an attempt to bail them out.
  I want to take up an aspect of the Budget referred to today by the Education Secretary. It will have a serious effect on many of my constituents, about 17,000 of whom study at Strathclyde or Glasgow Caledonian university. Already, the student grant, plus a loan, amounts to less than they would get on income support and of course they are no longer entitled to benefit. The announcement of a 10 per cent. cut in student grant in each of the next three years came as a body blow to many of them, as they told me last weekend. The fact that the size of the loans available will be sharply increased in no way compensates. Most students do not want to end their studies thousands of pounds in debt. Why should they be expected to do so? By 1997, on Government plans, the amount owed by a student who has completed his or her course, taking out loans throughout it, will be almost £5,000—plus another £1,000 in Scotland, where a typical honours degree takes four years.
  Too many students, it would seem, are gaining entry to our universities. In other countries, they welcome that and provide resources commensurate with it. This Government, however, are attempting to halt the expansion of higher education by making it financially unattractive to go to university. What a way to run an education system. The changes will effectively reduce the number of students entering higher education and will unfortunately mean turning the clock back, with the effect that students from social classes 1 and 2 will dominate at the expense of those from poorer families. That is not what the Government claim to want, but it will be the effect. On top of all this, the widely leaked announcement that student fees are to be charged from next year represented more nonsense from a "no nonsense" Budget.
  I would like to close with a brief statement on a subject that I have not heard raised so far—the bad news for the aid budget for developing countries. The freeze announced last year has been confirmed and it will mean real cuts over the next three years of about 10 per cent. At the same time, aid to eastern and central Europe has increased by about 23 per cent. this year and will increase by 19 per cent. in each of the next two years.
  The importance of aid to developing economies is not in doubt, but it obscures the fact that there is a continuing transfer of our aid away from long-term development assistance to the poorest countries and towards the

  77
  promotion of Thatcherite values and market economics in the former Soviet Union and its neighbours. There is a depressing parallel here with benefit reductions for this country in the Budget, a sinister sort of consistency: the Government are prepared to hit the world's poor just as hard as they hit the poor in Britain.
  This has been a bad week and a bad Budget for the poor, not only at home but around the world. The Government's spending and taxing plans only hold out the promise that there is worse to come.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It was with mixed emotions that I listened to the Budget delivered by my right hon. and learned Friend and, despite the surge in the City, it is with very mixed feelings that the Budget has been received by the construction industry and the manufacturing sector of our economy.
  As chairman of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, launched in the House earlier this year with the support of colleagues of all parties and with welcomes from the Prime Minister and leaders of Opposition parties, I am sensitive to the needs of construction and manufacturing, and it is clear to me from my extensive contacts with industry that where the Chancellor failed in his Budget was in dealing with the fact that UK Ltd. needs a clear economic strategy for growth—and we do not have one.
  The Budget provided some elements for such a strategy, but no really coherent explanation of just how we would achieve even the depressingly low 2·5 per cent. growth a year. The problem that we face is not merely one of controlling public finances and balancing the books. That, at the very most, is a by-product; it cannot be considered a substitute for a real economic and industrial strategy.
  Similarly, tax increases and cuts in public expenditure, especially on roads, housing and other badly needed infrastructure projects, do not amount to a strategy. Our underlying problems of high unemployment, budget deficit and weak growth can be tackled only by a much more positive and constructive approach, by a positive programme of measures that focuses upon and maximises the opportunities that are currently open to the United Kingdom.
  There is a world recession, and the United Kingdom cannot expect to achieve high growth when Japan, the United States and Germany are at various stages in a long recession. But it is possible to identify some bright spots and to make some reasonable assumptions about where opportunities will and will not be found over the next five years. That is precisely what President Clinton did two weeks ago at his summit with leaders of the economies of the far east. He identified the current economic power and the future economic potential of Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea and Malaysia which, together with the United States, make the Pacific the key focus for the 21st century.
  The North American free trade agreement will undoubtedly in due course extend to much more of Latin America beyond Mexico, and a new fulcrum of world trade is emerging. The main economic players are sizing each other up and shifting their footing for the best possible position to take advantage of world markets. Unless we are careful, the United Kingdom will not even be in the ring with them.
  78
  In stark contrast, I shall now turn to the dull, gloomy and sorry spectacle of Europe to which our political and economic strategies seek to wed us. I welcome the Chancellor's strictures on Europe and his commitment to the conclusion of the GATT round, on which he has my support, but he did not tell us how he intends to deregulate Europe. The price of reunification, on top of Germany's burgeoning and inefficient bureaucracy, feather-bedded labour force and high social and production costs, has meant that Germany is no longer the economic heartbeat of Europe. It is approaching the economic equivalent of a cardiac arrest.
  Through its foolish attachment to the franc fort and its pretence that the ERM is still alive, France is condemning itself to the same coronary care unit as Germany for some years to come. By its continued policies of forcing through monetary and economic union, social and other legislation—despite the determined efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to persuade it otherwise—the European Community will price itself out of world markets and become an inward-looking and ultimately second-rate trading area.
  Europe is over-regulated. It has high costs and it is uncompetitive, recession ridden and economically short sighted. However, there is still hope, because our membership of the European Community does not preclude us from competing for our share of those world markets which either are still growing or which may be expected rapidly to do so in the next five years. Thus, our economic strategy must be to provide the United Kingdom with an alternative to being able to trade only within the European Community so that we are able to seize an increasing share of world markets. Sadly, that strategy was lacking in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.
  Europhiles who constantly pretend that there is no alternative to Europe should look at the real world and acknowledge the collapse of their fantasy. They should look at what the United States Administration clearly see, which is that alternatives are difficult to miss, not hard to find. The alternative strategy that the Chancellor should adopt for United Kingdom Ltd. has two key features, one of which has been started but not adequately explained by Ministers. It is deregulation, and I welcome the measures on national insurance and PAYE that the Chancellor announced. The second feature, interest rate reductions, has started by default, but has not yet gone far enough.
  Deregulation recognises that drastic action to reduce the costs of British industry is essential to make us competitive. In the 1980s, reform of the trade unions and our labour relations legislation put in place new levels of cost efficiency. We must now proceed to reduce the cost of over-regulation and bureaucracy, which are a colossal millstone of overheads for every company, especially small businesses. The Prime Minister has announced initiatives to do that and a Bill will be introduced to repeal redundant regulations. That is welcome, but the exercise must be carried out rigorously and without delay, and all new United Kingdom and EC legislation must be subject to extensive new scrutiny to establish accurately not only compliance costs but whether legislation is in proportion to the problem that it claims to address.
  If Britain is to become an internationally competitive nation selling to countries on the Pacific rim and to the United States and India and others, we must keep our unit costs down and resist expensive and unnecessary legislative burdens that will merely lengthen dole queues.

  79
  The second requirement for recovery is a competitive currency. Although the Government have been forced to reduce interest rates and let sterling fall, they have not gone far enough. Lower interest rates are urgently needed to reduce domestic costs, stimulate investment and underpin growth, force down the value of the pound and give our exporters an advantage in growth markets. That will produce higher United Kingdom growth than we currently enjoy, perhaps 3 to 3·5 per cent. after 12 to 18 months rather than the dismal 1·75 to 2·5 per cent. predicted by the Chancellor. That is the correct way to deal with the PSBR. It should not be dealt with by cuts in necessary public investment or by tax increases that will depress our economy.
  Britain has a hell of a problem to face after 1 April next year. Some people in the Treasury and the Bank of England claim that my proposal is inflationary. They are totally wrong, and their obsession with inflation, which is rooted in outdated social and market conditions that no longer apply, threatens our economic recovery. I am sorry to note that Mr. Eddie George will apparently have too much say in future about the timing of interest rate changes. He is so far gone in his obsession with inflation that no longer exists that he is himself one of the largest single obstacles to the development of a coherent economic strategy and economic growth.
  The Chancellor must personally accept full responsibility for a positive strategy for growth that will enable Britain to become a world trading nation, and he must make the necessary decisions on both actions and timing. In a matter of weeks, not months, interest rates should come down to between 3 and 4 per cent. Such a reduction was the centrepiece that the Budget lacked.
  A Government who reduce our cost base and keep our currency competitive may truly hope to win the approval of industry and the support of our people at the next general election. The Government may also expect British industry to rise with relish to the new opportunities that will be presented by such a strategy for growth and prosperity.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of time. I call Ms Armstrong.
  7.27 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: Opposition support for much of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said was such that I did not hear my name called. I agreed especially with the early part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he declared that the Budget had no overall strategy for dealing with the long-term problems of the economy or for investing in the future of industry and the industrial base. Such a strategy is desperately needed.
  The Budget continued to perpetrate the Government fraud on the British people. Before the election, the Government decried taxation and said that any increase would fundamentally undermine the economy, but every year since the election taxes have been unfairly increased. The Chancellor did nothing to remove VAT on fuel, a regressive and punitive tax on those who have little opportunity to increase their income. They will be heavily punished by the tax.
  The Budget ensured that ordinary families, many of them struggling to maintain the standard of living they
  80
  began to expect during the 1980s, will be the people who will pay more tax and get less. They will pay the price for the mistakes and the fraud of the Government. Many of them are already paying that price. The middle income earners will be badly hit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) said, a typical family's tax bill will rise by £10 a week next year and by £16 a week in 1995.
  Newspapers have become more aware of precisely what the Budget said, and are also recognising that there has been a bigger tax hike in this year's Budget than we have ever had, certainly since the second world war. The future for ordinary middle-income families is looking bleaker than they were ever led to expect by the Government—much worse than the Government, and the party that they represent, predicted when they were trying to scaremonger about Labour's plans.
  More than 500,000 extra people will be drawn into taxation and income tax because of the freezing of allowances. More than 300,000 of those people will be women. It is a Budget which, once again, makes things much more difficult for many women. The Government have tried to target one-parent families—many headed by women—and the financial opportunities for them are being constrained by the Government's behaviour.
  Mr. Hendry: What about the child-care initiative?
  Ms Armstrong: I will come to the child-care initiative.
  There were no initiatives in the Budget to secure long-lasting recovery. It will not create the new jobs in north-west Durham that the people there are desperate for. It will not bring the new industries that we have been finding it so hard to secure. It contained no new incentives for investment and expansion for the firms in my constituency.
  At the same time, the Budget has put a squeeze on public spending, which means cuts in many of the services that ordinary families and the vulnerable in our society depend upon. In particular, local government spending has been very savagely hit. That will mean that the expansion that we require in nursery education will not happen. I am sad that Tory Members are still trying to obtain pleasure out of the figures that were exceptionally well presented, I have to say, by the Chancellor.
  When we look at those figures in the Red Book, we can recognise that the gloss is just that—gloss. Underneath the gloss lies a story that is much more difficult for people in areas such as mine to come to terms with. We desperately want nursery education, smaller classes in our primary schools and leisure facilities to help to promote the health and well-being of the population. It will be much more difficult to provide all of those.
  The points made about local government reorganisation by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) will be met with a wry smile in Durham. We must pay for an additional review because the Government did not like what the commissioners said the first time round. We have to pay not only for an initial review but for a second one because the commissioners did not come up with what the Government wanted.
  Unemployment benefit is being slashed and, conveniently, approximately 240,000 people will be removed from the register. More than 600 people in my constituency have been unemployed for between six and 12 months. In October 1993, out of nearly 4,000 claimants in my

  81
  constituency, more than 2,000 had been unemployed for more than six months, and nearly 1,500 had been unemployed for more than a year. Long-term unemployment is a reality in my constituency. It is not an area where a person can lose a job and quickly get another.
  Conservative Members should consider more carefully the social consequences, the family consequences and the community consequences of unemployment. Unemployment is breaking up families, breaking up communities and bringing enormous distress to those communities. It was an insult for the Chancellor to imply that that is because people are not looking for work; that was something that many found too hard to bear.
  On top of that, invalidity benefit is to be taxed. In areas such as mine, more people tend to claim invalidity benefit. That may be because of the increased numbers on unemployment benefit. It may be because the type of industrial work that many of them have done in the past has made them less able to work. That is a part of the Government's great insult. People who have worked and made commitments are having everything withdrawn from them, and they are being blamed for the economic mess that the Government have created.
  I initially welcomed the announcement about the child-care allowance. I have argued for something like that and for the Government to introduce a national child-care strategy for a long time. Such a strategy would enable us to do our best for our youngest children and give women the opportunity to go back to work.
  I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell me that I am wrong, but my understanding is that the total amount available for family credit will not be raised. I have discussed this with the Library, and it seems that if people are drawing the full amount they will not be entitled to any extra for child care. Two thirds of families are on the lowest salaries and are entitled to the maximum family credit, and they will not gain a penny. Some 90 per cent. of single parents with one child, who are entitled to family credit, will not gain a penny from this initiative. It is a fraud.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: As someone who introduced two private Member's Bills, in 1986 and 1987, about the late payment of debt, I give a very warm welcome to the consultation that has been announced on the statutory right to interest.
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir. P. Hordern). I believe that the March Budget was right to delay the impact of the tax increases to allow the economy time and room to recover. That is now clearly happening. It is also clear that, although we have a debt problem, it is not a debt crisis.
  Against that background, the Budget had to do two things: first, it had to prove that the deficit would be substantially reduced; secondly, it had to support the economic upturn without causing inflation. The judgment of both of those issues has to be considered in global, national and local terms—in my case, in Croydon.
  Globally, it is clear that the markets have given the Budget the thumbs-up. The pound has strengthened since last Tuesday—up one cent against the dollar and three pfennigs against the deutschmark. That is because of the
  82
  Chancellor's determination to control the deficit. The market looked at the overall picture and liked what it saw. It saw inflation coming down, output going up, unit costs coming down and productivity going up. It saw unemployment falling—and, having reached a verdict, it raised its stocks. In short, everything that ought to be going up is doing so, and everything that ought to be coming down is doing so.
  Let us compare that with the picture in the rest of Europe. Spain has a 24 per cent. unemployment rate; Belgium has had a general strike; in France, every £100 ticket issued by Air France is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £10.
  Nationally, the situation looks a little different. This was a tough and pragmatic Budget, showing a sense of realism. Most important, it addressed the deficit; however, it also contained welcome increases in health and education expenditure. Those increases can be achieved by means of reductions in expenditure on defence, local government and transport, all of which I believe can be justified.
  A certain amount of pain is bound to accompany the cuts in the defence budget, but they were inevitable. Indeed, now that the cold war is clearly over we should ask why we cannot reduce defence expenditure even more. The local government reduction can be managed: we need only look at a good Conservative council like Croydon to see how reductions in grant can be absorbed. Croydon council is sub-contracting out no fewer than six departments, which will result in huge improvements in efficiency and much less dependence on central Government funding. As for transport, road costs are now falling dramatically; given the current lower interest rates, I sincerely hope that the cuts will have little impact.
  The most interesting aspect of the Budget is the fact that the deficit is being reduced not through a widening of the VAT base—which many expected—but through greater control of spending. How is that done? First, I belive that the unified Budget has given us a greater focus on the need to balance expenditure with taxation; I think that this vindicates the decision to present such a Budget. Secondly, there are the accounting reforms to be imposed on Departments, which will adopt private acounting practices. I understand that they will follow the New Zealand model, which has resulted in better management of public finances and resources. That is a critical aspect of the Budget. It will work only if spending control is effective.
  Critics have said that huge tax rises will kill off the recovery. I think that that ignores two important points. Last week, Goldman Sachs commented that the tax rises would knock 1·5 per cent. off the growth in gross domestic product. But that is offset by the 0·5 per cent. cut in interest rates announced two weeks ago, and by cuts made over the past two years which have yet to work their way through the system. Those cuts have, in effect, produced a subsidy to industry of some £12 billion, which is bound to be of huge benefit to British industry as a whole. It cannot be disputed, however, that large tax rises are in the pipeline. If the recovery stumbles, the Chancellor should not hesitate to cut interest rates again.

  Thirdly, what does Croydon man think of the Budget? The small business man will certainly have a smile on his face, as will the lone mother—or father, for that matter —who wants to return to work; she, or he, will welcome the new child-care allowance. Croydon's success, however, really depends on the prosperity of London.

  83
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson): London must remain the commercial centre of the world. If it is to achieve that, four essential ingredients are necessary.
  The first of those ingredients was introduced back in the mists of time, in 1980: it was the abolition of exchange-control regulations and the introduction of the free flow of capital—a measure opposed by the Labour party. Secondly, London must have the best telecommunications in the world, which it now has—Britain's telecommunications companies now lead the world. The Government's privatisation of those companies was also opposed by Labour.
  Thirdly, my constituents want to be able to commute from Croydon to their work in London. Services from Croydon to London are much better than many people would give them credit for being: there are no fewer than 10 trains per hour from East Croydon to the centre of London. I also welcome the announcements about the infrastructure and the extension of the light railway; slowly but surely, too, the Jubilee line is making progress.
  None the less, I must utter a murmur of dissent. We need better trunk roads to south London. For instance, it is imperative that the Coulsdon bypass, which is planned to go through the middle of my constituency, remains part of the Department of Transport's road programme. Hon. Members who get off the plane at Gatwick will know exactly what I mean: the traffic goes straight up the M23 into my constituency and is then funnelled into a single lane, causing intense traffic congestion.
  It is said that we must get more people off the roads and on to the trains, but that will never happen unless we can correct the price imbalance. In that context, I warmly welcome the motorway pricing measures announced in the Budget, and the consultation that is to take place. I also welcome Labour's support for that policy.
  London also needs the best leisure facilities in the world. Over the weekend, the news dribbled out that the two London orchestras which were under threat have now been saved. Indeed, a decision to shut them down would have been astonishing.
  There is no doubt that there are hefty tax rises to come, but they are comfortably controlled. The two tests that I set have both been achieved. The deficit will soon show signs of coming under control, and this is not an inflationary Budget—how could it be, with some £12 billion coming out of the economy? The Chancellor has achieved both those aims, and I give him my full support.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I should like to say a few nice things about the Chancellor's first Budget, but I find it rather difficult. I certainly agree that we need a new apprenticeship scheme, although I think that the provisions should go much further than has been suggested. I also welcome the proposal to offset the cost of child minding, and the moves to charge interest on the late payment of commercial debt—along with certain other provisions for small companies. I regret very much that the retirement age for women is moving up to 65 rather than men's retirement age moving down to 60; much-needed jobs could have been created. I also fear that the changes in sick pay may result in the moving of state responsibilities to the private
  84
  sector, and I greatly regret the erosion of student grants. Many low-income families have an understandable fear of loans, and will not accept a loan-based regime for university education.
  My main worry, however, concerns the total lack of basic strategy in the Budget. I fear that taking £11 billion out of the economy will undermine any possible upturn. It was interesting to note that those points were picked up by the more serious newspapers over the weekend. An editorial in The Observer commented:
  "behind Mr. Clarke's glib manner and slick presentation lies the most deflationary Budget in recent history. The Budget is a serious gamble with the current economic recovery … Far from being designed to reduce unemployment, this Budget is likely to increase it".
  Another editorial, in The Sunday Times, observes:
  "Next year alone more than £11 billion will be taken out of the economy in extra taxes and reduced public spending. That might not be enough to abort the recovery but it hardly helps promote vigorous growth after the longest recession since the 1930s …
  The government's position would be more comfortable if the Treasury understood the nature of this recovery."
  I believe that those comments underline the fear that the unemployment crisis which still faces so many of our communities will not be overcome.
  The Government seem to have given up the fight against unemployment: the costs of unemployment built into the long-term expenditure programme seem to be on an even keel, which implies that the current unacceptable level will continue.
  The Chancellor should have retained the present level of PSBR at least, if not slightly increased it to try to stimulate the economy. If we can sustain the low inflation rate that we have at present, with the current PSBR, it ought to be possible to live with it for a little longer. That situation should be facilitating capital expenditure in areas that include schools, universities and hospitals, yet the plans announced are to reduce capital expenditure from £29 billion to £20 billion by 1997. I would like to see capital expenditure programmes increased to encourage the construction industry, especially. It is ridiculous that we are willing to live with such levels of unemployment when those unemployed people could be used to build the capital assets that are greatly needed in so many parts of our communities.
  I am concerned that there is not more money being invested in energy efficiency and conservation. I acknowledge that steps have been taken along that route, but a comprehensive programme is neeeded which will help all low-income households, pensioners, and disabled people to cut household bills, to reduce energy consumption, to protect the environment and to create jobs. That would have been a beneficial step involving an expenditure programme of between £1·5 billion and £2·5 billion.
  Infrastructure work to the railway network in Wales is needed. The electrification of the north and south Wales line is needed as much as the announced expenditure on the west-coast line.
  I am concerned at the effects of cuts on local government services. We know the effects of those cuts in England and I am worried that the same may happen in Wales. Page 118 of the Red Book shows that the level of public expenditure in Wales will remain static at £6·2 billion in real terms from 1994 to 1997. Given the demographic increases, which will lead to an increased demand for health services, I suspect that there will be an inevitable erosion of community care services. That is

  85
  worrying. In addition, local government reorganisation will cost at least £150 million, which means that other services will suffer.
  People may ask where the money would come from to pay for what I would like to see happen. The level of expenditure on weapons of war in the post cold war era is Unsustainable. Spending £23,000 million on armaments is well over the top. The United Kingdom spends more than 4 per cent. of GDP on defence, compared with 1·6 per cent. in Spain, 2 per cent. in Italy, and 2 per cent. in Canada. Of our European Union partners, only Greece spends more on armaments. Surely it is now time to look for cuts in that area.
  As I represent a rural constituency, I have obvious foreboding about the effect of increases in the cost of petrol. Between now and the general election, I can envisage petrol at £3 a gallon, which would be devastating for rural areas, not only directly hitting people on low incomes who have no alternative transport, but pushing up other costs. The issue of urban traffic pollution should have been more comprehensively addressed by road taxation rather than hitting those who have no alternative, such as those in rural areas.
  At my constituency surgery this weekend, a pensioner told me that, living by herself, she spends between £15 to £20 a week on warming her house. VAT at 17·5 per cent. will result in an increase of between £2·60 and £3·50 in her fuel bills. She will receive £1 extra from the Exchequer, which means she is between £1·50 and £2·50 worse off. That extra cost will hit many disabled and elderly people hard and the Government will pay a price for that.
  The changes to unemployment benefit are also worrying to me, especially as I represent an area that has a seasonal economy. Awarding unemployment benefit to seasonal workers recently was seen as a step forward, but some of those claimants will now lose their benefit. I suspect that we shall see the Government tinkering with the unemployment statistics to play down the level of unemployment if we are to define them not only as people who are out of work, but those who draw unemployment benefit.
  As for the vicious ending of invalidity benefit and what that may mean, the citizens advice bureaux have drawn our attention to the many severely disabled people having their invalidity benefit withdrawn because they are classified as being capable of holding jobs such as being an artist's model. A person may be able to sit reasonably still in a chair to perform that function, but how many jobs are there in any community for artists' models? Defining a severely disabled person as employable on the basis of being an artist's model is an ominous portent of what we shall face with the new system. Disabled persons' organisations will need to fight that issue forcefully.
  The non-indexation of taxation could be insidious over the years. It will draw people on low incomes into the tax net. A single person earning £66 a week may not pay tax this year but may have a wage increase of £2 a week and suddenly have to do so—perhaps only at a rate of 40p per week, but nevertheless that person would be drawn into the tax net and all its accompanying bureaucracy. The Government are stupid not to index the threshold levels for income tax and they should reconsider that.
  The Budget is strategically misguided and is especially hard on vulnerable people—disabled people, pensioners, unemployed people, students, low income families and the rural poor. I remember an old trade union friend telling me
  86
  once that what is morally right can never be politically wrong. I believe that the Budget is morally and socially wrong. It can never be politically right. It is cynical in the extreme and the Government will pay the price.
  7.56 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I totally disagree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). On the contrary, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a Budget that has restored confidence in the City, in world markets, and certainly among my constituents.
  At the weekend, I took soundings of opinion in my constituency, and I am pleased to report that they feel that the Government are in charge of events, rather than events overtaking us. That is reflected in the reception that the Budget has received throughout the City and especially from the CBI, the Department of Trade and Industry and not least an organisation based in my constituency, the National House Building Council. The chief executive, Basil Bean, said:
  "We have been encouraged by this month's signs of recovery in the UK's private house-building industry, and by today's Budget which should sustain this recovery … We were particularly pleased to see the Government's continued commitment to the same level of social housing production over the next few years."
  The figures show that an average of 636 new homes were sold per day in November—a return to the levels of June and July. That is certainly a sign that the Budget has brought a great deal of confidence.
  However, there are a few areas that do not perhaps grab the headlines, and certainly have not been mentioned frequently in the Chamber—especially the Export Credits Guarantee Department premium rates reduction. I was delighted that the President of the Board of Trade announced those reductions, because any cut in premiums is good news.
  Banks and companies involved in exporting have been complaining for some time that ECGD premiums in a number of markets are much higher than those of a number of our competitors. Many United Kingdom exporters have felt that they have entered the bidding process with, effectively, one hand tied behind their back.
  The announcement of the premium rate reduction clearly shows that the President of the Board of Trade has been listening, but there is still progress to be made in those markets. For a recent project in Mexico, for example, the French premium was quoted at 2·1 per cent., and on capital only, while the ECGD figure, even with a new lower premium, was 3·5 per cent. on both principal and interest.
  One of the keys to our economy's continued good growth is our ability to export more to a wide range of markets. The world markets, while increasing, are also being approached by our competitors in a more organised fashion. Only a couple of weeks ago, there was a successful Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum meeting—a precursor, I believe, to a more formal regional trading alliance among the Pacific rim countries. Even China and Taiwan managed to sublimate their continuing political differences to discuss matters of common interest.
  We need to be well aware of the levels of co-operation that could emerge from this highly productive region, which we ignore at our peril. Even with the extra cover announced, there is still more to be done. I ask my right

  87
  hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to monitor our rates constantly and to give the extra help that our exporting companies require.
  I now turn to fuel, but not the fuel that has come to the forefront of our Budget debates. I refer to the North sea oil industry, and to the problems of competition and the possibility of wasteful expenditure resulting from changes in that region.
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in Committee on 29 June:
  "It is not the Government's aim to encourage wasteful duplication of infrastructure as opposed to fair competition. We embrace the objective of competition in an undistorted market".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 June 1993; c. 633.]
  I remind him of his words, and I should like him to focus on some continuing problems which require his attention despite the attempts to address the competition problems identified by the participants in CATS, the central area transmission system—the gas transportation system.
  Concerns have been expressed to me about the unfair way in which the petroleum revenue tax changes distort the competitive position of other long-established companies operating in the North sea. There is also some concern that PRT, which was intended as a tax on oil and gas production, continues to attract profits from the transporting of oil and gas. The abolition of PRT for some but not all fields puts long-established North sea participants at a competitive disadvantage. Why should a long-established field be subject to PRT on its income from transporting oil and gas when a new field is not?
  That unfair competition could lead to wasteful and environmentally unfriendly expenditure on new pipeline systems that the North sea and this country do not need. The Government really should not pick and choose. If North sea tax changes have distorted the competitive position, they should be looked at as a whole and not selectively.
  Could we consider taking tariff income out of charge to PRT for new and old fields alike, or at the very least, could we reinstate the tariff receipts allowance on income from new fields? To do nothing could put existing pipeline systems at a competitive disadvantage and could lead to wasteful expenditure on unnecessary pipeline systems. Our resources should be targeted at finding new oil and gas fields around our island and not at littering the sea bed with extra pipelines which we do not need. I hope that these matters can be discussed more widely, so that the fears expressed to me do not become a reality.
  I welcome the proposal to simplify the taxation of the self-employed and to move to self-assessment. However, although it may be a simplification to change to a current-year basis for the self-employed, the change from the present position will be far from simple. I shall look at the Finance Bill carefully to see how that change will be achieved.
  Are we right to change to self-assessment so rapidly, more or less at the same time as we are changing to a current-year basis? That warrants further consideration, especially from the perspective of the timing of the changes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary can give me assurances on this matter, which affects many of my constituents.
  I speak now as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I express my concern about the
  88
  support that we are giving, or rather not giving, to research and development, especially as it relates to industry. I know that many hon. Members on both sides are, like myself, concerned about the reductions in defence expenditure. I am especially concerned about the reductions in Department of Trade and Industry expenditure, because, if I have interpreted the figures in the Red Book correctly, the DTI appears to face a reduction of almost 60 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1996–97.
  I agree wholeheartedly that we should support women with children through the new provisions on child care. I am absolutely delighted, as are many of my constituents, by the announcement of the help that we are giving to those least able to pay VAT on fuel. But surely we should be doing more to help our wealth-creating sector. Such help is not immediately obvious to me from the figures for the DTI. I look forward with great interest to a more detailed analysis of the DTI's programme from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  On behalf of my constituents, I say a big "thank you" to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his Treasury team. I say that especially on behalf of the editors of my local newspapers, including the Examiner, the Advertiser and the Bucks Free Press. It makes a change for a Member of Parliament to advertise local newspapers in this place and not criticise them. I also say a "thank you" on behalf of Halstan's, a very small specialist printers in my constituency which still produces hand-written sheet music.
  All those organisations would have been badly affected if we had introduced VAT on publications. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to remember, if he is thinking of introducing VAT on publications in his next Budget, that newspapers and small printers, such as Halstan's, will be in real trouble if he does.
  This Budget was a thoughtful one, and a difficult one to deliver. I believe most fundamentally, after the reaction in my constituency, that it has manifestly improved the Government's chances of winning the next general election. This was my right hon. and learned Friend's first Budget; it was a first-class Budget.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: In 1968, I listened very carefully to the Budget, because I was concerned that there was likely to be a rise in interest rates, and I was contemplating purchasing a house. I mention that so that Conservative Members realise that there are people who still remember what life was like before a Conservative Government. Having heard Conservative Members reciting commercial data and saying how satisfied the City and industry are, I am even more determined to ensure that I never forget those days.
  I am concerned about the person in the street. My constituents, unlike those of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), do not take a sanguine view of the Budget. That is understandable, because in my neck of the woods male unemployment stands at 20·4 per cent.
  I want to register a protest about the misuse of words by the Chancellor. He no longer talks about unemployed people, but about job seekers, and we now have job seeker's benefit instead of unemployment benefit. The new expression has connotations of the workhouse mentality. In a sensible and civilised society, anyone who was seen to be seeking something that did not exist would normally be

  89
  regarded as a fool. We now have job seekers who are seeking jobs that do not exist. In Sunderland, North, they have not existed for a long time. There is little in the Budget to lead us to believe that that position will change.
  I was pleased by two points. I was very pleased to hear that the Chancellor intended to do something about tax evasion and tax avoidance; I thought that that was admirable. I then pondered a little, and I realised that that objective was unattainable under this Government, because it would bring them into direct conflict with the business interests on which they rely. Tax evasion does not come only from odd individuals who do not have much money, and it does not come from social security scroungers. It normally comes from fairly large vested interests, as the record shows.
  I remember Lord Healey as Labour Chancellor saying that he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked. He probably meant what he said, but unfortunately, after his term in office, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer —although not to the extent that has been the case since 1979.
  We have also heard that we are going back to the apprenticeship scheme. I am pleased about that. Like many other people, I was an apprentice in the north-east, and, at that time, there were apprentice electricians, fitters, boilermakers, welders and shipwrights. Almost every trade was covered, because a tremendous amount of industry was thriving at the time when I served my apprenticeship. If the apprentice scheme is brought back now, all my constituents can look forward to is being apprentice job seekers. That is what would be brought back to the north-east.
  The Chancellor has said four or five times that he is a great believer in indirect taxation. I am not, because I recognise it for what it is—a redistribution of wealth away from the poor to help the rich. It is no coincidence that, at a time when we have a massive public sector borrowing requirement debt, the estimated amount of tax which has been given back to the wealthy since 1979 by various pieces of legislation is now worth the equivalent of approximately £5 billion per annum. That would have gone a long way to help to get rid of the debt.
  Another alarming thing is that the debt is not a slow thing which has accrued gently during the years. Three or four years ago, the nation was in profit. It is only in the past three years that the debt has escalated to its present level.
  The Budget is likely to cause more unemployment, not less. Local authorities will be under greater financial pressure than they are now, and that will lead to unemployment. The Chancellor talks about efficiency in the public service industries. If those industries are to get no extra money and they are expected to carry out the same work and be more efficient, that can only mean one thing —more people unemployed, with those who are left having to do more work for the same money. That has been the history of the Government, and it is the way they operate.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that she was pleased with the housing situation. Compared to what this nation showed itself to be capable of in the 1950s and 1960s—under both Labour and Conservative Administrations—the present housing programme looks poor indeed. There is the plight of the homeless and of those who are badly housed. The only answer that seems to be put forward is to bring back the private landlord system.
  Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Etherington: I only have 10 minutes to speak, so I am not prepared to give way. That is not out of churlishness, but because there is a shortage of time. I find that 10 minutes goes by quickly.
  The hon. Lady mentioned research in this country. I attended a Committee meeting last week at which I elicited the fact that research in the United States and in Japan represents 3 per cent. of their GNP. In this country, research represents 2 per cent. of GNP. That is quite a difference, and it has come about because the nation has completely abdicated its responsibility. The Government have left everything to free market forces, and those forces are not working.
  We are not creating wealth in this country. Instead, we are recirculating money, and that is what the Budget is about. Until the Government have the courage and the political will to ensure that our citizens who do well in times of prosperity make a commensurate contribution in times of adversity, we will get no further on. It is an absolute insult that the Government are looking for scapegoats, be it the unemployed, single mothers or, worst of all, those who are drawing invalidity benefit.
  It is all very fine for hon. Members who are earning £30,000 a year, and for Ministers who are on twice that, to be speaking out from on high and telling the poor how they should run their lives. The Government say that the poor are a burden on the state and they they cannot afford to service them properly.
  I will now speak about motoring tax. There are many people in my constituency for whom the only way to get work is to travel up to 100 miles a day for civil engineering or building work. They need vehicles to enable them to carry out that work. I do not see them running many Jaguars or Porsches—the vehicles are usually fairly modest—but the increase in taxation on fuel will hit them particularly hard.
  I will not be altogether ridiculous and say that the £5 increase in vehicle tax will make any difference. Every hon. Member will not notice the increase, but there are many out there who will, including people who live in villages where there is one bus per hour, and the only way in which they can get about is by the use of their own transport. If we had a better public transport system, that would not be the case.
  I have heard a lot of complaints and worries expressed during the past year concerning the overseas aid budget. I am afraid that the budget has been cut in real terms. It is a bad state of affairs when a country which agrees in principle to pay 0·7 per cent. of its GNP then pays one third of that. That does not give much sense of pride as a Member.
  I remember when this country used to be known as the workshop of the world. Under the present Administration, it is becoming the sweatshop of Europe. The Budget must be taken within that context.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I wish that I had the time to take up many of the points made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I will content myself by commenting that the hon. Gentleman predicted in his speech that one effect of the Budget would be to reduce the prospects for his

  91
  constituents who are seeking jobs and those who have been seeking them for a long time, in the case of the long-term unemployed.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that, for some of the reasons which I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) regarding the package for small businesses. I would gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), predicted at the time of the March Budget that unemployment would rise as a result. Unemployment has fallen very agreeably since then and it will continue to fall under the sensible macro-economic policies of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I welcome this responsible Budget, because the Chancellor set the public deficit reduction as his highest priority. He sought to achieve that, at least in the coming year, more by putting the emphasis on public expenditure restraint than on increased taxation. I recognise that increased taxation is in the pipeline—including a good deal of taxation brought in by the previous Chancellor—but the broad judgment of the Budget was right for two principal reasons.
  First, there is a continuing fragility in the economic recovery—however much that recovery is welcome—because of the fact that our main export markets are going deeper into recession, rather than coming out into recovery. Consumers in my area—southern London and the south-east generally—are still rather risk-averse and they are not inclined to borrow if they can avoid it. They are spending more time trying to restore their personal balance sheets.
  Secondly, there is a good deal of taxation in the pipeline from the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) earlier this year. If one looks at those two Budgets together and logically one should, they represent a considerable and timely fiscal tightening. That has had many good effects, not the least of which has been to reassure the markets that the way will be left open for further interest rate cuts. We must also tackle what is almost as much a moral challenge as an economic one—the enormous public deficit. If that deficit had been left untouched or unaddressed, we would have passed on unacceptable burdens to future generations.
  For all those reasons, I warmly commend the thrust of the Budget. In the brief time that is available to me, I wish to make two general points which look to the future and which concern my right hon. and learned Friend's approach to future Budgets. First, on public expenditure, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will try consistently to focus public spending on investment rather than on consumption. He should focus on programmes which will provide the necessary public services cost-effectively, rather than transfer payments, which so often merely recycles money from one part of the middle class to another or which acts simply as a state savings bank to deal with certain contingencies in a person's lifetime. If Opposition Members asked me which kind of public investment I would particularly advocate, I would unhesitatingly refer to investment in human capital in all its forms and in physical infrastructure.
  All public expenditure decisions really turn upon three questions. First, how much can the nation prudently afford
  92
  in total at any one time? Secondly, what should be the priorities within that total? Thirdly, how can we ensure the greatest possible value for money? In relation to the last two criteria, it must be right to find extra money for further and higher education, as the Government are doing, and to back real quality improvements in our schools. It must also be right to find the money to invest heavily in the improvement of British Rail's track and signalling and of London's antiquated underground system.
  In any civilised and modern society, there is, and always will be, a place for some transfer payments from the rich to the poor and from the invulnerable to the vulnerable. That is what the dreadful jargon word "targeting" should mean. But other financial transfers—for example, to deal with the unfortunate contingencies in our lives—should increasingly be seen as our own responsibility rather than that of the taxpayer whenever that is possible. For example, better-off people in full-time and secure jobs should contribute more completely and directly to the cost of rearing their own children, to the costs of elective health care at a time of their choice, and to the cost of supporting themselves in their old age, when they are likely to need more expensive forms of support.
  Provision for such contingencies can be and is being made more cost-effectively even now, and I think with a degree of social justice, via private insurance arrangements, private pensions and specially tailored financial packages to help people who are asset-rich but income-poor to turn their assets into useful income schemes in their old age.
  Lest I should be thought to be outlandish in what I say, I stress that all those developments can and should happen only gradually. But I believe that this is the direction in which the Chancellor and his colleagues should move in future Budgets and in future policy on both sides of the public accounts.
  My other main point concerns tax policy and the interests of longer-term tax reform. Naturally, I welcome the small steps towards tax reform taken by my right hon. and learned Friend in the Budget—for example, broadening the tax base by pruning two of the most egregious tax reliefs in the shape of the married couple's allowance and mortgage interest tax relief and introducing two new taxes which, between them, will bring in an extra £1 billion.
  There is more to do in future years. I suggest that what is really needed is the future reshaping and rebalancing of our entire tax system to make it as simple, efficient and publicly acceptable as possible. That could best be done by following and developing the approach of my noble Friend Lord Lawson who in his corporation tax reforms of 1984 and his personal tax reforms of 1988 very successfully broadened the base of tax in those two areas and achieved the concomitant benefits of lower rates of tax and simpler structures.
  I believe that the priorities of future Budgets should be to extend the coverage of VAT virtually to all forms of consumer expenditure instead of just over half, which is the present position, and, in the process, to introduce one lower introductory rate—perhaps 8 per cent.—on the real essentials and a new standard rate which could be lower than the present standard rate—perhaps 15 per cent. That is only an illustrative example, but such a package would bring in an estimated net benefit to the Exchequer of

  93
  between £5 billion and £10 billion at current prices and would be worth while in financing desirable forms of public expenditure.
  Much more important, however, it would constitute a giant step towards more of an expenditure-based tax system, advocated years ago by Professor Meade. Such a change should be accompanied by lower rates of tax on income and a move towards minimal or even no tax upon savings and capital, which would be in the interests of investment. That would produce a better balanced and more buoyant tax system, which would be good for saving, good for investment, good for thrift and good for enterprise. Provided that it was supported by generous but carefully targeted transfer payments on an income-related basis, it could also be fairer and more efficient.
  Such a system would not only bring with it the benefits of taxing income and capital more lightly and expenditure and property more heavily; crucially, it would improve public motivation to work and save and make it easier for us to match our competitors in what is becoming a very competitive world market for investment—inward investment in particular. In the longer run, such a reform will become necessary—perhaps even unavoidable—if we are to safeguard our national revenue base and so enable ourselves to afford those forms of public expenditure that are desirable in a modern society.
  In a modern global economy—with freedom of capital movements, an information technology that is transparent and instantaneous and firms and individuals becoming increasingly mobile—taxation upon income and capital, both corporate and individual, is becoming increasingly voluntary, or at the option of taxpayers rather than tax collectors. There is growing competition between national jurisdictions to lure in foreign investment and high net worth individuals, and those arriving on our shores can in many cases just as easily leave again if they perceive that the national tax climate is turning unfavourable. The perfectly legitimate tax avoidance industry also needs to be taken into account.
  In all those ways, my suggested reforms would produce a better-balanced tax structure. I commend them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to be considered in any tax reforms in future.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Keith Hill: Dr. Samuel Johnson, a frequent visitor in his time to my Streatham constituency, once aptly remarked that when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life. On the evidence of last week's Budget, reinforced by the statement on local government grants, this Government have clearly tired of London. The Budget, as the Evening Standard remarked with some restraint, did absolutely nothing for London. On the contrary—it represented a further catastrophic assault on London's prospects and services.
  It is as if the Goverment had a death wish on them in relation to London. Nowhere is that better highlighted than in their extraordinary decision to lop another £80 million off the funding for the London underground. After a fortnight in which the tube system had been reduced to a nightmare shambles, the very least that Londoners might have expected was some kind of recognition from the Chancellor of the urgent need for the modernisation of the underground network. Instead, London Underground will receive only two thirds of what is required to run the sort
  94
  of system that the capital so desperately requires. The blunt truth is that London Transport will not even be able to maintain existing services.
  There will be more cuts to come—cuts in our public transport services, to the long-term benefit of road-building projects outside London; cuts in our London hospitals, but more hospital building in the Tory heartlands of the home counties; and now the prospect of massive cuts in spending on London's schools.
  Such cuts are the inevitable consequence of last week's announcements on local government finance. No fewer than 13 of the top 20 losers are London authorities. A month ago, to the usual fanfare, the Government published their league tables for schools. Of course those tables are crass and misleading. Of course they ignore the appalling handicaps with which many of our inner-city children begin their school lives. Of course they fail to take into account the often outstanding progress that such children make through their own efforts and the efforts of dedicated teachers. Of course they show very many of our inner London schools at the bottom of the league tables, and that is not in the least surprising.
  Inner London is replete with the factors that lead to under achievement in education. It is entirely normal for schools in Streatham to number in their school rolls children with 50 or more non-English first languages. Homelessness, poor housing, lone parenting and unemployment are the all-too-common background experiences of many—in some schools, most—of those children, yet those are precisely the social factors that the Government have chosen to downgrade in their calculations of financial support for local authorities.
  Larger classes, less help for vulnerable children and fewer day nurseries for London's children will flow from the spending announcements of last week. How will that help to break the cycle of deprivation? How will that help to lift London's schools from the bottom of the league tables? How will that help to meet the skills shortage from which London's economy so desperately suffers? There have been cuts in our education services and cuts in our health, housing and transport services. The Government are systematically stripping London of the vital sources necessary for recovery.
  London has suffered the longest and the worst from the present recession. We have the largest number of unemployed of any region in the country. We have the largest number of teenagers out of work. Our rate of unemployment is way above the national average. That is no passing or transient setback. Our economic problems are structural and deep-seated, reflected in the fact that the total number of long-term unemployed in London is also higher than anywhere else in Britain.
  Of course, all Londoners suffer from the decline of London's services and economy. Yet the Government, through their Budget, are planning to inflict excessive penalties on the very people whose skills and enterprise might lift the city out of its cycle of decline. It is precisely middle-income earners who will suffer most from the national insurance increases.
  In London, with higher house prices, middle-income earners will also pay more through the changes in mortgage interest relief. The MIRAS changes will hit the young and aspiring who bought their homes between 1988 and 1991 especially hard. We have learnt from figures that were published today that two fifths of those people are in

  95
  London and the south-east and now have negative equity, owing more on their mortgages than the value of their homes.
  In London, house insurance is higher, car insurance is higher and, consequently, the cost to middle-income earners of those increases will be greater. The truth is that the tax noose will tighten drastically on middle-income Londoners in the coming months. Will they get more from their increased tax bills? Of course not. Money for new housing has been cut; money to improve London's environment—cut; money to improve our transport services—cut; money to improve council services—cut; student grants—cut. The money to repair our hospitals, our schools, and for our local libraries has been cut, cut, cut.
  There was a time when London could afford to pay out far more to the Government's coffers than we got back. That time has now passed. A drastic reassessment of London's needs is urgently overdue. We need a fair deal for Londoners and we need it now. Ministers may be tired of London; London is certainly tired of them. But there are 4·5 million voters in London.
  Finally, I shall adapt the words of Sam Johnson with which I began. The longer that Ministers stay tired of London, the more likely they are to pay with their political lives.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: Many Conservative Members were alarmed at suggestions—indeed, assertions—in the press before the Budget that we were to face substantial increases in all forms of taxation. Therefore, we were relieved when we found that the Budget contained a balanced approach to the need to reduce the deficit substantially by reducing Government expenditure, while increasing certain taxes to reduce overall the totally unacceptable level of deficit.
  I believe that the Chancellor has made the right macro-economic decisions in assembling the Budget, although I am somewhat concerned that he has chosen to underfund the deficit by about £7 billion. I understand that liquidity considerations have forced him to make that decision, and in the present circumstances that may be justifiable. I suspect that he thinks that his present rather modest forecast for growth next year may, in the outturn, be somewhat higher than he has suggested and that may assist him with that underfunding. I hope, however, that it will not become a precedent.
  There is a great deal in the Budget that I applaud. First, as one can imagine, representing as I do a constituency that probably has more retired people than almost any other in the country, I was particularly pleased to see the assistance that has been given with VAT on fuel. I believe that, coupled with the reductions in the cost of fuel of 5 per cent. in the case of gas, and 3·75 per cent. with electricity, with further reductions coming next year and in following years, that will fully protect those who are most in need in our society. I am delighted that the Chancellor was able to make those decisions.
  I was particularly pleased to see that my right hon. and learned Friend has assisted with business rates. You, Madam Speaker, will recollect that it was I who tabled the amendments when the Local Government Finance Bill was going through its Committee stage which limited the
  96
  increases to business to a fixed percentage per annum. I am pleased that in these difficult times the Chancellor has been able to go a little further, particularly for the small business where the proprietor lives above the premises. That was extremely welcome and, coupled with the many other measures that he has taken for small businesses, is helpful and good in the long term for jobs.
  You, Madam Speaker, may also recollect my campaign for a blindness allowance, which more than half of hon. Members signed some years ago. It gave me particular pleasure to see that, at a time of considerable financial constraint, the Chancellor was able to increase the blind person's allowance by £120. That will be extremely welcome to all blind people.
  I shall now turn to the schemes that have been produced to encourage investment. As a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, I find them welcome. Much of the evidence that has come before our Committee in recent weeks hs shown that there is no particular shortage of funding for the larger—particularly the quoted—companies, but there is a problem in finding equity finance for the smaller and unquoted companies. There has long been a need to address that. The business expansion scheme went some way, but it was heavily abused. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to see that the new enterprise investment scheme will, I hope, remove some of the abuses to which the BES was subject. But I am much more excited about the venture capital trust scheme, which, I hope, will direct the much-needed institutional investment into the unquoted sector.
  One area that gives me some concern at the moment is the insurance premium tax. The insurance industry as a whole has been going through a difficult time in the United Kingdom and, compared with many of our overseas competitors in Europe, is relatively under-capitalised. That has been due to past tax structures, some of which have now been rectified, but the imposition of the tax at a time when many insurance companies have suffered appreciable losses in recent years will make it much more difficult for them, as well as for the many users of insurance who are suffering from greatly increased premiums.
  Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what will happen, for example, to the collection of premiums that are paid in instalments? Will the tax itself be paid in instalments? What arrangements will be made? Will the tax have to be paid up front? How will he deal with the fact that it is proposed that insurance that is effected through insurance brokers will be subject to tax only on the premium and not on the broker's commission? That is entirely admirable, but it does complicate the collection arrangements.
  Similarly, I am a little concerned to know that it will apply to most general risks. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us whether it will apply to terrorism insurance, where the Government have come forward, very much to their credit, with a scheme that will assist in the insurance of terrorism risks. But if the additional tax is to apply to terrorism as well, might that not in itself be somewhat self-defeating?
  I hope that the Chancellor will direct future Budgets towards an investment-led recovery rather than a consumer-led recovery. Many people have said that we want consumers to spend more, but a consumer-led boom is the last thing that we want. It would not help because it would only suck in more imports. We need more

  97
  encouragement of investment. For that reason, I am not at all concerned that the Chancellor should choose to concentrate on indirect rather than direct taxes.
  One thing that has been wrong with our economy in the long term is that we have not had a sufficiently good savings ratio compared with most of our major competitors. We need to encourage people to save and we need taxes that encourage people to save and that encourage enterprise, rather than taxes that attack those who save or invest. On that last point, I was particularly pleased with the further relief given to capital gains tax.
  Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned capital gains tax. It is an iniquitous tax and I hope that, in the long term, the Chancellor will abolish it. In the meantime, it is anomalous that someone who has invested in a company and built it up over many years will, when he disposes of it, pay the same rate of tax as somebody who has made a six-month or even three-month speculative investment. That is nonsense. The least that the Chancellor could do to redress that anomaly would be to have a sliding scale for capital gains tax whereby the longer the investment is held, the lower the marginal tax rate—preferably down to zero.
  8.41 pm
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The self-congratulatory style of the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) left a bad taste in my mouth and will only contribute to the low esteem in which the public hold politicians. He made himself ridiculous. We shall be judged harshly if, as parliamentary politicians, we do not address the structural problems underlying our economic malaise. Some Tory Members believe that they have done so, but I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who pointed out many of the failings of the Budget.
  Last week, the Chancellor announced unnecessary spending cuts. I accept that spending has been switched from some sectors—largely from the contingency funds —and is being used to boost spending in health, the education service and social security. However, although I welcome the extra spending on health, it is too little too late. I have travelled down from Liverpool today, where the largest children's hospital in Europe is appealing, for the second time in two months, for qualified paediatric nursing staff to come to its aid to assist in a crisis.
  Two families, from the north of England and from Wales, went to the hospital with their children who were to have heart surgery. The children were admitted to the hospital on the Wednesday, and it was expected that surgery would take place on Thursday, but the operations were cancelled at the last minute. The operation for one of those children was rescheduled to today. Instead, at 11 o'clock this morning, the family was told that the operation had to be cancelled and again the reason was a shortage of staff.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) spoke of the chaos that ensued when radical reform of local government and health services—introduced by Tory Governments in the early 1970s and now—failed to address the problem of lack of resources. In Liverpool, the hospital has been given impossible spending targets. It has had to reduce its staffing levels to the point where it cannot cope with the simple day-to-day crises with which one would expect it to be able to deal.
  98
  It is a pity that Conservative Members use as their only criterion of whether the Budget is a success what the City and the financial markets have to say about it. The attitude of the City of London towards investment and its short-term view of what produces profits is causing some of the problems that we have to face. The public sector deficit has provided an impetus for the Government to continue their creeping attack on the welfare state. I do not believe Tory protestations that there is no such attack. Their deeds speak louder than their words. The primary objective seems to be to achieve savings, sector by sector, while attempting to mask the effects of benefit changes.
  The expenditure of the Department of Social Security for 1992–93 amounted to around £80 billion, at least £15 billion of which can be directly attributed to the recession. Elements of the remaining £65 billion are related to such cyclical expenditure. No one is suggesting that reforms are not needed, but considering possible changes to enable the welfare state more effectively to fulfil its function is entirely different from saying that current levels of spending are spiralling out of control.
  The study by the DSS called "The Growth of Social Security", published in July, shows that, come the turn of the century, spending on social security will account for 12·4 per cent. of GDP compared with 12·3 per cent. now. That is assuming a growth of 2·5 per cent. in unemployment—a quarter less than at present. That sum is well within the nation's means, especially if a strategy for growth and jobs is implemented.
  I wonder whether the Chancellor had a chance to see the document produced by the United Kingdom industrial group called "Manufacture or Die". In its strategy for recovery, it says:
  "There is …at last a growing recognition that to generate wealth it is necessary to seek markets and manufacture, to engineer or process competitively in order to add value and satisfy market needs. The service sector, which is vitally important, has to play a supporting rather than a lead role. The primary significance of manufacturing must be re-established and placed at the top of the national agenda."
  Those whom I have had an opportunity to meet since the Budget, who have been actively involved at the highest level in manufacturing industry, have told me that on this Budget, the jury is still out.
  I take this opportunity to apologise for getting a fact wrong last week. In the excitement of being called to ask a question after the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security, I exaggerated the problem of unemployment in Liverpool. Frankly, the problem is so great that it does not need exaggeration. The facts of the case are that 40 per cent. of the people in the city of Liverpool have either never worked or not worked for five years. I forgot the second fact and I am pleased to be able to set the record straight. Those facts on their own demonstrate the scale of the task that is set us—and Government Departments, because they are the people who are responsible for getting us out of the mess that we are in.
  In Liverpool, people take offence at the idea that young people who have been seeking work where there is none for year after year, who have gone for interview after interview, becoming excited at the prospect as each interview came along only either to go away disappointed or to feel lucky enough to be given a job that then evaporates after a couple of weeks, are deeply offended at the suggestion that they may not be genuine in their search

  99
  for work. That deep offence that the Government are giving unemployed people who are looking for the work that is not there will cost them the next election.
  Last week, the Secretary of State for Social Security said that he would like to see Parliament determine that benefits go to those whom Parliament wishes to help. I believe that Parliament will be judged by what it does for those who need our help.
  8.50 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: It was encouraging to hear support expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—I am glad that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is in his place—for Budget measures specifically to help the small business sector. Those of us who take a particular interest in small businesses are aware that what suits the City does not always suit small businesses.
  I was pleased on behalf of the Small Business Bureau, which I and other hon. Members represent, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor abolished the statutory audit for small, unincorporated companies having turnovers below £90,000. Perhaps I should declare an interest as I am married to an accountant. The change will not do me much good but it is welcomed by the small business sector. Many of us are pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend considered our representations favourably.
  We welcome also the reduction in documentation for companies with a turnover below £350,000. It is important to rid small businesses of such burdens, because we shall be looking to that sector for the growth and jobs needed for recovery.
  As to capital gains tax, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) drew attention to its effect on Government revenue since the rate was linked to that of personal taxation. Although my right hon. Friend is right, it had the significant effect also of providing less private capital for reinvestment into small firms or new business start-ups. I welcome the proposal to examine the ways in which capital investment and venture capital may be attracted to the unincorporated sector. There is scope for further changes to capital gains tax, because that source of investment is not being used in the interests of small businesses, or of the Treasury in terms of revenue receipts.
  The investment needed in the unincorporated sector should be of a long-term nature. There should be more competitive, fixed rate investment and also something which our European competitors have but which we lack. In Germany, for example, investment is accompanied by good business advice. That is the result of the equity holding of banks and others that invest. Such advice will be particularly important as this country emerges from recession and small businesses start to grow. At a time of growth, problems can arise with overtrading. Often, difficuties occur when order books are full and businesses must recapitalise. Sound financial advice from banks and others is as important as investment.
  I welcomed the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend that there will be consultation on late payment of debt—a subject on which there is a difference of opinion in the small business sector. The Forum of Private Business lobbied hard for interest to be statutorily
  100
  added, whereas the Federation of Small Businesses opposed that. If late payment to small businesses is to be addressed, court procedures must be reviewed. In some cases, a facility already exists for busineses to add interest to outstanding debts—but they must still proceed through the civil courts. Even if a judgment is made in their favour, they may have to return to the courts to have it enforced. It is a matter not just of having a statutory requirement but of reviewing civil court procedures and the way in which bailiffs operate. There is a remarkable difference in some areas between the efficiency of bailiffs who act for magistrates and those who act for county courts. I hope that consultation will take into account recovery procedures through the civil courts.
  The 1992 Conservative manifesto promised to continue to reduce taxes as fast as we prudently could. Opposition Members had a lot to say about manifesto promises. To be imprudent in the levying of any tax would not serve the people of this country or produce a sound economy. In my own election address, with which I doubt that hon. Members are familiar—
  Mr. Don Foster indicated assent.
  Mrs. Browning: If the hon. Member for Bath likes, I will put a copy in the Library. I made two promises on the economy. One was that we would build on the lower rate 20 per cent. tax band. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend promised to do that in his Budget. Tiverton has lower-than-average wages, so the 20 per cent. band is important to people in my constituency.
  My second promise—I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bath nodding in approval at this, or I assume that that is why he is nodding—was that a Conservative Government would maintain sound money. When the country has a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement, that cannot be done by giveaway Budgets which do not address the need to claw back such an overspend. It necessarily had to be a tough Budget, but it was also a sound and fair Budget.
  On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill which followed the March Budget, I made what I hoped was a strong speech. I have continued to make representations that the underpinning of VAT on domestic fuel should cover all pensioners—not just those on income-related benefits. Devon has a high retirement population, and it seemed that we were being particularly hard on a group of people whom we in the Conservative party rightly encouraged to be prudent by investing in a small occupational pension or putting aside savings for their retirement. I warmly welcome the decision by my right hon. and learned Friend to extend to all pensioners additional benefits in respect of VAT on domestic fuel. I shall have no hesitation in supporting that Government measure, having lobbied hard for them to listen.
  I warmly welcome also the child care allowance. Opposition spokesmen expressed concern today as to who will receive that allowance. I understand that it will help 150,000 families, including 50,000 lone parents. As someone who has long advocated tax relief on registered child care, I must not lose this opportunity to encourage my right hon. and learned Friend to consider seriously for future Budgets tax relief on bona fide child care. That would be an enormous advantage and benefit to the most common form of working family units—single parents or households where both parents have to work.

  101
  I should like to flag again one matter which, as I represent a rural constituency, it would be wrong of me to ignore: tax on petrol. I am sorry that an additional burden has been placed on the cost of petrol, because in rural areas cars are not luxuries but necessities. A large supermarket with a petrol station has recently opened quite close to my constituency. Since then, reduced-price petrol has been available and other garages have matched that station's prices. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will consider competition in the petrol industry because it would help my constituents.
  I welcome the Budget and I shall have great pleasure in supporting my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in the Lobby tomorrow.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Jamie Cann: The Chancellor's Budget statement on 30 November has been well received in the media, or certainly on the news pages—the financial pages seem a bit windier about it—and it has been gratefully received by Conservative Members: the civil war, for the moment, appears to be off.
  What has the Chancellor done? On the spending side, housing, defence, transport and council revenue support have been ruthlessly cut. When even that did not produce sufficient savings, the contingency reserve was slashed from £7·5 billion to £3·5 billion in Tommy Cooper fashion —just like that. That £3·5 billion is only just above 1·5 per cent. of total projected spending for 1994–95. I was leader of Ipswich council for 12 years, and there was no year when the contingency figure allocated at the beginning of the financial year was less than 5 per cent. Indeed, I usually had a job making the treasurer keep it down to that figure. The Chancellor's reduction is a bold stroke for a Government who overspend on budgets as prodigiously as this one.
  I notice, however, that the contingency total for 1996–97 has been left at a healthy £10·5 billion. Being a naive young man, I cannot think why the Chancellor should foresee the need for a contigency for that year three times higher than for 1994–95. I am sure that most hon. Members will share my puzzlement. We certainly should cast out of our minds any uncharitable thoughts about the timing of the next general election and the ability to have a little money in the kitty for tax cuts or yet again to send out hundreds of millions of pounds to reduce national health service patient waiting lists. The Chancellor has chosen to risk reducing his contingency this year so that he can claim to have reduced public expenditure in total. That has pleased the City. It has also obviously pleased Conservative Members as they are grinning, smirking and smiling. Whether they will be so pleased in a year's time remains to be seen.
  Even those reductions—the real reduction in much-needed capital programmes and the spurious reductions in the contingency fund—cannot balance the books, so tax increases have been decreed: the largest tax increases since the Napoleonic wars according to one commentator, but perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. And the increases have fallen, of course, on the shoulders of ordinary men and women and old age pensioners.
  How did the public accounts get in this mess? Why are such measures necessary? In the 1980s the Government received £146 billion in North sea oil revenues and privatisation proceeds. Some of that money, to be fair, was
  102
  spent redeeming national debt, but the vast majority of it was blown: it was used as an alternative revenue to allow massive reductions in income tax—predominantly, of course, for the very best off. As those revenues have now gone, the hole in the Government's tax base must be made up, and it is being done by imposing additional tax increases such as VAT on fuel and power, such as 1 per cent. on national insurance——
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cann: No, I will not. It was spent on anything, it seems, except the one tax that is accepted by the British people as fair—that is, income tax.
  On the first Monday of every month, I hold a surgery at Age Concern's old age pensioner drop-in centre in Ipswich. Today I asked the people there about nice Mr. Clarke's package of help to pay the value added tax on their fuel and power. They were not very impressed. Even if the projected compensation package covered the likely increase in their bills, which it will not, they would still not believe in it because they no longer believe a word the Government say.
  The City and Conservative Members may applaud the Budget; backs have no doubt been slapped and I am sure that jolly parties have been taking place, but there is no rejoicing or smirking elsewhere. People are gritting their teeth in the knowledge that in April their real income, whether from wages, pensions or benefits, will be reduced and that their bills, unlike those of members of the Government, will rise yet again.
  In Ipswich, 18,000 people signed petitions against VAT on fuel and power, as I am sure people have done in towns and cities across the country. Yet the Government take no notice. They took no notice of public opinion on the poll tax or the closure of the coal mines, but at the end of the day the Government will suffer because this is a political Budget aimed only at looking after their own. The people will take their revenge on the Government every time they are given the opportunity to do so, in ballot box after ballot box.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: I willingly join my many colleagues who have congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on the content and delivery of his first Budget. If I needed any persuasion of the rightness of his Budget, all that I should do would be to watch the antics and behaviour of the Opposition parties in the debate.
  It is bizarre that a Budget which the Opposition tell us will damage recovery and the prospects of job creation should be welcomed by every sensible leading business organisation. It is equally bizarre that a Budget which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who has left the Chamber, tells us is bad for lone parents should be welcomed by the National Council for One Parent Families. Even Mr. Gavyn Davies, who has been an adviser to the Labour party on economic policy, said that it was a brave and sensible Budget. It appears that the only people who do not recognise that, although they probably know it in their hearts but must pretend to oppose it, are members of the Labour party.
  Watching the Opposition is like watching an audition for Scrooge in a Christmas pantomime. Having witnessed

  103
  the failure of the policy to bring more women into the shadow Cabinet, Labour Members know that the only way to become a member of the shadow Cabinet is to be more miserable, pessimistic and depressing than any other Labour Member.
  It is one thing for the Labour party to talk down the recovery, but it is despicable and even odious to tell old people to turn off their heaters because they will not be able to afford to pay their gas and electricity bills when they know that measures in the Budget mean that people need have no such fears. It is very sad that a party which no longer has any policies or principles and which, following the Government's lead in other areas, has even contracted out their search for new ideas, should now have to rely on the politics of fear to make capital out of this debate.
  We have heard nothing from the Labour party about how to stimulate economic recovery. But that is what the Budget is all about, which is why the business men in High Peak welcome it and are writing to tell me that they think the Government are on the right track. The Opposition are fundamentally wrong to say that the recovery is fragile —it is not a fragile but a cautious recovery. Business men are looking to invest, but they are taking it step by step. There was fragility at the end of the 1980s when things were boiling over. People are cautious, but the recovery is now anything but fragile.
  The aspects of the debate on which I shall concentrate are those of housing, because that is a subject in which I have taken a special interest during the past months, as joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on homelessness. Initially, any attempt to reduce the housing budget would be viewed with concern throughout the House, but the more I consider the proposals in the Budget, the more I think that there are elements there which, through creative thinking, will enable us to tackle the problems of homelessness and of bad housing better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We constantly hear from the Opposition the mantra that we need 100,000 new houses a year. We know that if we built 100,000 new houses a year they would say, "Not enough; we need 150,000" and that if we built 150,000 they would say, "Give us 200,000." The debate always concentrates on building new houses, when already there are 800,000 houses in the country which are built but which are lying empty. The top priority for the Government, in trying to tackle the problem of underhousing and homelessness, has to be to bring those empty properties back into use.
  Seventy-six thousand properties that are owned by local authorities are lying empty. That is a disgrace because those local authorities are the guardians of the public interest and if they are unable to look after those houses and bring them back into use, the houses should be turned over to members of the public who are willing to spend their money on bringing them back into use so that they can contribute to the housing stock.
  Sixteen thousand houses that are currently owned by the Government are empty, but the Government have taken a direct lead on that, because the Ministry of Defence is the worst offender and directly through the Budget it will be made to bring those houses back into use. If the Government can give that sort of lead, it is a shame that Labour local authorities insist on sitting on so many empty houses.
  104
  It is in the private sector, however, where 700,000 houses are lying empty, that the biggest part of the problem exists. The Government are tackling that problem by changing the rules on terms of tenancy and now by seeking to take tougher action on squatting so that people do not have the fear about people moving into their properties.
  We have already taken action in relation to flats above shops, to bring those 100,000 flats back into use, but we need to go further. In my mind, it is nonsense that one gets a council tax rebate of 50 per cent. if one has an empty property. If one runs a commercial business and chooses to keep the flat above one's shop empty, it is quite reasonable that one should pay that council tax bill in full.
  The only aspect of the Budget with which I am disappointed is that there was nothing to stimulate the private rented sector because, with the loss of the business expansion scheme, there is a case for more help to be given. For example, we are already seeing the success of the rent-a-room scheme, whereby people renting out a room can get up to £60 a week. It would be legitimate to say to individuals who own houses that they could have their income from renting out those houses tax-free for the first year to encourage them back into the market. There will be no loss to the Treasury because those houses are currently lying empty.
  We need to find a better use for the housing stock. There are many ways of doing that. The housing associations which reacted with some concern—I think misplaced—to the announcement in the Budget last week, can play a vital role in that. A few weeks ago, I went to see an elderly lady in my constituency. She is on income support and she owns her house outright. She is 87 and she wants to move into council accommodation. She has been told that she might have to wait 10 years and at 87 that does not please her much. It would make much more sense for housing associations to go into properties such as that, to carry out the conversion, to enable her to live in a smaller unit in her own house, with better insulation and greater ability to contain her heating costs, and then for the housing association to manage the letting out of the other portion. She will not do it on her own because, at 87, she is frightened of bringing in building contractors, but if it is made easier for her, it is something which she will be willing to do.
  We could spend a small amount on bringing back into use the empty housing stock in the country and on using the housing stock better, which would cost a fraction of the cost of building new houses. If this debate does anything in terms of housing policy, it has to make us think creatively of how we bring that housing stock back into use and how we deliver better housing for all our people.
  We can consider those aspects without even thinking about how we can contain demand. Over the past 14 years, there has been a net increase of 2 million houses, yet demand has outstripped supply. In addition to the measures that the Government are taking on housing, measures are being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not yet."] Well, he soon will be. I was saying that the measures that he is taking to review access to housing are important, too.
  Some constituents of mine have queued for years for housing only to find that they have been pushed to the bottom of the waiting list by people who were not on it at all. In the past six months in High Peak, 45 per cent. of council house allocations have gone to single parents who

  105
  were not even on the waiting list. I do not say that they got pregnant to get a council house, but the figures show clearly that there is incontrovertible evidence that people who have been waiting on the housing list have found themselves pushed back by others who were not on it. I welcome the fact that the Government intend to look into this aspect of the problem early in the new year.
  This is a Budget aimed at recovery, which is above all what the country needs. It is a Budget that will help small businesses, which have been striving in difficult circumstances in our constituencies. They welcome the measures enabling them to export more, to bring in new private sector money and to help them succeed. They know that this is a Budget for jobs and for the long-term interests of the economy. They have been making their welcome for the Budget clear to Conservative Members—and, I am sure, to Opposition Members, although the latter do not want to listen to the good news.
  This is a long-term Budget. It is about getting things right in the long term, because that is what matters most. We all know that we face a difficult economic climate, but everyone knows in his heart, even though not everyone voices it, that we could not go on spending or borrowing as much as we were. We all know that higher taxes represented a decision that could not have been avoided. People have nothing but contempt for a party that pretends that there was any alternative. It was easy to pretend that, but in our hearts we all know that the Government got this Budget absolutely right.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: On the day Parliament reassembled, 18 October, I published a study on the decline of press reporting of Parliament which showed—
  Mr. Patten: Very good it was, too.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's approbation of that, if nothing else.
  The report showed that, while reporting of Parliament was fairly consistent between 1933 and 1988, it has declined by three quarters since 1988. Reports in newspapers such as The Times and The Guardian and other so-called papers of record take up only 100 lines, compared with between 400 and 800 in the past.
  Stung by my criticism of their reporting, some of the journalists responsible said that they had deserted the Chamber because contributions to debate were boring and too characteristic of yah-boo politics. Had some of those journalists sat through this debate, as some of us have, they would have been struck by the high standards of speeches by hon. Members on both sides. Many of them were thoughtful speeches, and with one singular exception, to which I shall come in a moment—
  Mr. Patten: Me?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman, whatever else he may be, is not a singular exception. As I say, with one singular exception, speeches by Conservative Back Benchers have been surprisingly muted in their support for a Budget which, only five days after its delivery, is being damned by faint praise.
  The right hon. Members for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) raised an interesting
  106
  issue to do with the meaning of paragraph 2.07 in the Red Book, and how there has been a change in the definition of funding of the national debt.
  The right hon. Gentlemen and I, and everybody else, understood that funding was defined as the sale of debt to the non-banking sector. Through this curious piece of gobbledegook, it is now deemed to include the sale of debt to the banking sector itself. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Financial Secretary will explain that change of policy and definition.
  The right hon. Member for Worthing was correct when he said that this was one of the first fundings of debt that has led to the increase in money supply about which the paragraph boasts.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman will have read paragraph 2.07 and will have noted that the policy change to which he refers was announced in March.
  Mr. Straw: It was obviously announced with so few press notices that not only did I not notice it, which is probably natural, but neither did the right hon. Member for Worthing.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I raised the matter at the time of the last Budget, but I am not sure whether I did so in the House.
  Mr. Straw: That is what comes of having a non-Treasury Opposition spokesman winding up in the Budget debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a powerful speech in which he spoke about the wheezes of the Chancellor and their resonance on someone that he once served. I shall deal with the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) when I come to wider economic matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstong) raised the important issue of the extent and scope of the so-called child care allowance. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will deal with that in his winding-up speech. It appeared that £28 a week would be available as a disregard for virtually everybody on any kind of benefit who had a child care need.
  Mr. Dorrell: No.
  Mr. Straw: I said that that was the way it appeared. That is certainly not the reality and I am glad to note that the Financial Secretary confirms that. As my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, about 90 per cent. of family credit beneficiaries receive the maximum family credit. Therefore, it is impossible for them to have the benefit of any disregard. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that? If, as we suspect, that is correct, how will the benefit help those in greatest need—those who receive the maximum amount of family credit?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am afraid that the statistic is not quite right, because fewer than a quarter of lone parents on family credit currently receive the full benefit. We expect the new allowance to help about 150,000 families, including 50,000 lone parents, who are currently on income support.
  Mr. Straw: The Financial Secretary confirms, if not the proportion of beneficiaries of family credit who receive the maximum amount, the fact that those who do cannot benefit from the change.
  Mr. Dorrell: That is correct.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) made a good speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) reminded the House of Samuel Johnson's connection to that great constituency and to the House. I used to wonder when I read "The Life of Samuel Johnson" why he made so many trips to Streatham. I think that Mrs. Thrale was the answer, and the trips seemed to be more than in the course of duty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) made a powerful speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) who, for a long time, was the leader of one of the best Labour councils in the country. The singular exception as a recipient of compliments is the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) whose speech was full of pernicious and vacuous cliches.
  I wondered how anyone could make a speech composed only of pernicious and backward cliches until I read the biographical notes in "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", to which the hon. Gentleman has acceded. That tells us everything we need to know about the hon. Gentleman and his little speeches. It tells us that he was a public relations consultant to a public relations agency. I would not normally mention this, but it should be known by a wider audience. We are told that, sad to say, the hon. Gentleman was political adviser to John Moore. I am not surprised that he has gone on to make as many mistakes as his former boss.
  There will be an opportunity to debate the settlement on local government at a later date, but I wish to make three points about it on this occasion.
  I notice that no Minister from the Department of the Environment—apart from the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction, who has just walked in, having changed out of a dinner jacket in five minutes flat—has adorned the Government Front Bench during the debate.
  There is no doubt that the so-called settlement announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment on Thursday involves a substantial cut in what the Government planned to spend at this time last year in 1994–95 and 1995–96. I have no idea why the Secretary of State for the Environment should seek to protest about this. Table 5·4 of the Red Book makes it clear that he accepted a cut of £860 million in plans for 1994–95 and £1·5 billion in plans for 1995–96—a three times greater cut than that experienced by any other Department. The Secretary of State's idea of negotiations with the Chief Secretary must be to go into his room holding a white flag and with his hands up. I cannot think of any other tactic that would have produced such a poor result.
  I know that the Secretary of State for Education is desperate for me to mention him, and now I do. He should know, as a former Minister at the Department of the Environment, that if that Department is good at one thing it is bad briefs. As to the effect of this year's and last year's settlement on jobs, he was badly briefed by the Department of the Environment and parroted the same sort of claptrap that the Secretary of State came out with on Thursday—
  108
  that last year's settlement had not led to any loss of jobs. I did not talk about teaching directly but about local authorities as a whole, and I was castigated for implying that there would be a loss of jobs.
  The Secretary of State went further last Thursday and claimed that there had been an increase in the number of jobs in Birmingham. I have information from Birmingham city council, which probably knows more about its job numbers than the Secretary of State for the Environment does. During the past year, there has been a decline of 1,800 in the number of people employed in that city.
  Across the country during the last year, a number of local authority employees have lost their jobs. Excluding all those who have transferred to the further education sector, where they are no longer employed directly by local government, those who have transferred to the grant-maintained sector and those who have transferred to contractors who are undertaking jobs previously done by local government, the number of people who have lost their jobs in local government exceeds 20,000. It is likely that we when we see the figures from the Local Government Management Board they will be higher.
  This time last year, the then Secretary of State, now the Home Secretary, was foolish enough to say that no job losses would arise as a consequence of what he announced last December. Will the Financial Secretary be as foolish as the Home Secretary was this time last year, and offer the same kind of commitment that no job losses will follow as a result of this settlement? In our judgment, there is no doubt that jobs will indeed be lost.
  My third point concerns the Government's current policy of controlling the totality of local authority expenditure, including the amounts that authorities raise from their own resources. It is that policy which has caused the current financial crisis in local government. I have never disputed the notion that central Government—with the approval of the House of Commons—have the right to set the amount of grant that local authorities should receive and the manner in which they should receive it, and to cash limit that amount; indeed, I fully support that notion, on which both sides seem to agree. What I dispute is the suggestion that it is right for the Treasury and the House to seek to control what local authorities spend from their own resources, and that authorities should then be accountable to the House and to Ministers rather than to their local electorates.
  It should be borne in mind that
  "the present procedures lump together expenditure for which Government has differing degrees of responsibility and this blurs the status of the varous aggregates"
  of what central Government pay out by way of grant and what local government raises from its own resources.
  "A further disadvantage is that by counting the total expenditure of local authorities in the planning total, insufficient attention is paid to the grants which central government provides to local authorities".
  It is also worth pointing out that
  "Very few other industrial countries plan public spending in this way. For federal states, such as Germany, the United States or Canada, this would conflict with their federal constitutions. But even in other unitary states such as France or the Netherlands the government generally makes budgetary plans only for central government expenditure."
  Those three passages are taken from a White Paper entitled "A New Public Expenditure Planning Total", published in July 1988 by the Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. For a period during that

  109
  year, his policy was the same as that of the Labour party: to exclude from the planning total what local authorities spent from their own resources.
  Let me ask the Financial Secretary a question. If the policy so eloquently expressed by the present Prime Minister was good enough for him in 1988, why has it now been repudiated? Why are we now in the absurd position whereby central Government, through a plethora of algebraic and other formulae, seek crudely to control the totality of local government spending?
  Let me put another important point to the Financial Secretary. There is no doubt that, in any one year, the Government's decisions on standard spending assessments and capping will be highly disruptive to the activities of local authorities, and that they cause jobs to be lost. Evidence increasingly suggests that, over time, such control does not affect the tramline of local government spending. That emerged from an important study conducted by the London School of Economics this time last year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central made some important comments about VAT on fuel, which he described as a killer tax that would undoubtedly cause more people to die from hypothermia than would otherwise be the case. On a number of occasions, we have been challenged to say how we would raise the revenue. Several times before the Budget, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) went out of his way to point out that several billion pounds—not just £1 billion or £2 billion—could be saved by dealing with loopholes and tax avoidance.
  The Chancellor looks up. His problem is that he fails to apply himself to detail. We now know that he has not read the Maastricht treaty; nor has he read the appropriate accounts that were issued to the House last Friday. He damn well should, as should the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary. Paragraph 171 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, on the basis of information provided by the Inland Revenue, estimates the size of the hidden economy. It says:
  "It is not possible to assess accurately the tax loss resulting from this hidden economic activity … there may be an annual tax loss of several billion pounds per annum."
  Those figures have come not from a press release of the shadow Chancellor, but the appropriation accounts published by the Comptroller and Auditor General with information from the Inland Revenue. Is the Chancellor repudiating what the Inland Revenue has told the Comptroller?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is looking at the latest estimates of the kind of economy covered by black economy work in the home repairs, gardening and window cleaning parts of the economy. His hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) claims to be able to raise £2 billion extra corporation tax from closing loopholes. How much corporation tax is he going to get from off-the-books gardeners and window cleaners?
  Mr. Straw: If the Chancellor had bothered to read the appropriation accounts, he would have seen that there is a big table of the amount of revenue of corporation tax that has been lost. It also states that the amount of income tax that has had to be written off has doubled from £883 million in 1991 to £1,694 million in 1992—a loss of £900 million in a single year.
  110
  If the Secretary of State had read The Daily Telegraph, as I presume that he sometimes does, he would have seen an article on Friday that said:
  "Britain's 'black economy' is now worth up to £48 billion a year with a subsequent loss to the taxpayer of several billion pounds".
  Instead of whingeing, the Chancellor should apply himself to sorting out the black economy and retrieving that money.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is a quite different set of loopholes from those usually used by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. The collection of the hon. Member for Blackburn is even tattier than that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East who usually describes as loopholes his proposals for increasing taxation on successful British business. It is scratching about among uncollected tax that goes with every system when the hon. Member for Blackburn knows perfectly well that this Budget will raise about half a billion pounds each year in closing tax loopholes that he has not identified. That sort of thing cannot explain his total lack of economic policy at any time in his speech.
  Mr. Straw: I am sure that the chairman of the Inland Revenue and the Comptroller and Auditor General will be pleased to know in the morning that the Secretary of State describes the 300 pages of that carefully written document as evidence that I have been scrubbing about. It contains the most serious evidence of the extent to which people are fiddling their tax. I have not made it up. It says that there may be an annual tax loss of several billion pounds per annum arising from the black economy and the Secretary of State has done absolutely nothing about that. Even The Daily Telegraph does not believe him. That was why it ran a story on Friday about tax evaders who cost Britain billions of pounds.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a speech that was supportive of the Government in comparison to his previous speeches. Normally, there is no praise whatever for the Government in his speeches and we feel like tossing him a Labour party card. Tonight, there was an occasional half sentence of praise along with a lot of damnation. He said that the United Kingdom needs a clear economic strategy for growth and that we do not have it. The hon. Gentleman, on this as on so many other issues, was exactly right. There was no strategy in the Budget for economic growth; nor was there any strategy for industry.
  It has been interesting to see how comments that were favourable to the Budget on the day after are now turning sour. The excellent Mr. Peter Riddell wrote in a studied piece in The Times this morning:
  "The Budget is flawed as a long-term strategy … The package adds up to an exercise in political survival … Mr. Clarke may only be sorting out the errors of the past, but that may not save him, or the Tories."
  As we know, the Budget has raised taxation in breach of all the promises that the Chancellor and every other Conservative Member made at the general election. The Budget will increase dependency, and will not reduce it. It does nothing to create a nation at work to replace the nation on benefit created by the Tories. The Budget is based on promises cynically given at the general election and cynically broken ever since. The Budget is proof of two things only: that the Tory party is now a party of high taxation and that the Tory party is a party which will never be trusted again by the British people.
  9.40 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) called to mind what was once said about Lord Whitelaw—that the more he blustered, the less he believed it. We have just heard the seventh contribution by Opposition Front-Bench Members to the Budget debate, and I found the experience immensely depressing. Economic policy should lie at the heart of political debate in this House and each year's Budget should lie at the heart of debate about that issue. Yet throughout this Budget debate, Opposition Front-Bench Members have made no serious attempt to address any of the issues.
  Of course, it come as no surprise that the Opposition do not embrace the strategy espoused by the Government. What is disappointing is that every speech by Opposition Front-Bench Members has been lightweight, frivolous and dilettante. Their speeches have not sought to address the issues confronting the House. The issues of the Budget affect the lives of millions of people, yet Opposition Front-Bench Members seem concerned more with sound bites than with policy. The debate has been depressing for the quality of their speeches.
  Where do the Opposition stand, for example, on inflation? The Government have made their position clear. We have defined our inflation objectives and we have made clear how we intend to attain those objectives. Furthermore, we are able to say that we are attaining them and that inflation is under better control than it has been for a generation. The retail prices index has been at under 2 per cent. throughout the year. The last time that that happened was in 1960. The RPI, minus mortgage interest payments —MIPS—is currently running at about 3 per cent. lower than expected and lower than at any time since 1968.
  Not only the performance, but the prospects are good. Earnings are rising at half the rate of the slowest year during the 1980s. That, coupled with good manufacturing productivity. means that for the first time since 1960 unit wage costs have been falling throughout the year. That is the vital bedrock for the future security of the British economy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said, we have grown used to the euphemism of "demand management" being used as an excuse to cover for inflation and deficit. The Government have made it clear in the Budget that they do not intend to retreat behind that euphemism any longer, and my right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the importance of that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) also drew attention to the importance of ensuring that the Government have a credible counter-inflation policy.
  Where stands the Labour party on all those issues? It would be unfair for me to say that Labour Members have said nothing. In March this year, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) delivered this line:
  "We know enough to eschew the notion that inflation can simply be ignored."
  The Opposition have learnt that much. Within a year of becoming shadow Chancellor, the hon. Gentleman has learnt that inflation cannot be ignored. I suppose that we should be thankful for small mercies.
  Ms Armstrong: The Chancellor told us in his Budget statement that inflation would rise. By how much does the Chief Secretary expect it to rise next year?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady will have to make do with the Financial Secretary. The Government published forecasts on Budget day demonstrating that inflation would be well within the 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. target range throughout the forecast period covered in the Budget.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline. East has said that he eschews the notion that inflation can be simply ignored, but what more does he say about it? Does he endorse the Government's counter-inflation objective? Does he endorse the criteria which were set out as to how that objective will be delivered? If he does not endorse the objective or the criteria, what would he put in their place?
  All that we have as a substitute for a policy is what one might call "Brown's Law"—that interest rates should be fixed by the formula of x minus 2 per cent., where x is the prevailing rate of interest. Whatever the circumstances, interest rates—according to the hon. Gentleman—are too high. His calls for reductions in interest rates would be more persuasive if he could think of a single occasion in the past five years when he or any of his hon. Friends have argued for an increase in interest rates. It is always the Opposition's case that they are 2 per cent. too high. That is their case now, as it was right through the late 1980s. We now know that at that time the Opposition were telling us that there should be further cuts when in fact interest rates were not too high but too low.
  We do not get much about monetary policy in Labour speeches either in this debate or outside the House. What of fiscal policy? In the Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend made the Government's position crystal clear. The first table of the Red Book sets out my right hon. and learned Friend's plans for the elimination of the current deficit by 1997–98, and the total elimination of the budget deficit by the end of the planning period.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) expressed some scepticism about the unified Budget procedures. He is less than totally enthusiastic about those new procedures, but I must say to my right hon. Friend that the new procedures have allowed us, in preparing and presenting the Budget, to demonstrate the proper balance which should exist between spending and revenue plans. Table 1.1 of the Red Book allows my right hon. and learned Friend to show how he intends to eliminate the current balance and to set clear plans to eliminate budget deficit altogether. That will be done by reducing the share of national income taken by current spending and by increasing the share of national income accounted for by Government revenues within a reasonable period.
  The unified Budget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing is sceptical about poses a challenge to the Opposition as well—and a challenge to which, on the strength of their contributions to the debate, every Opposition Member has failed to rise. Do the Opposition agree that we need to plan to eliminate the current deficit?
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Yes.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) says yes, so that is something. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that every one of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench sat motionless. They do not know whether they are in favour of eliminating the Budget deficit.
  Mr. Straw: When the hon. Gentleman referred to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) I thought he was about to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's more

  113
  substantial criticism of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were planning to take out by way of reducing the PSBR "too much, too soon". Will the Financial Secretary comment on that criticism of the Government's PSBR plans from the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am sure that it was a slip of memory, but the hon. Member for Blackburn did not mention in his speech the subject that was raised by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman did not express a view as to whether the Government were moving too fast or too slowly in eliminating the budget deficit. He did not set out an alternative strategy to the House, nor did he tell us whether the budget deficit is too high or too low. The hon. Gentleman did not say what should be done about it. All that we have heard from the Opposition is a variety of different ways in which they think that the Government should spend more of the taxpayer's money.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question about job prospects in local government which I will answer. In looking to the future for local government, the important thing is that we should ensure that the opportunity exists for services to be maintained and improved at acceptable cost to council tax payers. That is why, in a year in which the Government, in the central planning of their expenses, have insisted on a zero cash increase, with increases in pay paid for by increases in productivity, we are planning for a 2·3 per cent. increase in local authority expenditure. That will allow local government the opportunity to continue to see services improve without imposing unreasonable costs on council tax payers. That is the right set of objectives to give to local government in the coming year.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for dealing with part of my question. I raised a more fundamental issue, however: why are the Government now following a policy that is directly opposed to that followed by the Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary and published in the White Paper in 1988? All the points that the Financial Secretary has just made were known to the Prime Minister then, so why was the policy changed?
  Mr. Dorrell: For reasons that were set out clearly when we published the rationale for the new control total last year—namely, that we thought it important to have a more effective control on the total level of public expenditure accounted for by the state in its various forms in order to deliver the reduction in the share of national income accounted for by expenditure set out in table 1.1 of the Red Book—an issue about which the Opposition have eschewed any comment during the debate.
  Whenever he is challenged about the Opposition's plans for fiscal policy or particular spending or tax proposals within the fiscal balance, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East produces the same answer. He tells us that growth will solve all the problems—that there will be no difficult choices, just the opportunity for continued soft-focus sound bites. There will be no choices, no rough edges, no difficult decisions to be made.
  As the shadow Chancellor puts so much weight on the prospect of growth so fast that it would absolve him from having to make any difficult decisions, we might have expected him at some time during his various utterances to let us have some ideas about how he would generate growth. What did the shadow Chancellor have to say about how growth will be created in the economy? The best that
  114
  one can say of his utterances is that they are misleading, and most of them are either misunderstandings or plain wrong.
  There is no better way of illustrating that than to look at what the shadow Chancellor had to say about investment. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the importance of investment. Despite what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said, the Government's record is rather good. If we compare the most recent six years—the six years from 1987 to 1992—with the six years when the Labour party was last in power, we find a 49 per cent. increase in real terms in business investment and a 70 per cent. increase in real terms in investment in plant and machinery. In the 1970s, United Kingdom investment grew at a rate roughly two thirds of the G7 average, whereas in the 1980s it grew at a rate roughly 175 per cent. of the G7 average. The Government's record of promoting and creating the circumstances for growth of investment —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) may be sceptical about some aspects of it, but he cannot argue with the figures, which show clearly that the investment track record of the Government through the 1980s boosted our investment performance both as compared with our own previous record and as compared with that of our G7 competitors.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Would the Financial Secretary care to comment on housing investment? What does he think will be the consequences of the 8 per cent. cut in housing investment in the Budget for my constituency, where residents of the Egghill estate are told that they should turn on their taps or open their windows in the middle of December because that cuts down on condensation? Birmingham needs £1·3 billion of housing investment just to do up its housing stock. Where is the housing investment that will enable Birmingham to do that?
  Mr. Dorrell: I was talking about business investment, which does not include housing investment. I must tell the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about housing investment. We intend to deliver—in fact more than deliver—the manifesto commitment that we gave for new housing development. Furthermore, we shall do that by involving the private sector, which is something that the Labour party never counts in any of its calculations for the development of investment or economic activity.
  When looking at how one promotes investment, it is important to understand why we saw such an improvement through the 1980s in this country's investment performance. The Government, including my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, believe that the way to promote investment is by promoting profitability and seeing the opportunity for companies to make profits and achieve a return which attracts new investment in the future. That is why we have created the lowest rate of tax on corporate profits anywhere in the developed world.
  We also believe that to attract investment into an economy it is necessary to ensure that the labour market is sufficiently flexible not to frighten off internationally mobile investment projects. It is because we have put in place the incentives and the necessary steps to create that regime that we attracted 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the EC in the late 1980s.
  How does that compare with what the Labour party proposed? Although I have said that we have not heard

  115
  much from the Labour party about its monetary policy, we have not heard much from it about its fiscal policy. We do, of course, repeatedly hear from it what it proposes to do, for example, on social costs. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition when he went to the TUC meeting in September. He said that he was proud that the Labour party fought the last election on the policy of a national minimum wage, and that it remains a cornerstone of its new deal for low-paid workers.
  It may be that, but it will not do much for investment. Again at that meeting, the Leader of the Opposition reiterated his support for the social chapter and furthermore promised a new right for trade unions that did not exist even in the 1970s: that employers would, under a new Labour Government, be legally obliged to recognise trade unions.
  I wonder how that will play with those mergers in multinational companies who are trying to attract internationally mobile funds to come and invest in Britain. The reality is that when the Labour party reduces from generality to detail, every one of its details would have the effect of frightening off the investment that it says that it wants.
  That is not all. The Labour party says it wants investment, but who are the big investors in Britain? Let us start with the privatised utilities. The Labour party wants to put a windfall tax on them.
  Mr. Straw: Lower their prices.
  Mr.Dorrell: That is exactly what the Labour party does not want to do. It wants to suspend the regulation and impose a windfall tax to safeguard the high prices so that it can raise extra tax out of what it calls excess profits. By its approach to the utilities, the Labour party would undermine the investment intentions of those privatised utilities.
  That is part of a wider strategy, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said earlier. It is not just the utilities that would face a higher tax if there were a re-elected Labour Government. When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East wants to raise tax from business, we now know that he calls it a loophole.
  I shall tell hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench about corporation tax. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East says that he wants to end underpayment of corporation tax. In plain English, he wants to put up the rate of corporation tax. He wants to abandon the foreign income dividend scheme. In plain English, he wants to
  116
  insist on double taxation of profits of international companies based in Britain. He wants to end ACT on scrip dividends.
  For the first time—this is an important breakthrough for the Labour party—it is criticisng British companies, not for paying too much in dividends, but for paying too little. The ACT, it says, should be imposed because those companies are artificially depressing their dividends. Through all of those measures, the story is consistent. It is to impose tax on business, blind to the implications of that extra tax burden for the investment plans of British business.
  This has been another disappointing day, with no hint from either of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on monetary policy or fiscal policy as to where they stand on the supply side changes. The only policy package with any detail sketched in is their commitment to reregulate the labour market—the one policy that would be damaging to economic prospects and investment in business. Every time they face a choice on economic issues they go the wrong way. They are a Jekyll and Hyde Opposition—in favour of investment and against investors, in favour of business and against business men, in favour of wealth and against wealth creation. They can never bring themselves to face choices and make the right choice to deliver the recovery that they say that they want.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Sir Anthony Durant be discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Mr. Anthony Coombs be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  HEALTH
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Jacqui Lait be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Michael Bates be added to the Committee. —[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Willetts be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Bernard Jenkin he added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TRANSPORT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Peter Luff be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. James Hill be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Fund Management
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.].
  10 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise to such an enthusiastic leaving of the audience to call, in this brief Adjournment debate, for a separation of roles between fund management and dealing in currency trading so that fund managers in currency trading are not required to trade in-house where they are at the mercy of the in-house dealers. I ask this so that we can protect the consumer and preserve the integrity of the financial markets.
  The particular instance that I wish to outline arises from information brought to my attention by a young man, Evan Souliotis, former manager of the American Express bank international currency fund and its discretionary management programme. The first fund started with $18 million, but when he took it over, it had dwindled to $8 million, and the second was a new fund, which he created, with $2 million at its disposal.
  Souliotis found when he took over the fund and began the new fund that, as the manager charged with the responsibility of getting the best deal for the clients of the fund, he not only had to do his dealings in-house but, in a situation that amounted to playing poker, the opponents in the game—the spot dealers in the currency trading room —knew his hand, and knew his expectations from the technical information that he had to produce each day.
  Therefore, the dealers had the advantage over the fund manager, and they were dealing with him in a monopoly situation. They did not have to compete for his business: he had to go to them, and they could give him the prices that suited them, rather than the keener prices that would have been obtainable had he been able to deal outside where the spreads were wider.
  Furthermore, the dealers could use him to generate profits for themselves. They were required to take two points off every trade for their own trading accounts, a requirement which the customers were not told. In addition, they could hypothetically take points for themselves, and it looked from the history of the fund, the records, as though that had been happening. That was a monopoly in which the fund manager was required to deal through in-house dealers and could not go outside for better prices, and exploitation was possible, theoretically and in practical terms.
  We are dealing with huge sums. Let us take a $10 million trade, which is levied two points in and two points out, and add a hypothetical five points each way for the dealer. That is 14 points going astray on the trade, which would generate $10,000 a day in points subtracted from it. That is the equivalent of 22 per cent. interest for that fund over the whole year—all lost to the customers of that fund, and all pretty well untraceable. There are voice tapes, which are kept for two to three months, but they do not show the comparative prices outside. There is also an audit trail, but it is difficult to trace anything—not least, what competitive prices were at the time that a trade was made. In a monopoly, there was no opportunity to go outside—as American Express itself did, when currency trading, in going outside its own dealing room.
  118
  The situation was open to exploitation and to the churning of customers' accounts. That churning clearly went on before Souliotis took over, which is why the fund dwindled from $18 million to $8 million.
  Having quickly assessed the situation, Souliotis restructured the fund. He lessened its exposure to the markets and cut the number of trades to stop the churning. He also kept a close eye on the dealing room, going in to secure better terms and narrower spreads for his customers. He made himself a nuisance, but the fund's performance improved. Its share price rose month by month and was profitable for the fund's customers over the six months that Souliotis ran it. That profitability, however, was at the expense of the bank, which ceased to make the previous easy profits from churning and points on each trade. Eventually, Souliotis was kept out of the dealing room, and then was fired.
  Not unnaturally, Souliotis went to the regulators, and must have stumbled with sheer delight into that thick—in every sense—and dense undergrowth of regulatory structures that we call self-regulation. We should all be grateful for Souliotis's perseverance and for his attempts to bring the situation to light. Rarely do we find out what is happening in the City, particularly in dealing rooms. It is a fairly closed freemasonry, whose secrecy is paralleled by the profits involved in maintaining that secrecy.
  We know little of that closed culture other than when we see on our television screens flashing lights and people shouting at each other. The real nature of those dealings is a closed book for most of us. We should be grateful to Souliotis for telling us what happened in this case.
  The Securities and Futures Authority agreed that
  "opportunities for such malpractice appear to be many."
  It agreed also that the audit trail that is typically produced makes the detection of such abuse altogether more difficult. It added, "Sorry, it's not our business—it's for the Bank of England." The Bank of England adopts a rather Nelsonian attitude to regulation. At first it said, "It's not our business, either." Later it said, "This complaint comes from a disgruntled employee and should be treated as such."
  When the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak —Mr. Beaumont-Dark—and I took the matter up with the Bank of England, it assured us that it had inquired thoroughly into the matter. However, the bank's solicitors stated:
  "To the best of our client's knowledge no investigation is current or was carried out by the Bank of England."
  So much for its thorough inquiry.
  That was hardly surprising, for when we met Eddie George, then deputy Governor, he did not appear to me to understand commercial dealing rooms. He had spent a lot of time in the Bank of England's own dealing room, but that must be like a gentleman's club compared with the realities of commercial dealing rooms. Mr. George appeared to believe that such dealing rooms behaved like boy scouts—that one only had to tell them what to do, order them to be good and instruct them to operate at arm's length and they would immediately do so. He seemed to assume that they were honourable people.
  I felt some disappointment after treading through this country's regulatory structures. The oversight committees of the United States Congress took a much keener interest in the evidence that came to light and that I was able to

  119
  send them than did our own regulators. The American committees cannot do much, but their interest is considerably greater than it is in this country.
  All the regulators—from Andrew Large to Eddie George—agree that the situation is open to abuse. All were clearly embarrassed at being told that abuses could have occurred, but they would rather not know—and would rather not do anything about it.
  The issue arises because one manager of two funds has one dealing room. It is possible that that dealing room is a different or peculiar culture. It is equally possible that it is typical of other dealing rooms across the City. It is possible, too, that its practices are common to other markets—gilts, commodities, equities and futures—but I am dealing only with financial markets tonight.
  The sums involved are enormous, because the trades are huge. At times of rapid price movements, currencies can shift 200 to 300 points in a short period. It is not difficult, in such a burst of massive trading, to skim off five, 10, 15 or 20 points into treasuries, trading accounts or accounts of friends or of people with whom an organisation might wish to do a special deal. Indeed, Souliotis was told to do exactly that by a senior American Express treasury manager.
  That money can be shifted on the points basis pretty well without trace. We think of the City as a network of honourable men whose word is their bond, but since big bang, although the change was already under way, that has not been the nature of the City or our financial institutions. It is not a network of gentlemanly capitalism of the kind that built up the commercial ties of empire. That is the old image and attitude. These are dealers: they are sharpies —barrow boys without barrows, who are living on their wits in a pretty tough jungle. How do we know that they are behaving with the integrity that is clearly required in those markets? How can we tell unless we take the obvious and, to me, essential step of imposing the necessary safeguard of requiring dealings in financial markets to be out of house?
  It is fair to say that, when I put that solution to the Bank and the SFA, they gave it very brief consideration but an absolute, final and pretty unequivocal rejection. The reasons for the rejection seemed confused and wrong. It is argued—indeed, the Economic Secretary has advanced the argument to me in a letter—that it would be more expensive to require dealings to be out of house, but that is not so. It would certainly be more competitive, and whose interests are we thinking of? Surely we must think of the interests of the clients—the customers of a fund—and of the fund manager's responsibility to get the best possible deal for them.
  To require dealers to be out of house so that a fund manager can have a range of prices at his disposal and can use his knowledge to exploit markets and discover who will give him the best deal is surely more sensible than making him subject to monopoly control by an in-house market whose dealers know his position and can exploit it. He cannot best serve his customers if he is subject to such monopoly control.
  If we require dealings to be out of house, it allows a fund manager to use his skills, and it makes dealers work. That is the important point: rather than milking a captive market, dealers would be required to work to get better
  120
  deals and would have to compete. It is true that the bad, lazy and inefficient dealing rooms might go under, but the good, competitive, able and dynamic dealing rooms would survive and prosper, because they would be giving competitive quotes and fighting for business.
  Unless they take that step, the Government are effectively saying that they do not believe in competition, because a requirement to go out of house mobilises competition, for the benefit of the consumer—for the people who invest in funds. Competition must be to their advantage, especially if it removes the monopoly.
  What, therefore, is wrong with such a simple, obvious and necessary way of protecting the consumer in the financial markets, and at the same time securing the integrity of those markets? What is wrong with making the City and the dealers mobilise their skills that they constantly tell us they have on behalf of the consumers and clients, those people whose business they want to win for London, rather than merely exploiting a captive market, which is easy to do?
  If the Economic Secretary will forgive me, I believe that the main interest of the debate will be to learn what excuses, and how many, he can mobilise to avoid doing that which it is so obviously his duty to do.
  10.15 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is assiduous and persistent, and I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate and on the way in which he has pursued the issue. I have no doubt that he is motivated by a keen desire to secure investor protection, fairness in the markets and the best deal for those who use the markets.
  I know from long experience in the House and in Committee that the hon. Gentleman has an outstanding record in this regard. Indeed, he has from time to time supported me when I have moved amendments to toughen investor deposit protection laws, so I am conscious of the fact that I owe him one—although I am not sure that I can deliver what he wants this evening. However, I acknowledge the sincerity of his motives, and many of the sentiments that he has expressed.
  When the hon. Gentleman raised this issue with me, I was very keen to meet the gentleman to whom he referred. He may know that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) came to see me, and I listened to what he had to say. The hon. Gentleman may also be aware that, in a former existence, I was an investment fund manager, with the job of passing chits to the share dealing room and the foreign exchange dealing room.
  I am therefore aware of the potential for collusion, of the potential for not dealing on the finest terms for investment clients of particular banks and of the extent to which improper practices may arise if there is inadequate supervision or if the integrity of the concern is not held uppermost. I therefore take very seriously the hon. Gentleman's complaints, and I pursued inquiries on a bona fide basis to try to ascertain whether there was any substance in them.
  Having looked into the matter very carefully, having written to the hon. Gentleman, and having discussed the matter again with the Governor of the Bank of England only this afternoon, I am personally sure that it would not be the right approach to engage in either the separation of

  121
  fund management as he suggests or necessarily to embark on audit trail procedures beyond those already provided. I shall explain why.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke in some detail about one aspect of the way in which the foreign exchange markets operate in this country. The markets are, of course, one of the many financial sectors in which London has a leading position in the world. London's position has been won by the City being able to provide customers and participants with high-quality and competitively priced services without their fear of being exploited by underhand practices.
  Those who use these services have demonstrated their confidence in our markets by the enormous flows across our exchanges every day. The hon. Gentleman may, for example, know that the daily foreign exchange turnover in London alone amounts to something like $300 billion.
  That confidence is not misplaced, and the authorities attach the highest importance to maintaining the reputation of all those who operate in the market. That is why, when the hon. Gentleman first brought his concerns to me, I was keen to ensure that his points were properly examined and that the information he was able to provide was made available to the Bank of England so that it could be formally and fully investigated.
  That has now been done and, as he knows, the Bank's findings have been put before the Board of Banking Supervision, so that its outside members could judge whether the Bank had done all that it should in this case. The unanimous conclusion was the it had, but, if the hon. Gentleman has any new evidence that he wishes to pass to the Bank, it will of course be considered. I understand that the upshot of that process is that the Governor and the hon. Gentleman have now agreed to differ about the merits of introducing a ban on in-house dealing by banks who manage foreign exchange funds for their customers.
  I would just say as an aside about the Governor, Mr. Eddie George, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, that I can assure him that Mr. George is fully conversant with commercial banks' practices. Few, if any, people I know are more aware of and conversant with what goes on in the commercial banking world. He enjoys my fullest confidence, and that of the rest of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.
  Before I go any further, I should say that, although the hon. Gentleman first raised the issue as a result of a specific case, he has since been pursuing his concerns as ones of principle. I am sure that he is right to do so, and I should make it clear that anything I say tonight is to be interpreted in the same way. My remarks are not to be taken to refer to one specific bank or any specific funds or individuals.
  To return to the central issue, a ban on in-house dealing sounds superficially attractive. It undoubtedly would prevent some dealers from skewing prices against their clients, although there is no conclusive evidence of that happening. It would, however, have other consequences too, which are far less desirable. As in so many walks of life, we have to strike a balance.
  I think that we can all agree that banning motor cars would reduce the number of traffic accidents, but the social and economic consequences of doing so would massively outweigh the benefits, so we have a Highway Code instead. Just as banning cars would not stop all road accidents, so a ban on in-house dealing would not remove all possibility of abuse. It would not, for example, rule out collusion with a third party.
  122
  An argument that is sometimes heard is that such a ban would force managers to shop around for the best price —the point that the hon. Gentleman made this evening. Perhaps. In the real world, however, all banks need to offer a competitive product to their customers or they will soon start to lose business.
  What happens when the in-house dealer can offer the best price to a fund, for example, by obtaining economies of scale and reduced costs by putting together an internal customer's business with dealing for the bank itself? Why should the customer not be able to benefit from that? In cases such as that, the hon. Gentleman's proposal would prevent the customer from receiving the best price in the market. That is a form of investor protection that, in my view, we can well do without.
  In all markets, not just financial ones, prices vary with the nature of the transaction. Large deals often receive a different rate from small ones. Wholesale deals, or those with regular counterparties with which a firm has a wider business relationship, may take place on better terms than those which are more generally available.
  In the foreign exchange markets, customers are normally quoted two-way prices, with spreads to private customers typically wider than those which banks offer one another. For small transactions, those spreads can be very large—as anyone who has bought currency or travellers' cheques at a bureau de change will readily testify.
  For all those reasons, it is misleading to talk objectively about the right price for a particular foreign exchange transaction, and in the absence of such objective information I am far from convinced that the hon. Member has demonstrated that a simple ban on in-house dealing would be in the interests of investors.
  I should just mention, with regard to the spreads that he quoted, two pips additional spread on, let us say, a five pip —that is to say, a four basis point spread as opposed to a three basis point spread on a deal—is not unusual as a differential between the basis on which a charge is made to a corporate client and the basis on which money is exchanged on the interbank market.
  It is quite normal for the interbank market, where the average amount would be perhaps $5 million or upwards, to be on a three basis points arrangement, but for it to be a four basis points arrangement if it was dealt direct with the customer. That is because there are relationships with other banks in the interbank market; one knows the counterparty; reciprocal business is conducted; and it is not surprising that an additional margin is put on where a fund deals, even if it is an in-house fund concerned.
  I believe that, in a free and increasingly international market, financial institutions should be able to compete freely in the type of product that they offer their customers. Some, wishing to attract those who share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, will choose to offer a structure in which no deals are carried out in-house. Others will opt for structures in which all deals are in-house, in the belief that they will tend over time to provide a better and cheaper service. Others will give their managers the freedom to deal either in-house or with third parties, depending on what seems most attractive at the time.
  The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that segregation between dealer and fund manager is not a regulatory requirement in these or other financial markets. It is my view, and that of the Bank of England and the financial services regulators, that, so long as those offering such

  123
  products make the basis of the arrangement clear and have the controls to satisfy regulatory requirements, separation of dealing and fund management is unnecessary.
  The hon. Gentleman also talked about the need for a clear audit trail. I am still not entirely clear, from his correspondence or from his speech tonight, what he has in mind here. The practices and integrity of dealings in the wholesale currency markets and commodity futures markets are matters for the Bank of England and the Securities and Investments Board. Firms regulated under the Banking and Financial Services Act 1986 must have adequate systems to control their business, including an adequate audit trail. Where these controls are inadequate, the regulators will take appropriate action. They will also investigate any evidence of fraud or malpractice.
  As technology improves, firms are increasingly able to record not only the exact time and price of their transactons but the prices that were current elsewhere in the market at that time. But the fact is that, at any moment, there is a range of prices and of sizes in foreign exchange dealings, and there is a limit to what is possible in validating prices to the nearest 100th of 1 per cent. in a market where prices can move by 20 or 30 times that amount every second.
  Unnecessary interference with market practices risks driving foreign exchange business—by its very nature, one of the most international of markets—out of London to our competitors overseas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not advocate that.
  This can also be expensive for customers: regulation does not come free. It costs time and money. In fast-moving markets such as foreign exchanges, a requirement to check with a specified number of dealers, for instance, before putting a deal through could easily mean that the price had moved against the customer before the deal could be executed.
  To try to find evidence of a best price by looking at brokers' screens can also be spurious. Such prices are often no more than indicative, or are good only for a matter of seconds, and they may not be available once a comprehensive market search has been carried out and the deal comes to be done.
  When business such as foreign exchange falls under section 43 of the Financial Services Act 1986, and is thus without the ambit of the Act, it is picked up under the
  124
  Banking Act and is covered by the so-called grey paper and the London code of conduct. This constitutes an annex to the regulation of the wholesale markets in sterling, foreign exchange and bullion, published by the Bank of England. It sets out the manner in which the bank intends to supervise the London wholesale markets in sterling, foreign exchange and bullion.
  Central to the regulatory framework is a list of institutions which act as market makers or brokers or which have been accepted by the Bank as fit and proper. The statutory authority for this regime is section 43 of the Financial Services Act 1986.
  The London code of conduct states that managers of participants
  "must ensure that the fiduciary and other obligations imposed on them by the general law are observed … As a general rule, deals at non-market rates should not be undertaken."
  Any breaches of the code by banks will be "viewed most seriously" by the Bank of England and
  "may be reflected in their assessment of the fitness and propriety of these institutions."
  I therefore do not believe that this is an area of unregulated activity. I accept that the nature of the market makes it difficult to fit it into the conduct-of-business rules that apply to investment concerns. Possibly, one could not prevent every transaction that might not be entirely to the benefit of investors.
  They may occasionally be disadvantaged, but in such a competitive market, in which the integrity of the banks is at stake and the business they do is up for grabs, some of the largest institutions, which enjoy a high reputation for their activities in London and elsewhere—American Express, for instance—have a much greater self-interest in observing the rules of the London code of conduct.
  Based on my dealings with the Bank of England, I am satisfied that the rules are most carefully enforced by everyone, from the Governor down. When necessary, investigations are undertaken and remedial measures are sought and imposed by the Bank of England.
  I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the case in question, and I understand his concerns, but I hope that my remarks will give him some reassurance. My keen assessment is that the Bank is doing a good job in this difficult area. Rules do apply, and, where necessary, lessons have been learnt.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Libraries (Hansard)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has received on the cancellation by public libraries of subscriptions to Hansard due to shortage of funds; and what steps he is taking to ensure the public access to the Official Report via public libraries is maintained with sufficient resources.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received no information from library authorities, or from any other source, that public libraries have cancelled Hansard subscriptions. The responsibility for providing public library services, and for choosing their stock, rests with local library authorities, most of which provide an extensive range of official publications—among them, Hansard.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Mr. Sproat
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government Departments are stated in the HMG IT security policy document. This document is supported by use of the CCTA risk analysis and management method—CRAMM—and baseline security for IT systems—BSITS—risk analysis methods and by supporting advice and guidance published by the HMG IT security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation for some time. The code of practice for information security management was developed by and established for use by commercial organisations and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information.

  NAO and PAC
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department, which was established in April 1992, has not yet reviewed the full range of files inherited from former parent Departments and it is not possible to give a figure for those bearing a marking "Not for NAO eyes". Since April 1992 DNH has opened a very small number of new files with this marking.

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the
  2
  handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  There is no marking "Nor for PAC eyes".

  Film Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those London boroughs of which he is aware which(a) have fully dedicated personnel working to attract film production companies to locations and facilities in their area and (b) which do not have such facilities.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am informed that no London borough has personnel dedicated solely to this work, but all have staff who combine it with other tasks such as press, marketing, or sponsorship work.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that overseas film producers have access to a single co-ordinating body which is specifically intended to give advice on film locations and facilities in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The British Film Commission, which is funded by my Department, is helping to finance a series of studies on the establishment of film commissioners in those areas of the United Kingdom, such as London, where no such bodies yet exist. As part of the research, business plans will be drawn up for use in raising funds for the establishment of commissions for London and elsewhere.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will make a statement setting out the background of representations he has received and made about the future of the Elstree film studios;

  (2) when he last met the owners of the Elstree film studios to discuss with them the current plans for the redevelopment of the site as a major retail outlet;

  (3) what plans he has to make it his policy to seek to intervene to initiate discussions between relevant parties in an attempt to preserve the Elstree film studios as an ongoing commercial venture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The future use of Elstree studios is a matter for the commercial judgment of the owners, subject to any planning consent which may have to be obtained. Although I have received a number of representations about the matter, I have not met the owners of the studios and have no plans to intervene.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has concerning the financial and other incentives which are made available by the Republic of Ireland to attract investment by film production companies.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is not a matter for the United Kingdom Government, but the Irish authorities are happy to provide Members with the
  information sought and I will place it in the Library when it is received.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which consultants have been retained by the Director General of the National Lottery to evaluate the lottery franchise bids.

  Mr. Sproat
  This is an operational issue and therefore a matter for the director general. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member and place copies of his letter in the Libraries of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Computerised Criminal Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Police Complaints Authority or the Data Protection Registrar concerning computerised criminal records and their use by police officers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Officials are in regular contact with the office of the Data Protection Registrar on these matters, but I am not aware of any similar discussions with the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions or dismissals of police officers for the persistent misuse of computerised criminal records have taken place in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not collected centrally.

  "Sunday TradingA—Guide to the Options for Reform"
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which bus company is portrayed in the photograph on page 18 of the White Paper "Sunday Trading—A Guide to the Options for Reform", Cm 2300.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Leaside bus company.

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what lessons his Department learned from the incident involving the MV Earl William in 1987; what account has been taken of such incidents in his consideration of the proposal for prison ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The incident involving the MV Earl William highlighted the importance of safety issues in using ships for purposes of detention.

  Health and safety issues are being fully taken into account in considering the option of using marine detention facilities to accommodate the rising prison population.

  This is only one option being considered; no final decision has been taken on its feasibility.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has of the number of electoral registration officers who have implemented the 4
  voluntary scheme described in Home Office circular RPA 356, which requires records to be retained by electoral registration officers detailing who has been sold copies of the electoral register; and what plans he has to make the scheme compulsory.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of electoral registration officers participating in the scheme set out in circular RPA 356 is not collected centrally. There are no plans to make the scheme compulsory.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  Figures for expenditure on television and press advertising for 1979–80 were given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 25 May 1984, column 587 and those for 1984–85 were given in answer to another question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 19 December 1985, column 275.

  Figures for radio advertising for 1979–80 and 1984–85 were given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 19 November 1986, column 203.

  During the current financial year—1993–94—advertising expenditure has been as follows:

  £

  Television advertising

  3,722,469

  Radio advertising

  120,450

  Press advertising

  478,129

  Estimate projected spent on advertising for the remainder of this financial year—1993–94—subject to confirmation is:

  £

  Television advertising

  —

  Radio advertising

  —

  Press advertising

  212,000

  Police Vests
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration is being given by the police security scientific development branch to the production of a standard for(a) a knife-proof vest and (b) a bullet-resistant vest; when he expects a standard to be adopted; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what offers his Department has received from manufacturers of knife-proof and bullet-resistant vests to pay for the testing and approval of such equipment; if he will make it his policy to take advantage of such offers to enable a testing programme to be carried out quickly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The police scientific development branch—PSDB—has published standard procedures and criteria which it uses in assessing both types of vest.
  5
  No offers have been received from manufacturers to fund the testing of such equipment. It is primarily for chief officers of police and their police authorities to decide on the equipment to be used in an individual force. PSDB carries out tests on such equipment as part of its function as a research and development organisation and gives advice to police forces on the equipment's performance and characteristics. Charging manufacturers for testing products would compromise the PSDB's independence and reduce its capability to respond to the requirements of the police and the Home Office.

  Jack the Ripper Diaries
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what inquiries have been conducted by the Metropolitan police into the alleged diaries of Jack the Ripper; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the report of the Metropolitan police on the Jack the Ripper diaries has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that the Metropolitan police have conducted inquiries into the origin and authenticity of the manuscript diary purporting to have been written by Jack the Ripper, and into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the manuscript. A report has been prepared and will be submitted shortly to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers were(a) sought by and (b) authorised for the North Wales police in each year since 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  North Wales Police

  Number of posts applied for

  Number of posts approved

  1989–90

  31

  4

  1990–91

  21

  21

  1991–92

  0

  0

  1992–93

  30

  17

  1993–94

  58

  0

  1994–95

  58

  0

  My right hon. and noble Friend wrote to the hon. Member of 1 December, letting him know that there will be no establishment increases next year, and explaining a number of initiatives which will allow forces to increase their available operational resources during 1994–95. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library.

  Forced Subject Access
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make forced subject access a criminal offence; and what estimate he has of the scale of the use of forced subject access.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The issue of enforced subject access is dealt with in the draft EU directive on data protection which is currently under negotiation in Brussels. The 6
  Government will review the position in the light of the outcome of that directive. No firm figures for the use of enforced subject access are available, but the Data Protection Registrar estimates that a substantial proportion of subject access requests in certain sectors may be instigated by third parties.

  Visa Application Interviews
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women who were waiting for interview for (i) settlement, (ii) education and (iii) visitors' visas at Bombay, New Delhi, Karachi and Islamabad on 22 November.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest available information on settlement queues and non-settlement applications awaiting first interview for posts in Pakistan and India relates to 31 October 1993 and is given in the table. No information is available centrally on the gender of applicants.

  Number of applicants for Entry Clearance Visas waiting for first interview at 31 October 1993

  Bombay

  New Delhi

  Islamabad

  Settlement queues awaiting first interview

  Queue 11

  0

  0

  92

  Queue 22

  56

  337

  1,172

  Queue 33

  314

  218

  233

  Queue 44

  262

  137

  769

  Non-Settlement applications awaiting first interview

  Visitors

  1,124

  39

  231

  Students

  4

  0

  0

  1 Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70-years-old, special compassionate cases.

  2 Spouses, and children under 18-years-old.

  3 Fiance(e)s and others applying for the first time for resettlement.

  4 Re-applicants.

  Information on the number of applicants in Karachi is not available centrally but all applicants are expected to receive a first interview within three weeks.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b)women remand prisoners being held in police cells in England and Wales as of 22 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of remand prisoners held in police cells as at 22 November.
  A total of 17 prisoners, all male, were held in police cells on 22 November. All 17 were received into prison custody ihe following day.

  Home Leave
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convicted criminals have failed to return from home leave in each of the last five years; and for what crimes they had been convicted;
  7
  (2) on what criteria convicted criminals are allowed home leave; and upon whose judgment home leave is granted;

  (3) in which year the system of home leave was instituted; and how many convicted criminals have committed further offences while on home leave since the system was introduced;

  (4) if he will indicate what representations he has received regarding the abuse by convicted criminals of home leave.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Bob Dunn, dated 6 December 1993
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the grant of home leave to offenders and the availability of statistics concerning prisoners who have committed offences or absconded whilst on home leave.
  It is understood that the home leave scheme was introduced in the 1950s as a means of enabling suitable prisoners to have an opportunity to prepare for release as part of their throughcare and reintegration into society. Since then, there has been little change to existing policy and practice, which is set out in Circular Instruction 43/92, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. This offers guidance on the operation of the scheme to governors who are responsible for deciding, in the light of all known available information about a particular offender and the risk which he or she may present to public safety, whether it would be right to sanction the privilege of home leave. The operation of the current scheme is currently being reviewed by a working party which is expected to report shortly.
  We are currently considering how statistics on offences which are committed by prisoners and other home leave failures can be best collated centrally. I regret to say that at present the information you request is not available.

  Security Cameras
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish crime figures for those local authorities which have taken steps to install security cameras for the 12 months prior to and after installation;

  (2) which local authorities have, or are considering the installation of, security cameras in their town centres, in association with the police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available.

  Illegal Weapons
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been arrested in Liverpool in connection with stockpiling of illegal weapons in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".
  8
  Mr. Howard
  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  No central record of files marked "Not for NAO eyes" is maintained. The information could be obtained only by examining individually each of the 1·5 million extant files in my Department, and could therefore only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used rarely and in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Background Radiation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the locations of the nuclear(a) out-stations and (b) central control units funded by his Department that monitor background radiation; and what other types of monitoring they are responsible for.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply. Background radiation in terms of gamma radiation dose rates is monitored by the radioactive incident monitoring network —RIMNET—operated by the Department of the Environment. The system currently has monitoring stations at:

  Aberporth

  Leeming

  Aldergrove

  Lerwick

  Aviemore

  Leuchars

  Benbecula

  Lossiemouth

  Boulmer

  Lyneham

  Brize Norton

  Macrihanish

  Carlisle

  Manchester

  Coltishall

  Manston

  Coningsby

  Marham

  Clunie

  Mumbles Head

  Dalcross

  Newcastle

  Dyce

  Oban

  Elmdon

  Ronaldsway

  Eskdalemuir

  Shawbury

  Exeter

  Stansted

  Finningley

  Stornoway

  Gatwick

  St. Mawgan

  Heathrow

  Tiree

  Hurn

  Valley

  Herstmonceux

  Watnall

  Jersey

  Wick

  Kirkwall

  Wyton

  System upgrade work, nearing completion, will increase the total number of RIMNET monitoring stations to 92. Its control centre is located at the Department's headquarters in Marsham street, London.

ENVIRONMENT

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

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 1 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington),Official Report, columns 558-59.

  Water Charges
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether council tax bands will be used as the basis of assessment for water charges after the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for each water company to decide the basis on which it charges customers subject to the Director General of Water Services' powers in section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to control discriminatory pricing. After 31 March 2000 companies may not use rateable value. During the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, we gave a commitment to confine use of information on the council tax banding of individual properties to use for council tax purposes.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the water regulator about the charging for water by property bands standardised bills similar to the system used for the council tax.

  Mr. Yeo
  The basis of charging for water is a matter for the water companies. It is among the topics discussed at meetings between the Department and the Director General of Water Services.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer opportunities to introduce financial incentives in support of mandatory targets established for industry to meet in reducing packaging waste and to promote recycling of packaging wastes.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government believe that it should not be necessary to impose mandatory targets to achieve their objectives of reducing packaging waste and securing increased levels of recovery and recycling. In our producer responsibility initiative, we have given industry the task of devising the most cost-effective means of recovering between 50 and 75 per cent. of packaging waste by the year 2000. We expect industry to provide us by Christmas with a plan for achieving those targets.

  We have indicated that, wherever possible, we will use economic instruments to secure our environmental objectives rather than regulation. Producer responsibility is one such economic instrument. Another possibiility which we are considering is the idea of a landfill levy, which could provide an incentive to reduce waste and encourage higher levels of recovery, including recycling.

  Wedholme Flow
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the area, as a percentage of the peatland site of special scientific interest, of Wedholme Flow, covered by the agreement between English Nature and Fisons, where the commercial extraction of peat will be allowed to continue; and what assessment he has made of the effect on the level of biodiversity.

  Mr. Yeo
  One hundred and sixty hectares, some 21 per cent. of the Wedholme flow SSSI, will continue to be worked for peat extraction. In addition to the remaining uncut areas, English Nature has been actively managing 10
  103 hectares of previously worked land since early in 1992. Site management staff report that recolonisation of cut-over areas is proceeding rapidly, following restoration of water levels. Biodiversity levels appear to be increasing.

  Combined Heat and Power, Wales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many combined heat and power plants are in operation in Wales; how many of these are of the combined-cycle type; and what proportion of delivered energy is provided by the plants.

  Mr. Yeo
  Latest estimates suggest there are now 59 combined heat and power—CHP—sites in Wales with a total installed capacity of approximately 190 MWe. Of these, none is believed to be of the combined-cycle type. It is estimated that, in 1992, on-site electricity generation from CHP plants in Wales was approximately 1,000 GWh. In addition to this, sales of electricity to consumers in Wales totalled 16,400 GWh. Therefore, over 5 per cent of electricity used in Wales is provided by CHP.

  On a national level, CHP meets about 4 per cent. of United Kingdom electricity demand.

  Recycled Materials
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is currently taking to establish new markets for recycled materials.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are encouraging the development of new markets by providing industry with an incentive to make greater use of recycled materials. Our producer responsibility initiative, launched in July, provides such an incentive by, for example, giving industry the responsibility for meeting targets for the recovery of packaging waste and bearing the costs of meeting those targets. We have made it clear that the industry's plan, which we expect to receive shortly, must include a willingness to increase demand for recycled material where it meets the appropriate standards.

  The Government are also encouraging the development of new markets for recycled materials through the environmental technology innovation scheme, run jointly by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, and the DTI's environmental management options scheme and Euroenviron scheme. Grants awarded under these schemes include £835,120 to Anaplast to develop innovative technology for recycling mixed plastics and another of £638,218 to Bird Commercial Metals for a project which examines the potential markets for materials recovered from scrapped vehicles.

  Volumetric Meters
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many domestic properties in each region had a volumetric meter installed on 1 October.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Director General of Water Services has information on the extent of metering for water.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to hold a review of policies to conserve biodiversity following the publication of the 1990 countryside survey.
  11
  Mr. Yeo
  Countryside survey 1990 reports on the 12-year period leading up to 1990. Since 1990 the Government have set in place a range of positive policy measures in the countryside. The United Kingdom has also strongly advocated the integration of environmental considerations in the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  In June 1992 the Prime Minister and over 150 other Heads of State or Government signed the convention on biological diversity at Rio de Janeiro. In response to the convention, the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan will be published in January. The results from countryside survey 1990 have played a part in setting priorities for that plan.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the reasons for the biodiversity losses recorded in the 1990 countryside survey.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department is undertaking further scientific work to understand causes of changes reported by countryside survey. Examples are: in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a project in Somerset levels to examine the effect of various fertiliser levels on plant diversity; in collaboration with the Economic and Social Research Council, a project at Wye college on the socio-economic factors that underlie the reported changes; and a project using a modelling approach to predict the effects of climate and policy changes on some of our rarer habitats.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to local authorities to control car boot sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988—GDO—gives a general grant of planning permission for the temporary use of land for car boot sales for up to 14 days in any calendar year. More frequent use requires planning permission to which local authorities may attach conditions to protect amenity.

  Local authorities may make a direction under article 4 of the GDO to withdraw this permitted development. Where this is done, a specific planning application would be needed for any temporary market.

  Section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 enables local authorities to require a month's notice of a car boot sale. This gives local authorities time to make any necessary provision to avoid disturbance or to make an article 4 direction; where it appears that there has been a breach of planning control —for example, where the 14-day period has been exceeded —the local authority may serve an enforcement notice requiring the breach to be remedied; at any time before an enforcement notice takes effect the local authority can serve a "stop notice" which has the effect of prohibiting any person on whom it is served from carrying out or continuing any specified operations on the land. Failure to comply with a "stop notice" is punishable in a magistrates court with a fine of up to £20,000.

  Local authorities have a wide range of other powers to help them. These include powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to control noise and litter, powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to regulate parking and powers under consumer protection legislation.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has concerning the total annual consumption by the United Kingdom construction industry of(a) corrugated roofing material and (b) man-made slates; and what is the total estimated value of that consumption;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available of the percentage of (a) corrugated roofing materials and (b) man-made slates, used by the United Kingdom construction industry, and which were in each case made from (i) non-asbestos materials and (ii) materials including asbestos;

  (3) what information he has about the reasons for the increasing percentage of total corrugated roofing materials and man-made slates which are manufactured from asbestos products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information in the detail requested is not collected by the Department.

  Government Car Pool
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost of the Government car pool; what are the categories of expenditure; and how many cars and how many staff are in the pool.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government car service currently has 25 pool cars and 27 pool drivers, which include back-up for Ministers' drivers. The annual cost of the GCS pool service is estimated at some £750,000, staff costs account for about 75 per cent. and vehicle costs about 15 per cent. of the total annual cost.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to sites, other than Gosport, for the construction by Nirex of a low and intermediate-level radioactive waste repository.

  Mr. Yeo
  In the 1980s, Nirex investigated the use of a disused anhydrite mine at Billingham in Cleveland for the deep disposal of long-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste and sites at Bradwell, Elstow, Fulbeck and South Killingholme for the near-surface disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

  Investigations at Billingham ceased in 1985, when ICI, the owners of the mine, decided not to make it available to Nirex. Investigation of the other sites ended in 1987, when Nirex concluded that the economic advantages of separate near-surface disposal of low-level waste were not as great as had been thought and that it would be preferable to develop a multi-purpose deep site for low and intermediate-level waste.

  Dounreay in Caithness and a site near Sellafield in west Cumbria, neighbouring the village of Gosforth, have both been considered as possible sites for the multi-purpose repository. At present, Nirex is concentrating its investigations on Sellafield.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the earliest date he expects that a waste repository for heat-generating nuclear waste will be operational in the United Kingdom; and which sites have been considered for such a repository.
  13
  Mr. Yeo
  High-level radioactive waste is treated and stored at the surface for a period of at least 50 years, which will allow heat generated by the decay of radioactivity to reduce. Decisions about the subsequent management of the waste will be taken in due course.

  Environmental Organisations
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the expected outturn of expenditure in the current financial year on(a) the National Rivers Authority, (b) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (c) the Countryside Commission; and what is the budgeted figure for HMIP for 1994–95.

  Mr. Yeo
  The expected expenditure outturn for 1993–94 is £444 million for the National Rivers Authority, £27·4 million for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and £44 million for the Countryside Commission. The budget for HMIP for 1994–95 is £29.4 million.

  Water Leaks
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of water supply was lost in each region through leakage through the water distribution system and what percentage from customer supply pipelines.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested can be found on page 27 of "The Cost of Water Delivered and Sewage Collected 1992–93", published in October 1993 by the Office of Water Services, a copy of which is in the Library.

  NAO and PAC
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Gummer
  The only category of file not available for National Audit Office view are those which relate to relations between the Department and the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. This is fully in accordance with the standing agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office. This applies to 214 files out of 1·4 million.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give the previous experience in the housing field of the current chairman of the Liverpool housing action trust; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what criteria are used in the selection of chairman of housing action trusts; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Housing action trust chairmen are chosen for the personal qualities and experience they can bring to the job, within the framework set out in schedule 7 to the Housing Act 1988. I am pleased with the progress the housing action trust has made under her leadership since it started earlier this year.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the public expenditure figures for housing action trusts from 1991–92 onwards, at 1992–93 prices.
  14
  Sir George Young
  At 1992–93 prices, public expenditure on housing action trusts was £10·5 million in 1991–92 and £26·5 million in 1992–93.

  The public expenditure baseline for the current and the three subsequent years are, on the basis of the latest available GDP deflator:

  million

  1993–94

  84·1

  1994–95

  82·1

  1995–96

  80·8

  1996–97

  78·8

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the present posts held by the chairwoman of Liverpool housing action trust and the total salaries received.

  Sir George Young
  The chairman of the Liverpool housing action trust holds one other post within my right hon. Friend's area of responsibility, namely a board member of the Merseyside development corporation. Board membership of the MDC attracts an annual remuneration of £5,030. Details of earnings relating to the HAT chairmanship were given in my response to the hon. Gentleman on 2 November 1993,Official Report, column 101.

  Urban Development Corporation
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the public expenditure figures for urban development corporations from 1981–82 in 1992–93 prices in the same form as his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 208-9.

  Sir George Young
  Grant in aid paid to urban development corporations in England from 1981–82 to 1992–93 in 1992–93 prices, is set out in the table:

  Year

  £ million (at 1992–93 prices)

  1981–82

  68·5

  1982–83

  106·6

  1983–84

  156·0

  1984–85

  138·3

  1985–86

  121·6

  1986–87

  128·4

  1987–88

  1218·4

  1988–89

  323·7

  1989–90

  568·5

  1990–91

  670·7

  1991–92

  622·5

  1992–93

  515·8

  1 he figures include provision for the docklands light railway from 1987–88 onwards.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites in England receiving imported toxic waste; and what was the level of toxic waste disposed of at each site for the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The amount of hazardous waste imported for disposal1 at facilities in England in 1992–93 was as follows:
  15

  Consignee

  Totals(Tonnes)

  Biffa Waste Services Ltd., Bray, Berkshire

  240·9

  Cleanaway Ltd., Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

  21·9

  Cleanaway Ltd., Preston, Lancashire

  13·0

  Collier Industrial Waste Ltd., Trafford Park, Manchester

  1,075·3

  DP Effluent Treatment Ltd., Runcorn, Cheshire

  122·7

  Grosvenor Power Services, Carrington, Manchester

  84·9

  Grundon Waste Ltd., Colnbrook, Buckinghamshire

  342·2

  Lanstar Ltd., Salford, Manchester

  93·8

  Lanstar Waste Treatment, Cadishead, Manchester

  9,083·5

  Leigh Environmental Ltd., Birmingham

  5,977·0

  North London Waste Authority, Edmonton, London

  4,517·6

  Polymeric Treatment Ltd., Walsall, West Midlands

  3,344·9

  Progressive Waste Ltd., Trafford Park, Manchester

  235·6

  Rechem Ltd., Southampton

  5,989·4

  RF Winder Electrical Ltd., Stanningley, Leeds

  7·2

  Triton Transformers, Newark on Trent, Nottinghamshire

  303·1

  Whelan Environmental Services, Birmingham

  474·6

  Grand Total

  31,927·6

  1 Source: Consignment notes under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988.

  Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of local authority housing tenancies available within(a) England, (b) each housing authority in England and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside for each year since 1980.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The information derived from local authorities' annual housing investment programme returns is given.

  Local authority dwellings either occupied or available for letting; at 1 April each year

  England (thousands)

  Yorkshire and Humberside(thousands)

  1980

  4,667

  582

  1981

  4,815

  588

  1982

  4,719

  580

  1983

  4,576

  559

  1984

  4,477

  550

  1985

  4,425

  544

  1986

  4,356

  537

  1987

  4,325

  531

  1988

  4,242

  520

  1989

  4,098

  505

  1990

  3,959

  485

  1991

  3,835

  473

  1992

  3,787

  467

  1993

  3,706

  460

  Notes:

  1. The information up to 1986 excludes local authority dwellings situated outside the authority's own area.

  2. The information up to 1982 does not include vacant local authority dwellings that are available for letting.

  3. The figures exclude nominations to housing associations.

  I have also today placed in the Library a table giving corresponding figures for each local authority in England.

  Desertification
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the next meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee for a convention to combat desertification is planned; when the draft resolution on desertification and regional instrument for Africa is expected to be finalised; and if he will make a statement.
  16
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The next meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee—INC—will be in New York from 17 to 28 January 1994. The United Nations General Assembly has directed that the convention is to be completed by June 1994. The INC has agreed that a regional instrument for Africa will also be completed by that date.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Private Medical Insurance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much per person granted tax relief it costs to administer tax relief on private medical insurance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The annual cost to the Exchequer of administering the tax relief on premiums under private medical insurance contracts averages 42p for each person granted tax relief.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax relief, rebates or allowances are received by companies offering private medical insurance to their staff.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The general rule when calculating the trading profits of a business is that a deduction is allowed for expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. If an employer incurs expenditure in offering private medical insurance to employees, the expenses would generally qualify as a deduction under this rule as part of the remuneration package.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the cost to the Treasury of tax relief on private medical insurance in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993;

  (2) what would be the total saving to the Exchequer of scrapping tax relief on private medical insurance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated costs in each year since 1990–91 are given in the table:

  Year

  Cost of tax relief on private medical insurance for those aged 60 or more(£ million)

  1990–91

  40

  1991–92

  60

  1992–93

  70

  1993–94

  80

  The estimated saving to the Exchequer if tax relief on premiums paid in 1994–95 was abolished is £85 million including administrative costs.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether private medical insurance premia will be liable to tax.

  Sir John Cope
  Under the proposals announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in his Budget statement, private medical insurance premia will be liable to insurance premium tax. Premia in respect of long-term insurance as defined in the Insurance Companies Act 1982 —which includes permanent health insurance and life assurance—will be exempt.

  Black Economy
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to tackle the black economy.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Details may be found in the chapter entitled "Compliance" in the annual report of the board of Inland Revenue—copies of which were laid before Parliament on 29 September 1993.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if Inland Revenue officials routinely inspect the tax returns of those who trade frequently at car boot sales;

  (2) what is his estimate of the amount of revenue collected in respect of business done at car boot sales;

  (3) how many sellers at car boot sales are assessed for tax on their trading income.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue does not record data which relate specifically to car boot sales.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Cost of Chancellor's participation

  18 January

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  £55

  13 to 16 April

  Tokyo

  Meeting of G7 Foreign and Finance Ministers

  £7,759

  19 April

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  £296

  28 April to 1 May

  Washington

  G7 Finance Ministers' and Spring Meetings of IMF/IBRD

  £4,703

  21 to 23 May

  Billund, Denmark

  Informal ECOFIN

  £709

  6 to 7 June

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  £529+

  5 to 9 July

  Tokyo

  G7 Summit

  £4,346

  12 July

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  £176

  18 to 19 July

  Germany

  Meetings with Finance Minister; Bundesbank; and meetings with and speech to businessmen

  £1,072

  1 to 2 August

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  £70

  12 to 13 September

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  £272

  24 to 29 September

  Washington

  G7 Finance Ministers and annual meetings of IMF/IBRD

  £0

  8 to 10 October

  Genval, Belgium

  Informal ECOFIN

  £700

  24 to 25 October

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  £464

  21 to 22 November

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  £189

  The cost estimates provided take account of travel and subsistence and are net of refunds paid by the EC and the International Monetary Fund.

  In each case, the purpose of the visit was to promote and defend British interests in discussions with overseas Governments.
  18
  Mr. Nelson
  Nine press and publicity officers are currently employed in my Department.

  Information for the years 1979–85 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was capital spending as a proportion of gross domestic product for each year since 1970.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation and gross domestic product at current and constant market prices are available on the CSO database which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The relevant database identifiers are DECR and CAOB at current prices and DECU and CAOO at constant 1990 prices.

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

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My predecessor and I have made the following visits abroad this year:

  Financial Services
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what criteria are used in the selection of members of the board of the Securities and Investments Board who are to represent the interests of the public under the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986;

  (2) when he expects to announce the appointment of new members of the board of the Securities and Investments Board;
  19
  (3) what assessment he has made of the proper balance on the board of the Securities and Investments Board between members representing the interests of persons carrying on investment business and the interests of the public.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the appointment to the board on 25 November of Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, Mrs. Rosalind Gilmore, Mr. John Kennedy, Dr. Oonagh McDonald and Lord Stewartby and on 2 December of Mr. Andrew Winckler who has been appointed head of SIB's supervision division. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Governor of the Bank of England have taken this opportunity to restructure the board in line with the recommendations in Andrew Large's review of financial services regulation published last May "Making the Two Tier System Work". All board members are appointed in a personal capacity and do not serve as representatives of particular interests or associations.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects the Personal Investment Authority to take over the responsibilities of current self-regulatory organisations;

  (2) what action he is taking to rationalise the number of regulatory bodies governing the financial services industry;

  (3) what action he is taking to ensure the swift and successful setting up of the Personal Investment Authority.

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that the PIA intends to apply to SIB for recognition in the next few months.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to monitor the performance of the investment funds associated with endowment mortgages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has no role in monitoring the performance of investment funds.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to instruct the relevant regulatory bodies to introduce a statutory qualification for(a) tied insurance salespeople and (b) independent financial advisers.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Securities and Investments Board, the regulatory body which is the designated agency under the Financial Services Act 1986, recently approved new training and competence requirements.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. McDonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the regular scheduled passenger flights to the Scottish islands he estimates will be exempted from the air passenger duty from 1 October 1994; and if he will make it his policy to provide a general exemption for all regular scheduled passenger flights to and from the Scottish islands, and within the Scottish islands, regardless of the number of passengers that can be carried.

  Sir John Cope
  Based on October 1993 timetables, it is estimated that about a quarter of flights to the Scottish islands from the mainland and about three quarters of inter-island flights will be exempt from air passenger duty. The exemption relates to criteria for Civil Airports Authority airline licensing requirements. It would be difficult to justify relieving all flights in one particular area but not elsewhere.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Central Statistical Office will assess the costs and benefits of collecting, analysing and publishing a full geographical breakdown of invisible trade, country by country, on the same basis as that which is published on visible trade.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Central Statistical Office is currently reviewing with its data suppliers the need for, and the cost of, collecting more geographical detail on United Kingdom invisible trade. For some components of invisible trade, very detailed information is already available and published, for example, travel credits and debits. For other components, for example, financial services, such information would be expensive to collect and would impose a high burden on reporting businesses. In some cases, notably investment income, there are difficult conceptual problems—it is sometimes not clear who the foreign counterpart is for some types of transaction.

  Given these difficulties the Central Statistical Office has no current plans to collect a full geographical breakdown of invisible trade country by country. The Central Statistical Office, however, keeps such matters under review.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his future plans for publishing detailed statistics of visible United Kingdom trade with each of the present and future individual member states of the EC.

  Mr. Nelson
  Regular publication of statistics of trade with individual members of the European Union has now restarted following the introduction of a new statistical system on 1 January. Detailed monthly data are available through marketing agents appointed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Summaries are published monthly in Business Monitor MM20A "Overseas Trade Statistics of the UK with the World". Details at commodity code level are published quarterly in Business Monitor MQ20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the UK with countries within the EC". The Central Statistical Office will shortly begin publishing seasonally adjusted estimates of trade with individual members of the European Union-without any commodity detail—in its first releases and on their database, access to which is available through the Library of the House.

  Data are available for countries which are not members of the European Union from a similar range of publication and sources.

  NAO and PAC
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many files marked "Not for NAO eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for PAC eyes".

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  holding answer 3 December 1993]: Of the Treasury's 93,168 files dating from January 1987, 211 bear the marking "Not for NAO eyes".

  This marking is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under

  21
  which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

TRANSPORT

  London Underground (Power Failures)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost to London Underground of the power failure on 24 November, including loss of income and the refund of fares, as well as costs directly attributable to the restoration of power supplies and the evacuation of passengers.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Ltd. currently estimates that the total costs which it will have incurred as a result of the power failure on 24 November, including loss of revenue, are likely to be around £2 million.

  Press and Publicity
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many press and publicity officers are currenty employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Norris
  The number of press and publicity officers currently employed in the Department of Transport and employed in 1985 is as follows:

  Number

  Currently employed

  21

  Employed in 1985

  17

  Before 1984–85 the information division was a common service of the Department of Transport, Environment and Property Services Agency and information concerning the number of press and publicity officers working for the Department of Transport is not available.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Mr. Norris
  The security requirements for information technology systems and services used by Central Government Departments are stated in the HMG IT security policy document. This document is supported by use of the CCTA risk analysis and management method —CRAMM—and baseline security for IT systemsBSITS—risk analysis methods and by supporting advice and guidance published by the HMG IT security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation for some time. The code of practice for information security management was developed by and established for use by commercial organisations and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information.

  EC Transport Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what matters were discussed; what proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom; what decisions were taken; and what were the voting records of each member state at the European Transport Council on 29 to 30 November in Brussels.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My noble Friend Lord Caithness and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached political agreement on a directive giving the force of Community law to provisions on crew training standards agreed in the International Maritime Organisation—IMO—and requiring enhanced standards of communication on board passenger ships and tankers. The Council also agreed the main points of a draft directive establishing common rules and standards for classification societies. My noble Friend emphasised the importance for maritime safety of setting both clear rules and demanding standards for these societies, and secured safeguards which will assist high quality societies such as Lloyd's Register to provide services throughout the Community. In response to concerns expressed by a number of member states, including the United Kingdom, the Commission undertook to make a statement for the minutes, making it clear that neither directive would affect the active participation of individual member states in the IMO.

  The Commission reported on its intentions for EUROS, the proposed Community shipping register. Significant difficulties remain. The Commission will be bringing forward new proposals in which proposed financial measures are likely to be restricted to employment, training and fleet modernisation.

  The Council agreed draft conclusions supporting a Commission fact-finding mission to west and central Africa to examine the existing system of unilaterally imposed cargo restrictions. The Commission is expected to bring forward, for future consideration by the Council, a new draft mandate for negotiations with the Governments of the countries concerned.

  The Commission undertook to present, by the middle of 1994, a report on key issues arising in the field of maritime competition policy. A draft Council resolution on this issue was therefore not pursued.

  The Council approved conclusions on the Commission's communication on road safety which pay due regard to the principle of subsidiarity. It also adopted a decision setting up a Community road safety database on which the United Kingdom and one other member state abstained. My noble Friend made it clear that the United Kingdom was not opposed to the principle of a Community road safety database, but was abstaining on the decision since we did not believe that the proposed Community data base would provide added value to existing national systems and would duplicate work being done in other international forums such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  My noble Friend referred to the recent coach and minibus accidents in the United Kingdom and to national concern about the current lack of compulsion to fit seat belts in such vehicles. He explained that the United Kingdom was evaluating the lessons to be learned from the recent accidents to see what action might be taken. The Council agreed, in principle, that 1995 should be the year of young drivers.
  23
  The Council reached political agreement on a directive establishing the general principles for the investigation of air accidents. It received an interim report on the work of the committee looking at the aviation industry, which considered that some airlines were facing problems, but that any reversal of the single market in aviation adopted during the United Kingdom presidency should be resisted. My noble Friend recommended that there should be no going back on this "third package", which should be quickly implemented in full. He made clear the United Kingdom's view that state aids distorted competition and cushioned their recipients from economic reality. The Council failed to agree a set of conclusions, but the presidency issued its own.

  The Council reached political agreement on a draft directive which, from 1996, will harmonise the end-date of summer time at the end of October. This, in effect, will bring 10 member states into line with the current practice in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The United Kingdom expressed support for the substance of the directive, but entered a minutes statement to make it clear that, on grounds of subsidiarity, we would have preferred a recommendation to a directive.

  The Commission reported on its work on transport links with Greece. The Council will return to this matter at a subsequent meeting.

  A proposed mandate for aviation and road haulage negotiations with Switzerland was discussed. This will now be prepared for formal adoption by the Council in April at the latest, and if possible before.

  The Commission said that it would await the new Parliament before bringing forward a longer term legislative programme associated with the Transport White Paper, on which the Council agreed conclusions in June. The Commission also reported that proposals on the licensing of railway undertakings and access to railway infrastructure were nearing completion. The Council discussed transport and disabled people, transport intermediaries and inland waterways. The Commission agreed to a request by a number of member states, including the United Kingdom, to report on the transport of live animals. The Council was informed that Germany, Denmark and the Benelux countries had completed their work on a regional user charge to be imposed on lorries.

  The transport ministers of six central and eastern European countries joined the Council for a meeting over lunch.

  Only one formal vote was taken, on the adoption of a Community road safety database. As noted above, the United Kingdom abstained.

  Buses (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of new buses brought into service have access for disabled people.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over 90 per cent. of all new buses bought in the United Kingdom are now complying completely, or in part, with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee specification to help large numbers of elderly and ambulant disabled people travel by bus. This specification, which covers a wide range of simple low-cost measures including lower steps, better handrails and the use of colour contrasts, is being revised and tightened up and will be reissued shortly.
  24
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make it his policy to ensure that all new buses brought into service have access for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no plans for this at the present time. We are, however, working closely with the European Commission on a draft construction directive for buses, which may provide for future generations of new buses to be more accessible. In the meantime, we are funding a low floor bus demonstration project in North Tyneside to encourage greater use of such vehicles. This is being monitored and the results will be made available to all operators. A similar trial involving 68 buses is being undertaken in London.

  Charter for Bus Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for a charter for bus services; what standards he considers should appertain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We are beginning to consider with London Transport the quality-of-service objectives to apply to its bus services from April 1994. The standards embodied by those objectives will be a key element of the charter for bus passengers in London, which it is planned to publish next spring.

  Train Doors (Safety)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when British Rail last undertook a comprehensive check of door locks on trains; how many were found to be defective; how much it has cost to rectify; how many are all now certified as safe; and how many incidents there have been of doors swinging open unexpectedly in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail undertakes comprehensive checks of coach door locks in a continuous cycle of maintenance and repair. If a lock is found to be defective, immediate action is taken to rectify it. Information relating to the number and cost of defective locks identified through the maintenance procedure is not collected centrally by BR. The average number of locks changed annually during normal maintenance is approximately 2,300 at an average cost, with labour, of £200 per lock.

  There is no record of the number of incidents of doors opening unexpectedly during the last 10 years. The Health and Safety Executive's annual "Report on Railway Safety" shows how often people fall out of trains, how many doors were found irregularly open and how many collisions there have been with open doors on adjacent tracks. Further information is contained in the report on an investigation by the HSE, "Passenger Falls from Train Doors". Copies of both reports are in the House Library.

  London Buses
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will explain the basis on which the sum to be made available to London Transport out of the anticipated receipts from the sale of the London Buses Subsidiary Companies was derived.

  Mr. Norris
  Our advisers have made an estimate of the London Buses Ltd. privatisation proceeds which has been
  25
  taken into account in the calculation of London Transport's grant settlement. For the present, that estimate must remain commercially confidential.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to publish its fifth annual report.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority published its fifth annual report today. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 348, if the total number of files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" include those held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Driver, Vehicle and Operators and Information Technology agency; and how many such files are held by agencies accountable to his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  Yes. Seventy of the total are held by the Department's six executive agencies.

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state, for each of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.

  Mr. Norris
  There is no statutory right for the public to attend board or committee meetings of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department or to inspect minutes of meetings. The Traffic Director for London is required by statute to submit an annual report and statement of accounts, a copy of which my right hon. Friend is required to lay before each House of Parliament. Copies are available on request from the Traffic Director. My right hon. Friend is responsible for producing the general lighthouse fund accounts. The fund's accounts consolidate the accounts of the three general lighthouse authorities; the Corporation of Trinity House, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. These accounts are laid before Parliament and are published by HMSO.

  Fishing Industry
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries were suffered in the fishing industry in 1987, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: For United Kingdom fishing vessels the figures are:

  Number of deaths

  Number of reported injuries

  1987

  16

  94

  1990

  30

  98

  1991

  32

  133

  1992

  16

  117

  26
  For United Kingdom fish farms the figures relate to the fiscal year and are:

  Number of deaths

  Number of reported injuries

  1987–88

  Nil

  5

  1990–91

  2

  32

  1991–92

  2

  21

  1992–93

  1

  29

  A2
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what date emergency telephones will be installed from Swanscombe to the Danson interchange on the A2; how many there will be; and at what distance apart;

  (2) what consultations he plans with local authorities on the exact positions of emergency telephones along the A2 between Swanscombe and the Danson interchange.

  Mr. Key
  Tenders for the installation of emergency telephones on the A2 in Kent, from the M2—Three Crutches—westwards to the county boundary, were invited on 24 November. It is hoped to be able to start the work in mid-January, but full commissioning will not be possible until about a year later. The contract will provide for 14 telephones alongside each of the carriageways, 28 in total, spaced approximately one mile—1·6 km—apart.

  In line with usual practice, local authorities are not being consulted on the positioning of the telephones, which is determined by the Department's spacing specification and roadside conditions.

  We have no present plans to install emergency telephones along the length of the A2 within the London borough of Bexley between the county boundary and the Danson interchange.

PRIME MINISTER

  Information Systems
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister in how many Departments the management information systems for Ministers—MINIS—has been in force since November 1990 and over what periods; and what were the setting up times and costs in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of the Environment adopted MINIS—the management information systems for Ministers—in 1979. The Department of Trade and Industry introduced MINIS in June 1992. MINIS was described as a good example for Departments to look at when the financial management initiative was launched in 1982 and elements have subsequently been incorporated into other Departments' top management systems. Estimates of the costs of running and developing individual departmental top management systems since November 1990 are not available.

  Security Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the delineation of the responsibility of each security service organisation for counter-proliferation; and if he will make a statement.
  27
  The Prime Minister
  Countering the threat from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a high priority task for the Secret Intelligence Service, Government Communications Headquarters and the Security Service and the resources of the agencies devoted to that task have been increased. I do not propose to go into any further detail about their work.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 November, if he will list the functions held at(a) No. 10 Downing street and (b) Chequers since November 1990, where the cost of refreshments was paid for by a political party; how many guests attended; how much expenditure was reimbursed in each case; and what charge was made for the hire of facilities.

  The Prime Minister
  Thirty-nine occasions have been held at 10 Downing street or Chequers where the cost of refreshments was paid for by the Conservative party. As under previous Administrations, no charge was made for the hire of facilities. Expenditure is billed directly to the organisation concerned and no central records kept.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 325, regarding fuel costs of official residences, if he will provide the names of the chairs of trustees for (a) Chequers, (b) Dorneywood and (c) Chevening.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 December]: The Lord Privy Seal is the chairman of the board of trustees of both Chequers and Chevening. In the case of Dorneywood, the chairman is elected on an "ad hoc" basis at every meeting. The Lord Privy Seal is a member of the board of trustees and, in practice, it is customary for him to chair meetings if he is present.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  The Prime Minister
  The Prime Minister's records are reviewed for any continuing sensitivy 29 years after their creation. Approximately 42 linear feet of records are reviewed each year, by a part-time member of my staff, in accordance with the guidelines contained in chapter 9 of the "Open Government" White Paper—Cm 2290. About 4 per cent. of the records reviewed are retained and these are subject to regular re-review.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to discuss Irish responses to the consultation on THORP at his next meeting with his Irish counterpart.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what procedures are in place to ensure that special advisers attached to Ministers have no pecuniary or other interests that may conflict with their duties;
  28
  (2) if he will list the ways in which the rules applying to (a) the acceptance of outside appointments after resignation or retirement and (b) political activities by special advisers attached to Ministers differ from those applying to other civil servants.

  The Prime Minister
  Special advisers are subject to the same rules on conflict of interest as other civil servants. If a conflict arises in relation to their duties they must declare the interest. The business appointment rules on the acceptance of appointments after resignation or retirement do not apply to special advisers. Arrangements are made to ensure they do not have access to the kind of information, and they are not involved in the type of business, that would be likely to create suspicion of impropriety in relation to subsequent employment. Advisers are allowed more freedom of political activity than other civil servants to the extent that, with the approval of their Minister, they may attend party functions, including the party conference as an observer, may maintain contacts with party members and may take part in policy reviews conducted by the party.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total amount paid in salaries to special advisers attached to Ministers in each year since 1988 in(a) cash and (b) current prices.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  As at

  Paybill1£million

  1993–94 prices2 £ million

  June 1993

  1·37

  1·37

  September 1992

  1·3

  1·34

  September 1991

  1·1

  1·18

  July 1990

  0·95

  1·08

  June 1989

  0·93

  1·15

  September 1988

  0·74

  0·97

  1 Not including earnings-related national insurance contribution and other personnel overheads.

  2 Calculated using the GDP deflator.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the annual salaries paid to special advisers attached to Ministers in bands of £10,000 and (b) the number of advisers whose salary falls within each band.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  Salary band £

  Number of special advisers1

  0— 10,000

  2

  10— 20,000

  1

  20— 30,000

  10

  30— 40,000

  5

  40— 50,000

  8

  50— 60,000

  6

  60— 70,000

  —

  70— 80,000

  —

  80— 90,000

  2

  90–100,000

  1

  1 As at 1 November 1993.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of people employed, (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.
  29
  The Prime Minister
  For recruitment purposes, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. The figures for that Department, excluding its executive agencies and the CCTA—Government Centre for Information Systems—are set out. Ethnic monitoring in the civil service is carried out on a voluntary basis. Figures for Asian and black staff therefore only include those who have chosen so to describe themselves.

  Equivalent Grade

  Total

  Black

  Asian

  1

  3

  0

  0

  2

  17

  0

  0

  3

  19

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  5

  41

  0

  0

  6

  27

  1

  0

  7

  109

  0·5

  0

  AT/HEO(D)

  16

  0

  0

  SEO

  49

  0

  0

  HEO

  85·5

  0

  0

  EO

  180·5

  5

  4·5

  AO

  243

  26

  9

  AA

  151

  15

  6·5

  Total

  941

  47·5

  20

  Full time equivalent staff in post figures as at 2 December 1993.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes."

  The Prime Minister
  No files marked "Not for NAO eyes" are held by my Department. There is no such classification as "Not for PAC eyes".

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: None.

  Year of the Family
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Prime Minister what action is proposed by Her Majesty's Government to celebrate the UN Year of the Family 1994; and which Minister is responsible for its co-ordination and implementation.

  The Prime Minister
  Family policy bears on the responsibilities of a number of Government Departments, who in 1994 and beyond will be taking appropriate steps within their remits to strengthen our commitment to the family. We also support the United Kingdom Association for the International Year of the Family, which will be organising and overseeing activities within the United Kingdom during the year.

  During the International Year of the Family, domestic and international issues touching on the family will continue to be led and co-ordinated in the usual way, depending on the key departmental interest. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will act as a liaison point for the co-ordination and exchange of information about and during the year.

  Redundancies and Closures
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list all hon. Members whom he has personally met concerning redundancies or closures in their constituencies, the dates of each of the meetings and the precise nature and numbers of redundancies involved;

  (2) what is his policy concerning meetings with hen. Members about redundancies or closures in their constituencies;

  (3) if he will now meet the Ayrshire hon. Members to discuss redundancies at Jetstream and the long-term threat to the plant.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry met a group of hon. Members to discuss Jetstream on 25 November.

  Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and I often discuss such matters with right hon. and hon. Members.

  Ex-service Men
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received calling for the setting up of a department of veterans' affairs to cover the needs of ex-service men; what consideration he is giving to dealing with such requests positively; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 December]: I have received a number of letters from right hon. and hon. Members and members of the public on this matter, but I do not believe that the establishment of a separate department for ex-service affairs would result in a better service for ex-service men and women. The facilities of the health service and social security system are available to all and provision for veterans is integrated with that for the population as a whole; a new department would simply add another tier of administration.

  We recognise, however, that some ex-service personnel may encounter difficulties on returning to civilian life. We are therefore committed to the provision of comprehensive resettlement advice and support. We also recognise the particular needs of disabled ex-service personnel; we have not only preserved the preferential provisions of the war pensions scheme, but have also done much to enhance it.

  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he received the petition opposing the closure of the Royal Marsden hospital and its institute of cancer research; and what response he has made.

  The Prime Minister
  The petition was received in my office on Thursday 25 November and has been passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for consideration.

EDUCATION

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils have attended Wolverhampton grammar school under the assisted places scheme since the scheme's inception; what was the cost to the state of those
  31
  places; and if he will give the usual place of residence of pupils attending the school under the APS listed by parliamentary constituency and local government ward.

  Mr. Forth
  Nearly 460 pupils have benefited from assisted places at Wolverhampton grammar school since the scheme was established in 1981. In 1992–93 there were 256 assisted pupils and the cost to public funds was £760,000. Schools participating in the scheme are not required to supply data concerning pupils' residence and the Department does not hold any such information centrally.

  Classroom Discipline
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he will take to encourage schools to insist the pupils treat the teaching staff with respect and call them by their surnames.

  Mr. Forth
  Head teachers are responsible for maintaining discipline within their schools and for encouraging pupils to have respect for others. How best to achieve that is a matter for local determination.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to offer guidelines on classroom discipline.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend plans to issue a circular of guidance on behaviour and discipline in spring 1994. We will be consulting widely on the terms of that guidance.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not have a sensitive documents unit.

  Children (School Hours)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the extent of variations of hours children spend in schools; whether there are regional differences or differences for grant-maintained schools; and what analysis has been carried out of the correlation with performance.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Provisional data for January 1993 for maintained schools in England show that, in primary education, 3 per cent. of pupils are receiving less than 21 hours' teaching a week whereas at the other end of the range 4 per cent. are receiving 26 hours or more. In secondary education, 2 per cent. of pupils are receiving less than 23 hours a week compared to 26 hours or more received by the 5 per cent. at the other end of the range. On average, pupils in primary education received 23·2 hours per week compared with 24·3 hours per week for pupils in secondary education. These figures refer to time during which children are actually being taught rather than time spent on school premises.

  There appear to be no significant differences between local education authorities maintained and self-governing
  32
  —GM—schools. There is some variation between regions: between an average of 22·9 hours per week in East Anglia and 23·5 hours per week in the north in primary education, and between an average of 24·1 hours per week in Yorkshire and Humberside and 24·5 hours per week in East Anglia and the south-west in secondary education.

  Initial work carried out in the Department indicates on average a small but statistically significant positive correlation between the length of the taught week and educational performance as measured by public examinations and national tests.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received on making membership of student unions voluntary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Since the Government's plans for the reform of student unions were announced on 1 July, my right hon. Friend has received some 3,000 representations about the voluntary principle for student unions which our proposed reforms are intended to implement.

  EC Students
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the costs of education in England and Wales for EC students met by(a) his Department and (b) each local education authority; and what are the numbers of such students from each EC country, and in each level of institute of education.

  Mr. Boswell
  Students from other EC member states attending designated courses of higher education in the United Kingdom qualify for an award covering their course fees up to a specified maximum, where they satisfy basic eligibility conditions similar to those for students who live in the United Kingdom. In 1991–92 there were some 11,100 such award holders studying in England and Wales. In that year, mandatory awards expenditure by local authorities in England and Wales on students from other EC member states totalled £22·8 million; local authorities are fully reimbursed for this expenditure by the Department. In the same year, additional expenditure by the Department on awards to students from other EC member states attending part of a higher education course at an institution in England and Wales totalled £1·5 million. Copies of Department for Education statistical bulletins 21/93 and 22/93, which give details of students from abroad and student awards in England and Wales, are available in the Library.

  Other provision for students from other EC member states studying in England and Wales, which flows from the grant made annually to institutions by the higher education funding councils, is in the region of £80 million. Reciprocal rights apply to British nationals studying elsewhere in the EC.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has 39 files—out of a total of over 500,000—marked "Not for NAO eyes".
  33
  This marking is used in accordance with the agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they remain current.

  There is no such marking as "Not for PAC eyes".

  Opt-out Ballots
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from the Electoral Reform Society regarding documents published by his Department and sent out with opt-out ballot papers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Electoral Reform Society's company, Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd., wrote to the Department on 1 December about a leaflet sent to parents with their ballot papers. A reply will be sent shortly.

  Sixth Forms
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he intends to take following his statement at the annual conference of the Girls Schools Association on 25 November about the role of school sixth forms.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend intends shortly to publish, following consultation with the Further Education Funding Council and others, a framework of criteria in the light of which he will make future decisions on statutory proposals for new school sixth forms.

  University Grants Committee
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total gross public spending for each year from 1983–84 to 1988–89, in 1992–93 prices, for the University Grants Committee.

  Mr. Boswell
  Figures for total capital and recurrent grant are shown below:

  £ million,1992–93 prices

  1983–84

  2,168

  1984–85

  2,119

  1985–86

  2,068

  1986–87

  2,080

  1987–88

  2,175

  1988–89

  2,203

  The figures do not include publicly funded tuition fees.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been, in 1992–93 prices, the total gross public spending for each year from 1991–92, and the projected expenditure for each year up to 1995–96 for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total spending to date on self-governing—grant-maintained—schools has been as follows:34

  1991–92 outturn £ million

  1992–93 outturn £ million

  Exchequer grant

  22

  50

  Annual maintenance grant

  167

  435

  The Government's spending plans for 1993–94 to 1995–96, at 1992–1993 prices, provide for total Exchequer grant as follows:

  1993–94 £ million

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  150

  226

  398

  Provisional outturn spending on annual maintenance grant for 1993–94, at 1992–93 prices, is £950 million. Depending on the number and size of grant-maintained schools, total annual maintenance grant for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is projected to be around:

  1994–95 £ billion

  1995–96 £ billionl

  2

  4

  Note: Figures for exchequer grant include special purpose grants; capital grant; cost of GM ballots; the Grant Maintained Schools Centre; and the projected cost of the Funding Agency for Schools. They exclude other spending by local authorities, who remain responsible for some services to GM pupils, and DFE running costs.

  City Technology Colleges
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been, in 1992–93 prices, the total gross public spending for each year from 1987–88, and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for city technology colleges.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total spending on city technology colleges by the Department since 1987–88 and projected expenditure to 1995–96 are shown in the following table. This includes both capital and recurrent expenditure.

  DFE Expenditure

  Financial year

  At 1992–93 prices £ million

  Cash £ million

  1987–88

  2

  1

  1988–89

  18

  14

  1989–90

  36

  30

  1990–91

  64

  58

  1991–92

  58

  56

  1992–93

  50

  50

  1993–94 (estimated outturn)

  48

  50

  1994–95 (plans)

  48

  52

  1995–96 (plans)

  51

  56

  Funding Councils
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total gross public spending for each year from 1989–90, in 1992–93 prices, for(a) the Universities Funding Council and (b) the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  Figures for total capital and recurrent grant to the funding councils are shown:
  35

  £ million, 1992–93 prices

  UFC

  PCFC

  1989–90

  2,209

  1,324

  1990–91

  2,027

  1,215

  1991–92

  1,850

  1,031

  1992–93

  1,804

  1,036

  The decline in grant from 1990–91 onwards relates to the transfer of funds to tuition fees reimbursed through mandatory awards. Recurrent funding for higher education taking account of tuition fees increased by more than 10 per cent. in real terms over the period.

  Student Loan Scheme
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing the number of those in arrears on repayment of the student loan scheme by(a) educational institution and (b) county/borough of residence.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are in force for his Department to be notified of any approach to British Nuclear Fuels plc from any utility with a contract with British Nuclear Fuels plc for the use of THORP, to cancel or vary the contract or its terms.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is in regular contact with British Nuclear Fuels plc on a wide range of issues.

  Leases
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation as part of his deregulative initiatives to make illegal anti-competitive abuses in commercial leases which allow only upward review of rents.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The measure described does not appear to be deregulatory and does not fall within the scope of the deregulation initiative. The Department of the Environment has, however, issued a consultation paper on certain aspects of commercial property leasing arrangements, including upward-only rent reviews. An announcement of the outcome of that exercise will be made in due course.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who appoints the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; who are the present members; what are their qualifications by examinations; what posts they currently hold; and when they were appointed.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Biographical details of members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are compiled by the commission for publication in its annual review. I36
  will write to the hon. Gentleman enclosing those biographical details, and relevant dates of appointment. Qualifications by examinations are not a factor in determining the suitability of potential MMC members and, as such, details of the current members' qualifications are not held. Collation of such details could be made only at disproportionate cost.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to establish an advisory panel to advise him on restrictive practices and monopolistic power in the provision of car parking in Britain.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I announced to the House on 14 April,Official Report, column 842-50, that when parliamentary time permits, proposals will be introduced to strengthen existing United Kingdom legislation concerning anti-competitive and exploitative behaviour following the Green Paper on abuse of market power. At the same time, a prohibition on restrictive trade practices will be introduced. As part of this package, the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980 will be extended to cover some limited situations where specific property rights are exercised in a way which damages competition. I am currently considering the property rights to which competition law should apply and the extension of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to temporary rights of access such as car parks is one option under consideration.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's sensitive documents unit arranges for the circulation of such documents to those officials cleared to see them. Its procedures are kept under review and amended from time to time. Two officials are employed in the unit full time and one half time. At present, it handles some 9,000 documents a year.

  Inconel 600
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many nuclear reactors in the United Kingdom have parts which contain the nickel-based alloy, Inconel 600; what assessment his Department has made as to its safety; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that Inconel 600 is used chiefly in Sizewell B, but the material is also found in minor components in certain other nuclear stations. Any implications for such plant arising from the use of a material are taken into account by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate—NII. The performance of materials—such as Inconel 600—is an integral part of the safety case assessment which is carried out before reactors are started up and which continues throughout their operation. Such safety cases are reviewed periodically and amended as necessary in light of new information. For its part, Nuclear Electric is undertaking a programme of inspections at Sizewell B which will ensure
  37
  early warning of any problems arising from the use of Inconel 600 and enable remedial action to be promptly implemented. Moreover, the NII would not allow any nuclear power station to commence or continue in operation if they were not satisfied that it was safe to do so. I have received two letters from hon. Members forwarding representations from their constituents about this matter.

  Budget Setting
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the date on which the budgets for each of his Department's laboratories and agencies were finalised for 1993–94.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Budgets for 1993–94 were set on 5 January 1993 for the following:

  Accounts Services Agency

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  National Physical Laboratory

  National Engineering Laboratory

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Patent Office

  Companies House and on 1 April 1993 for the following:

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Insolvency Service

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the mass of spent fuel discharged from each Magnox reactor operated by Nuclear Electric in each financial year since 1983–84;

  (2) what commitment has been given by Nuclear Electric in relation to the reprocessing of spent fuel from pressurised water reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are operational matters for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what facilities exist in the United Kingdom for the conversion of plutonimum into californium.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Japan (Atomic Energy Agreement)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Her Majesty's Government last sought assurance from the Japanese Government in regard to the commitments entered into under article III(a) of the United Kingdom/Japan agreement for co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy (Cm 3853).

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's Government last sought assurance from the Japanese Government in July 1992.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions since 1990 Her Majesty's Government have informed the appropriate safeguards authorities of its putting into effect clause 14 of the United Kingdom-EURATOM-International Atomic Agency trilateral safeguards agreement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In accordance with the arrangements under article 14 of the United Kingdom-Euratom-IAEA tripartite 38
  safeguards agreement, 46 advanced notifications of withdrawal of nuclear material from safeguards have been made since 1 January 1990.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest undiscounted cost estimate for the dumping of projected United Kingdom low level and intermediate level radioactive waste arising in the Nirex repository; the unit cost for the dumping of that waste; and the latest date for fully opening the repository for low level and intermediate level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are management matters for UK Nirex Ltd.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes."

  Mr. Eggar
  No central record is kept by my Department of files marked "not for National Audit Office eyes". For each National Audit Office study, a number of divisions in different locations may be involved and each may possess in its registries a file with a number of parts —that is, individual jackets. The information requested is therefore not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "not for National Audit Office eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the National Audit Office while they are current.

  There is no marking "not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the letter sent to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology on 20 October by the Body Shop in connection with EC eco-labelling and animal welfare; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place has replied to the letter from the Body Shop. Copies of her reply of 2 December have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of fireworks sold in Britain was manufactured in Britain in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply The information requested is not available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are 45 files in the Lord Chancellor's Department—out of a total of 90,974—marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes". These refer to individual file parts. For each National Audit Office study, a number of divisions may be involved and each may possess a file with a number of parts.

  The marking "Not for National Audit Office eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the National Audit Office while they are current.

  There is no marking "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Divorce Law
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans Her Majesty's Government have to bring forward reform to the law of divorce in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has today laid before Parliament a consultation document, "Looking to the Future: Mediation and the Ground for Divorce", which canvasses a number of options for divorce law reform and the greater use of family mediation. The Lord Chancellor hopes that the document will stimulate a wide-ranging and informed debate about this important subject.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Security Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek power to issue a post-hoc warrant to cover any interference with property or wireless telegraph by a member or members of the security services.

  Mr. Hurd
  None.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost of United Kingdom subscriptions to international organisations in each of the last five years at constant prices.
  40
  Mr. Goodlad
  The total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—including the Overseas Development Administration—of United Kingdom subscriptions to international organisations at 1992–93 prices was:

  £ million

  1988–89

  830

  1989–90

  791

  1990–91

  758

  1991–92

  993

  1992–93

  1,035

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration was given to including a Member of the European Parliament on the intelligence and security committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Intelligence Services Bill provides for the members of the intelligence and security committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Each Committee member shall be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and none shall be a Minister of the Crown. There are no other restrictions on who the Prime Minister may appoint.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters, in regard to the implications for the environment, he intends to raise at the meeting of the European Union Foreign Affairs Council special meeting on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The special Foreign Affairs Council on 2 December did not discuss the implications for the environment of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The existing GATT system allows for trade-restrictive measures to protect the environment, under certain conditions. The proposed Uruguay round agreement would strengthen the ability of the international trading system to respond to environmental concerns.

  Turkey
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take on the eviction by the Turkish security forces of the villagers of Hassana in south-eastern Turkey; and if he will take steps to encourage the Turkish authorities to ensure that the villagers have sufficient food, clothing, warmth and shelter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made clear to the Turkish Government our concern about the conflict in south-east Turkey, and will continue to do so. It is appalling that innocent civilians should be caught up in the violence, and vital that human rights should be properly respected.

  Information Security
  Mr.Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office records are reviewed for any continuing sensitivity 29 or 30 years after their creation, by a team of up to nine part-time senior retired members of the diplomatic service, supervised and supported by seven permanent officials in the library and records department. Approximately 650 ft of records have been reviewed this year, in accordance with the guidelines contained in chapter 9 of the "Open Government" White paper—Cm. 2290—of July 1993.

  United Kingdom Overseas Visitors (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received(a) directly and (b) via consulates from United Kingdom citizens in respect of requests for financial assistance to help them get out of immediate difficulties abroad.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are strict criteria which have to be met before financial assistance from the public purse can be authorised. The post must be satisfied that the applicant is destitute, has no funds in the United Kingdom, that his predicament is not of his own making, and that he cannot make use of a cheque card and cannot arrange for the rapid transfer of funds through commercial channels from relatives or friends. We occasionally receive representations, either directly or referred by Members of Parliament, from the public on posts abroad who have refused them financial assistance.

  United Nations Committee (Administrative and Budgetary Questions)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the vote on 15 November to re-elect the United Nations advisory committee on administrative and budgetary questions; and how the decision will affect the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom expert on the committee failed to gain re-election at the vote in the UN in New York on 15 November. The three candidates contesting the two vacant seats, received the following votes: Ms Eriksson Fogh—Sweden—132, Ms Shenwick —United States of America—102, Mr. Stitt—United Kingdom—91.

  The result was a disappointment. But the United Kingdom expert remains in New York dealing with UN financial questions and is our representative on the fifth committee of the General Assembly. It is the fifth committee that has the authority to take decisions on UN financial issues and is the body to which ACABQ reports.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested is not readily available. To provide it would require consultations with all overseas posts. This could only be done at disproportionate cost. The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's internal audit unit regularly checks to ensure that the marking is not abused.
  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  World Summit on Children
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the Government's action statement arising from the World Summit on Children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom published in July 1992 Command Paper No. 1984 entitled "Report on the United Kingdom Implementation of the Goals agreed by the World Summit on Children". A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

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

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office meets the cost of a car and driver for each of its two Ministers. The total cost in 1992–93 was £132,692.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office holds no files with such markings.

WALES

  Welsh Energy Project
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what recent discussions he has had with the chairman and energy experts at the Welsh Development Agency on the Welsh energy project;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the information gathered, conclusions reached and policy proposals developed by the Welsh energy project.
  43
  Mr. Redwood
  I have had no discussions with the Welsh Development Agency about the Welsh energy project. This is an operational matter and I have therefore asked the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Gentleman and for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  A470
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to prioritise the road improvement scheme to the A470 Blaenau Ffestiniog to Betws-y-Coed road; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is considering the scope to bring forward some of the more important schemes in the forward road programme. The draft orders for the first stage of the Lledr Valley improvement, between Cancoed and Minffordd, were published on 30 November.

  Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much capital grant funding has been allocated to the schools in Wales which have decided to opt out; how much this is per school; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are two types of capital grant available to grant-maintained schools: a formula allocation for the purchase of equipment or small-scale capital works; and project allocations for specific capital work.
  44
  In 1993–94 11 grant-maintained schools have received £211,346 under the formula allocation, giving an average per school of £19,213. As regards specific project allocations, seven schools have had projects approved in principle and have been invited to submit firm estimates and tenders. The total outline estimate costs of the projects which have been approved in principle come to some £5·434 million.

  Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools to date have opted out; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the opt-out scheme for schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  At 1 September this year there were 11 grant-maintained schools. A further three schools have been approved to become grant-maintained from 1 January 1994. Applications from a further two schools are currently under consideration and a number of other schools are in the process of balloting parents.

  Aberconwy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the efforts the Welsh Office has made to secure, via the Department of Trade and Industry, objective 5(b) status for the Aberconwy borough.

  Mr. Redwood
  Aberconwy is on the list of eligible objective 5(b) areas submitted by the Government to the European Commission which will make known its decisions in due course.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on public access rights and the privatisation of Forest Enterprise; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have received 55 representations on these matters since the Forestry Review Group was established on 30 March 1993.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total expenditure by the Welsh Development Agency on rural areas and initiatives in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what is the projected expenditure in 1993–94;

  (2) what are the total receipts to date of sales of Welsh Development Agency property in the current financial year;

  (3) what proportion of the Welsh Development Agency's budget was allocated to rural areas and initiatives in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what is the projected proportion in 1993–94;

  (4) which properties owned by the Welsh Development Agency have been sold in the current financial year; and which other properties are on the market;

  (5) how many members of staff of the Welsh Development Agency are employed on implementing the agency's rural policies;

  (6) what was the total annual rents charged on those properties sold by the Welsh Development Agency in the current year.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have arranged for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Gentleman and for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from individuals and organisations in Wales on the rural policy of the Welsh Development Agency in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the geographic boundaries of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency were last reviewed.

  Mr. Redwood
  The position was reviewed at the time of the 1991 financial, management and policy review of the board.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which geographical areas in Wales are covered by the rural division of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  The agency is responsible for all rural areas in Wales except for the county of Powys and the districts of Ceredigion in Dyfed and Meirionnydd in Gwynedd.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department last carried out a review of the rural policies of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  The rural policies of the agency are a matter for the agency. They are kept under continual review.
  46
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation his Department has had with local authorities, employer representative organisations and the Welsh Trades Union Congress over the future role of rural policy within the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The agency's programmes for rural areas are compatible with overall rural policy in Wales. In drawing up its programmes, the agency consults widely.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much, in cash and percentage terms, of the Welsh Development Agency's total income was derived from(a) grant in aid, (b) capital receipts and (c) current income in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what are the projected figures for 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  The figures are as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 (plans)

  (a) Grant in aid

  Cash (£ million)

  87·067

  74·866

  59·550

  Per cent.

  54·0

  44·9

  34·7

  (b) Capital receipts

  Cash (£ million)

  38·280

  59·050

  83·900

  Per cent.

  23·7

  35·4

  48·9

  (c) Current income

  Cash (£ million)

  31·406

  31·999

  25·950

  Per cent.

  19·4

  19b·2

  15·1

  I will shortly be announcing the agency's budget for 1994–95.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Redwood
  There are 97 files in my Department marked "Not for NAO eyes". These figures refer to individual jackets—file parts. For each NAO study a number of divisions may be involved and each may possess a file with a number of parts.

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  Berse Horticultural Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the Berse horticultural scheme, Wrexham.

  Mr. Redwood
  The future of the scheme is a matter for NACRO—New Careers Training—and North East Wales TEC.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times departmental ministers and officials have visited the Berse horticultural scheme.
  47
  Mr. Redwood
  There have been no visits by Welsh Office Ministers or officials to this scheme.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget Statement upon prospects for 1994 in the less-favoured areas of Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I announced last week that direct Government support during 1994–95 for agriculture in Wales will be £233·9 million. This means an extra £18·6 million, 8·6 per cent., for Welsh agriculture, compared to planned provision for the current financial year. Despite the need to keep a firm control on public spending, this demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to the agriculture industry in Wales. The agriculture industry in Wales is currently in a much healthier state, helped in part by much lower interest rates and very low inflation. These factors benefit hill farmers as much as other parts of the economy.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the grant-maintained schools and those schools seeking grant-maintained status in each of the less-favoured areas of Wales, giving the amount of extra cash grants for each of the grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The only formal designation of less-favoured areas is under European Community directives concerned with farming. There is no connection with education expenditure. However, in such areas in Wales there are six grant-maintained schools. They are:

  Cwmcarn Comprehensive, Gwent

  Bishop Vaughan Catholic Comprehensive, West Glamorgan

  Brynmawr Comprehensive, Gwent

  Caergeiliog Primary, Gwynedd

  Llanerfyl Church in Wales Primary, Powys; and

  Ysgol Derwen, Clwyd

  In addition, St. Albans comprehensive in Pontypool, Gwent which has been approved for grant-maintained status from 1 January 1994, lies in a less-favoured area.

  The funding of grant-maintained schools reflects the level of resources that a school would have received had it remained with its former local education authority. All grant-maintained schools, irrespective of whether they are in a less-favoured area, are eligible for transitional grants, special purpose grants, and capital grants over and above their annual maintenance grant.

  School Pupils
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce modular approach testing in future examinations for GCSE pupils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have no immediate plans to do so. Fair markings of GCSE grades are best maintained by a terminal examination and adherence to the specified limits on GCSE coursework.

  Cockle Dredging
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of fishing vessels that have been granted an authorisation covering the October to December period to suction-dredge for cockles in(a) the
  48
  North Wales and North West England Sea Fisheries Committee area and (b) elsewhere in Wales, if he will specify the catch limits and other harvesting conditions imposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Such matters are the responsibility of sea fisheries committees. I understand that the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee has issued 10 authorisations to suction dredge for cockles on Lavan sands for a limited period and that these are the only authorisations which have been issued in Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had and what representations he has received in relation to the issuing of authorisations for cockle fishing by suction dredging in Traeth Lafan in Conwy bay.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received one letter from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to use his powers under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to issue an order banning the suction dredging of cockles in the Traeth Lafan area of the Conwy bay site of special scientific interest and special protection area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show for each of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is no statutory right for the public to attend meetings, or to see minutes of meetings, for any of these bodies. The ordinances of the National Library provide for every meeting of the court of the Library to be public, unless a resolution to the contrary is carried by the members present, in respect of the full meeting or of specific items or portions of the business.

  The annual reports and accounts of the following executive non-departmental bodies are in the Library of the House and are publicly available.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Curriculum Council for Wales

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Further Education Funding Council

  Higher Education Funding Council

  Housing for Wales

  Land Authority for Wales

  National Library of Wales

  National Museum of Wales

  Sports Council for Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Welsh Development Agency

  The Wales Youth Agency is a company limited by guarantee and its annual report and accounts for 1992–93 are deposited at Companies House, Cardiff; from 1993–94 its report and accounts will be placed in the Library of the House. The Royal Commission for Ancient and Historical Monuments is funded directly from the Welsh Office vote and its expenditure is accounted for in the annual Welsh Office appropriation accounts.

  Housing
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public investment in Wales in the provision of housing, both new build and renovated, by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations for each year since 1979–80; and what is the projected investment for both categories up to 1995–96.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as this information is available, and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Career Development Scheme
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for loans under the career development scheme have been made in 1993–94 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; how many have been rejected; how many women have been awarded loans; how many training for work-employment training participants have been awarded loans endorsed by their training and enterprise council or local enterprise company; what have been the successful course completion rates in each region; how much has been awarded in total for each region; how much has been recovered; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information by region on the number of loans approved under the career development loan scheme, numbers of applications rejected, number of loans approved for women, value of loans approved and the successful course completion rate are shown in the tables. The information given is for the period April 1993 to the end of October 1993.

  Details of the number of training for work and employment training participants and of the amount of money repaid are not available.

  Further information on career development loans can be found in the 1992–93 annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Region

  Number of loans approved

  Rejected applications

  Number of loans for women

  Northern

  202

  101

  65

  Greater Manchester

  119

  102

  39

  North West

  331

  140

  125

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  467

  188

  185

  West Midlands

  432

  139

  154

  East Midlands

  407

  120

  145

  Eastern

  490

  190

  163

  south East

  843

  334

  331

  London

  1,509

  961

  576

  South West

  506

  127

  181

  Wales

  234

  58

  75

  Scotland

  659

  296

  220

  Great Britain

  6,199

  2,756

  2,259

  Region

  Value of loans (£)

  Course completion rate (Per cent.)

  Northern

  456,838

  57

  Greater Manchester

  280,651

  46

  North West

  837,531

  53

  50

  Region

  Value of loans(£)

  Course completion rate (Per cent.)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  971,190

  81

  West Midlands

  1,152,446

  78

  East Midlands

  982,577

  71

  Eastern

  1,305,605

  73

  South East

  1,983,421

  77

  London

  4,125,676

  81

  South West

  1,172,845

  68

  Wales

  559,665

  79

  Scotland

  1,392,886

  68

  Great Britain

  15,221,330

  73

  Training for Work
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will remove the upper age limit for unemployed persons participating in training for work programmes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to tell the hon. Member that the upper age limit for training for work participants will be raised to 63 years from April 1994.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The security requirements for information technology—IT—systems and services used by central Government Departments are stated in Her Majesty's Government IT security policy document. This document is supported by use of the Central Communications Telecommunications Agency risk analysis and management method—CRAMM—and the baseline security for IT systems—BSITS—risk analysis methods, by the Communications Electronic Security Group—CESG—memorandum No. 10 where appropriate, and by supporting advice and guidance published by the HMG IT security authorities.

  These are reviewed regularly to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation for some time.

  The code of practice for information security management was developed by, and established for use by, commercial organisations and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We do not have a sensitive file unit.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give figures for the total adult unemployment in Warley, West on 1 January for each of the past five years.
  51
  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of unemployed claimants aged 18 years and over in the Warley, West constituency from 1989 onwards, in January of each year, was 3,374, 2,484, 2,862, 4,252 and 4,878.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many participants of the former youth training scheme found full-time employment as a result of joining the scheme; and what percentage of total entry this represents.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that of all those who left the former youth training scheme in its last full year of operation—April 1989 to March 1990—in Great Britain, 63 per cent. went into full-time employment.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from individuals and organisations about proposals to change access to work, especially to oblige employers to contribute 50 per cent. of the cost of purchasing services such as personal readers and special aids to employment for people employed for more than six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Henley have been in correspondence with and met a number of disability and employer organisations about details of access to work, which will help more disabled people, in a broader range of work, to obtain or retain jobs. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement when he has reached decisions on the details of the scheme.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not held centrally and we regret that the information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  There is no marking "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The information is not held centrally and we regret that the information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial compensation the RAF is to receive in return for RAF Brawdy being used by the Army from 1994 instead of being available for RAF use or sale.
  52
  Mr. Hanley
  The Army currently plans to use RAF Brawdy as temporary accommodation until 1996. Should occupation extend beyond this, an appropriate financial transfer will be made to the RAF to offset the land receipts assumed in the Air Force budget.

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

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

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 23 November 1993,Official Report,column 318, if he will set out the basis for his statement that it would take considerable expense and difficulty for plutonium arising from the thermal oxide reprocessing plant to be used in nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Aitken
  For reasons of national security it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on how to construct a nuclear device, or on the usefulness of various materials in making a nuclear device.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies of the geology and hydrogeology of the atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston site have been carried out; and if he will place a copy of the results in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  Studies looking at various aspects of AWE operations are carried out periodically including recent surveys to support studies on water management systems at Aldermaston. Such studies are initiated locally and the reports written for internal management use. It would be inappropriate to place such documents in the Library.

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

  Mr. Hanley
  The annual total cost of the car service for Defence Department Ministers is some £175,000.

  Five vehicles are provided in London, including a reserve vehicle held in readiness for the Secretary of State. An arrangement exists for the use of a car supplied by the Scottish Office when the Secretary of State for Defence is in Scotland and the cost of this is reflected in the sum quoted.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of personnel and civilians currently employed in complemented PR and PR support
  53
  posts in London and commands and districts at home and overseas is 175. The comparable figure for 1985-86 is 249£5. A figure for 1979 is not available.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all certificates of exemption which he has issued under the provisions of regulation 14 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not granted any certificates of exemption under the provisions of regulation 14 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department was represented at the 39th ordinary session of the Western European Union in Paris from 29 November to 2 December; what proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom; what decisions were taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The last session of the WEU Assembly, which took place in Paris from 29 November to 2 December 1993, was attended by the Deputy United Kingdom Permanent Representative to NATO and other officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There was no MOD representation on this occasion. A number of reports were presented, either singly or jointly, by United Kingdom Parliamentarians, on behalf of several of the Assembly's committees. Copies of those reports can be obtained from the WEU Assembly in Paris. Recommendations embodied in individual reports will be considered by the WEU Council in due course.

  International Military Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what subcontractors International Military Services Ltd. employed to carry out its functions, and act on its behalf and at which locations;

  (2) if he will give the objectives, yearly profits and years of business operation of IMS Iran Ltd.

  Mr. Aitken
  As International Military Services is a private limited company, the information requested relates to the trading operations of the company, is of a commercially confidential nature and is not the responsibility of my Department. The company publishes its accounts for public scrutiny in accordance with the requirements of company law.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arrangements he is making to ensure the continued supply and maintenance of essential defence equipment provided by Ferranti;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that orders placed with Ferranti will be supplied according to contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials of my Department have held preliminary discussions with the receivers of Ferranti International, to see what can be done to minimise any 54

  disruption to the completion of our contracts. These discussions will continue. Longer-term arrangements for the supply and maintenance of equipment procured from Ferranti will be considered in the light of progress of the receivership.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implication of the entry into receivership of Ferranti for the ability of the United Kingdom armed forces to acquire equipment from domestic suppliers.

  Mr. Aitken
  For the immediate future, the receivers of Ferranti International have said that they wish to restore trading to near-normality as soon as possible. In the longer term, any effects on the availability of domestic suppliers of equipment for the armed forces will depend on the outcome of the receivership.

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will show, for each of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested in respect of MOD executive non-departmental public bodies—NDPB's—is as follows:(a) and (b) the public does not have a statutory right to attend board meetings or committee meetings or to inspect the minutes of meetings of any of MOD's executive NDPBs.
  (c) there is a statutory right for the public to inspect the annual accounts for all the service museums and for the annual report and accounts in respect of the Services Sound and Vision Corporation.

  These documents are held by the Charities Commission and at Companies House respectively. In the case of the Oil and Pipelines Agency, the agency's annual report and accounts are laid before each House of Parliament.

  Mr. David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 23 November,Official Report,column 42, if he will arrange for the Chief of the Air Staff to give a briefing to an employee of the hon. Member for South Shields;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 23 November, Official Report, column 42, and his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of 29 November, Official Report, column 377, on what basis Mr. David Hart was given a briefing by the Chief of the Air Staff on a visit to RAF Strike Command on 27 May.

  Mr. Hanley
  Briefings on the RAF are given from time to time to Members of Parliament, academics and members of the media who have shown a special interest in defence matters. It was on this basis that Mr. Hart was given a briefing at Headquarters Strike Command on 27 May. I would be happy, similarly, to arrange a briefing for the hon. Member.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Hanley
  The precise number of files held by my Department marked "Not for NAO eyes" could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Department and the NAO and the PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes."

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) representations and (b) proposals he has received in respect of RAF station Greenham Common; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: Since the beginning of 1993 my Department has received representations and proposals concerning: the removal of the airfield perimeter fencing on Crookham common and its reinstatement as a common with public access; the establishment of a monument to the cold war; the preparation of a planning brief by the district council for the reuse of surplus property, which envisages the creation of open space on Greenham common; the long-term reuse of the former American school; and the short-term use of the various facilities. All of these are being considered.

  Our managing agents—Vail-Williams of Reading—have received over 200 inquiries and proposals for short-term lettings of the various facilities.

  These inquiries include the following uses:

  Equestrian facilities

  Temporary film studios

  Open storage for vehicles

  Indoor storage

  Offices

  Leisure activities

  The district council has consented to the principle of short-term lettings—subject to resolution of any planning issues—and planning applications have been made covering these proposals.

  The district council has now produced a draft planning brief for public consultation; once adopted this should assist with the planning and future use of the surplus property.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Technology Foresight
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the earliest date by which the technology foresight process will have an influence on the allocation of funds by the research councils.

  Mr. David Davis
  The first results of the technology foresight programme will become available in early 1995. The Director General of the Research Councils, and individual councils, will be able to take the results into account thereafter.

  HMSO
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what savings have been made as a result of HMSO's market testing programme.

  Mr. David Davis
  The results of HMSO's market testing programme to date will save £2·4 million a year on a continuing basis.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of money spent on scientific research is not defence related.

  Mr. David Davis
  In 1993–94, 57 per cent. of net Government expenditure on research and development will be spent on research objectives that are not related to defence.

  Competing for Quality
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment his Department has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Competing for Quality programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave provisional results, including the estimated £100 million savings generated, in his statement on 4 November. More detailed figures will be published in the citizens charter second report early next year.

  Departmental Progress
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement summarising the progress made by his Department in the current year.

  Mr. David Davis
  Substantial progress has been made. In its first full year, the Office of Public Service and Science has:published key statements on public service reform through its White Papers on the citizens charter and open government;
  completed a market testing programme which had led to savings of £100 million across the civil service by 30 September;
  set out, in the White Paper "Realising Our Potential" the first Government-wide policy statement for over 20 years on science, engineering and technology.

  And within the next few days the Department will:
  run the second International Conference on "Service for the Citizen" which will underline the United Kingdom's role as one of the world's leading practitioners of public service reform; and publish a further White Paper, the 1993 review of next steps agencies in government.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce new charters.

  Mr. David Davis
  The last week has seen the publication of the courts charter for Northern Ireland. This brings the total number of charters to 38. The Benefits Agency will also be publishing an updated and improved version of its customer charter in the near future and there are a number of new charters planned for 1994. This is a part of the citizens charter's dynamic programme to raise the standard of all public services.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about changes to magistrates court arrangements in Stockport and Tameside.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Chancellor of the Duchy's responsibilities are for the appointment and removal of magistrates in Stockport and Tameside. He has not received any representations about changes to magistrates courts' arrangements in these two areas. Management of the courts is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Passengers Charter
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations the citizens charter unit in his Department has received from the Central Transport Consultative Committee on the subject of the passengers charter.

  Mr. David Davis
  The citizens charter unit has received a number of representations from the Central Transport Consultative Committee on all aspects of the passengers charter, with particular reference to BR's standards and compensation arrangements. We appreciate the value of the CTCC's observations in ensuring that the passengers charter really does meet passengers' needs.

  Open Government
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made with the open government initiative.

  Mr. David Davis
  Preparations for implementing the code of practice on open government are going ahead in the light of consultation responses. Proposals for legislation on access to personal records and health and safety information are being developed. Over 6,500 public records have already been released under the openness initiative.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what intentions he has to reform recruitment to senior posts within the civil service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on 22 November, columns 7-8.

  NAO and PAC
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. David Davis
  The marking "Not for National Audit Office eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit 58
  Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the National Audit Office while they are current. A total of 122 Cabinet Office and OPSS files are so designated.

  There is no marking "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Tony Lundy
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Attorney-General when a decision will be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the allegations made against ex-Detective Superintendent Tony Lundy formerly of the Metropolitan police; when the matter was referred to her; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions was first made aware of the present investigation during the summer of 1991. On 5 May 1992, leading and junior counsel were instructed to examine the reports, statements and documents then available from the South Yorkshire police, who were investigating this matter under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority.

  Between May 1992 and November 1993 further instructions were sent to counsel and they advised in consultation on a number of occasions. Counsel were preparing to submit their written advice to the Director in November 1993. However, fresh developments have required the police to open a new line of inquiry which they are pursuing as a matter of urgency. Until the results of this further inquiry are available, it is not possible to state when a final decision will be made.

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

  The Attorney-General
  The total cost to the Department of the Government car service for Ministers for the financial year 1992–93 was £129,700. Two vehicles were involved.

  NAO and PAC
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General how many files marked not for National Audit Office eyes are held by the Department; and how many are marked not for Public Accounts Committee eyes.

  The Attorney-General
  There are 19 files in the Departments for which I am responsible marked "Not for NAO eyes".

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to establish any of his Departments as executive agencies.

  The Attorney-General
  Consideration is to be given to the question whether it would be appropriate for three of my departments, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, and the Treasury Solicitor's Department, to become agencies in Government under the next steps programme. I shall be setting in hand studies of the appropriateness of agency status in each case and will reach a decision in the light of this further work.

  Notified cases of leptospirosis

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Total

  1990

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1991

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1992

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1993 (to 6 November)

  1

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Total

  3

  4

  1

  1

  9

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  No female prisoners in Northern Ireland have been forcibly searched since 2 March 1992; on that date, 21 female prisoners had to be restrained in order to comply with a search.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many submissions he has received to the consultation on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board in Northern Ireland; and how many of those were in favour of the abolition of the board.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: Ten responses were received to the consultation paper on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board in Northern Ireland. None was in favour of the abolition of the board.

HEALTH

  Medical Devices Directorate
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many safety warnings have been issued by the Medical Devices Directorate relating to(a) pacemakers and (b) artificial heart valves since the directorate was established.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medical Devices Directorate of the Department of Health has issued 17 pacemaker technical notes and one hazard circular relating to pacemakers, and one safety warning letter related to heart valves, since it was established in August 1990.

NORTHERN IRELAND

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

  Mr. Ancram
  Weil's disease is the more serious form of leptospirosis in humans but is not in itself notifiable. Leptospirosis has only been notifiable since April 1990 and the number of cases is as follows:

  Tilade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order an investigation into the prescribing of Tilade and the way it has been promoted.

  Mr. Sackville
  Recent allegations in the press regarding the methods used by the manufacturer to promote the prescribing of Tilade are currently under investigation by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority under its guidelines on the promotion of medicines, copies of which are available in the Library. The production of Tilade is monitored routinely by the medicines inspectorate, as is the manufacture of all licensed medicinal products, we have no knowledge of any concerns which would justify a special investigation.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies in(a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield dispose fewer than 1,700 prescriptions per month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is in the table.

  Family Health Services Authority

  Total number of pharmacies

  Number dispensing less than 1,700 prescriptions per month

  Percentage

  Barnsley

  42

  3

  7

  Doncaster

  49

  2

  4

  Rotherham

  41

  3

  7

  Sheffield

  110

  9

  8

  1. The source of the data is the table C20 from the Prescription Pricing Authority and includes pharmacies that operated throughout the 1992–93 financial year with closures excluded and new openers annualised.

  2. The figures are based on the FHSA areas of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield.

  Funding Allocations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients her Department assumes have private health assurance when adjusting funding allocations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Assumptions about the incidence of private health insurance do not feature in our weighted capitation formula for allocating resources to regional health authorities.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the target percentage for registered disabled employees within the national health service; and what is the actual percentage of registered disabled employees.

  Mr. Sackville
  Although not bound by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, the Department which includes the national health service management executive has accepted the provision that 3 per cent. of employees should be registered disabled.

  At 1 December 1993, 1·4 per cent. of the Department's work force were registered disabled. In addition, there are other people with disabilities, who are not registered disabled.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her 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. Sackville
  Information for the years 1979 and 1985 is not available in the form requested. Annual spend for the past five financial years is as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  Television

  1·662

  Radio

  0·205

  Press

  1·196

  1989–90

  Television

  3·549

  Radio

  0·127

  Press

  2·739

  1990–91

  Television

  1·900

  Radio

  0·005

  Press

  2·258

  1991–92

  Television

  4·489

  Radio

  0·015

  Press

  3·104

  1992–93

  Television

  2·773

  Radio

  0·020

  Press

  1·976

  "London, Making the Best Better"
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of University College hospital in the light of the discussion of medical research contained in "London, Making the Best Better".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's policy is not only to maintain but to enhance the quality of medical education and research. Any changes to the configuration of services within University College London hospitals will be considered with this objective in mind.

  Northumbria Ambulance Service
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each month from January 1992 the number of emergency calls responded to by the Northumbria ambulance service and the number and percentage responded to within(a) 14, (b) 20, (c) 25, (d) 30, (e) 40, (f) 50 and (g) more minutes.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Information on response times within eight and within 19 minutes for the financial year 1992–93 for Northumbria ambulance service national health service trust is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Total number of emergency calls resulting in ambulance arriving at scene of incidents

  Response within 8 minutes

  Response within 19 minutes

  77,602

  68

  99

  Whipps Cross Hospital
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make resources available for facilities at Whipps Cross hospital for permanent pacemaker implantation and cardiac catheterisation work to be undertaken.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that Forest healthcare trust is investigating with Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority the possibility of developing local cardiology services at Whipps Cross hospital. The hon. Member may wish to contact the trust chairman, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for details.

  Herbs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all those organisations from which she has recently received representations calling for restrictions on the availability of herbs and herbal produce.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received no such representations.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each civil service grade in her Department(a) the total number of people employed, (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.

  Mr. Sackvill
  The answer is:

  Grade

  Total Staff1

  Total Black2

  Total Asian2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  0

  3

  26

  0

  0

  63

  Grade

  Total Staff1

  Total Black2

  Total Asian2

  4

  27

  0

  0

  5

  212

  4—

  8

  6

  112

  4—

  4—

  7

  557

  4—

  11

  SEO

  343

  4—

  12

  HEO

  678

  7

  18

  EO

  882

  42

  71

  AO

  955

  112

  71

  AA

  521

  100

  26

  AT

  13

  0

  0

  HEO(D)

  27

  0

  0

  SGB1

  57

  4—

  0

  SGB2

  146

  6

  4—

  SPES

  59

  4—

  4—

  PES

  338

  59

  10

  Total3

  4,959

  333

  234

  1Based on figures obtained from the Department's personnel computer system as at 2 December 1993. The figures exclude special hospitals, youth treatment centres, secondees into the Department, staff on loan and casual staff of all grades.

  2Based on the response to the Department's ethnic origin survey. An asterisk means the number is five or less and the exact information has not been given to preserve anonymity.

  3Totals include numbers excluded to preserve anonymity—see note 2.

  4Due to small numbers, under the Department's code of practice, this data cannot be reproduced for reasons of confidentiality.

  Dentists
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on remuneration for general dental practitioners in 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government announced on 6 April 1993 that general dental practitioners were to receive the full 1·5 per cent. pay increase allowed under the Government's policy of restraint in public sector pay. This meant that dentists' target average net income—TANI—increased to £36,352. The dental rates study group met in the spring to consider how this increase in TANI could be paid, and agreed that the increase would be achieved by leaving in place the present scale of fees for dentists.

  The group also agreed that should it appear that this fee scale was under or over-delivering TANI either the Government or the dental profession could ask that the group meet again. At a meeting of the dental rates study group held on 1 December, the group recommended that there should be an increase in the fees payable to dentists of, on average, 2·9 per cent. from January 1994. The Government have accepted this recommendation. This is to implement the pay increase of 1·5 per cent. already agreed, and does not alter the pay target of £36,352.

  England and Wales—Cumulative to June 1993

  Male data cumulative to June 1993

  Female data cumulative to June 1993

  Age Groups (years)

  Deaths in AIDS cases

  AIDS

  HIV1

  Deaths in AIDS cases

  AIDS

  HIV1

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  0-14

  33

  1

  65

  1

  303

  2

  21

  9

  46

  9

  87

  4

  15-24

  111

  3

  282

  4

  2,501

  16

  22

  10

  68

  14

  582

  29

  25-34

  1,314

  31

  2,519

  37

  6,845

  44

  100

  44

  235

  48

  1,022

  51

  35-44

  1,618

  38

  2,444

  36

  3,875

  25

  54

  24

  95

  19

  226

  11

  45-54

  817

  19

  1,045

  15

  1,432

  9

  21

  9

  31

  6

  61

  3

  55+

  339

  8

  389

  6

  462

  3

  11

  5

  13

  3

  29

  1

  Total 100 per cent.

  4,232

  —

  6,744

  —

  15,418

  —

  229

  —

  488

  —

  2,007

  —

  Not known

  22

  —

  12

  —

  423

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  58

  —

  1 42 HIV infection reports, age and sex not recorded, are not included.

  Death Rates
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to reduce regional variations in actual death rates.

  Mr. Sackville
  Concentrating effective action on reducing avoidable deaths in the five key areas of coronary heart disease and stroke, cancers, mental illness, sexual health, and accidents is a central plank of "The Health of the Nation" strategy. Within this strategy, the Government's approach to variations in health is set out in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16 of the Green Paper—Cm 1523—and paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper—Cm 1986—copies of which are available in the Library.

  In the 17 months since the strategy was launched, there has already been encouraging evidence of activity, both within the national health service and more widely. Responding to geographical and other variations in death rates from specific causes is one of the important elements of local strategies, both in the implementation of "The Health of the Nation" and in other fields of health policy—notably, perinatal and infant mortality.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the requirement for local authorities to spend 85 per cent. of special transitional community care grant in the independent sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  The current requirement is for at least 85 per cent. of the social security transfer element of the special transitional grant to be used on community care services provided by the independent sector. We have received a number of representations from the independent sector, local authorities and others, all of which have been considered carefully. Details of the grant conditions for 1994–95 will be announced shortly.

  AIDS
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a breakdown by age of the total number of known cases of(a) HIV infection, (b) AIDS cases and (c) AIDS deaths which have to date been registered by her Department among (i) males and (ii) females.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for England and Wales is shown in the table based on reports to the public health laboratory service. The table gives age at testing for HIV infection, age at diagnosis of AIDS and age at death.

  Infant Formulae
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to meet representatives of the Royal College of Midwives to discuss the arrangements for the implementation of the European directive on the marketing of infant formulae.

  Mr. Sackville
  Draft regulations to implement this directive are the subject of a consultation document issued on 3 December by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is being sent to the Royal College of Midwives, among others.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 3 December. There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of establishing the headquarters for the NHS Supplies Authority in Reading including (i) relocation of staff, (ii) furnishing of offices and (iii) landscaping.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost of relocating National Health Service Supplies Authority staff to Reading was approximately £230,000. The accommodation was acquired as furnished by the previous tenants, so that only small items of furniture were purchased, at a cost of about £200. No landscaping costs have been incurred.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place a copy of the NHS Supplies Authority catalogue in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Supplies Authority has catalogues for each of its six operating divisions. We are arranging for the copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the top 50 suppliers to the NHS as identified by the NHS Supplies Authority, the value of the contract and the goods provided.

  Mr. Sackville
  The top 50 suppliers whose importance is such that the National Health Service Supplies Authority manages them on a national basis are:

  Supplier and Product

  Annual spend 1992–93 £ million

  AAH—Medical and pharmaceutical distribution

  190

  BT—Telephone services

  120

  British Gas—Gas supply

  60

  Glaxo—Pharmaceuticals

  39

  Digital—1T hardware/software

  36

  ICL—IT hardware/software

  35

  66

  Supplier and Product

  Annual spend 1992–93 £ million

  Baxter—Medical and pharmaceutical

  33

  Hewlett-packard—Medical equipment, IT hardware and software

  32

  Ethicon—Sutures

  25

  Olympus Keymed—Medical equipment

  25

  Molnycke—Incontinence disposables

  24

  IGE—Medical equipment

  24

  Siemens—Medical equipment

  24

  Abbott—Medical and pharmaceutical

  21

  Wellcome—Pharmaceuticals

  21

  Philips—Medical equipment

  20

  Cow and Gate—Baby feeds

  20

  Johnson and Joneson—Medical consumables

  18

  Shell—Oil

  18

  Smith and Nephew—Medical consumables

  18

  BOC—Medical gases

  16

  SMA Wyeth—Baby feeds

  15

  Howmedica—Medical consumbles

  14

  Fresenius—Pharmaceuticals

  14

  London International Group (LRC)—Medical consumables

  14

  3M—Medical consumables

  13

  British Coal—Coal

  13

  Batchfords—Patients appliances

  12

  British Car Contracts—Vehicles

  12

  Camp—Orthotics

  12

  Esso—Oil

  12

  Ford Contract Motoring—Vehicles

  12

  Kodak—X-Ray film/equipment

  12

  Steeper—Patients appliances

  12

  Vernon Carus—Medical consumables

  12

  Dupont—X-Ray film/equipment

  11

  McDonnell Douglas—IT hardware/software

  11

  BP—Oil

  10

  IBM—IT hardware/software

  10

  HMSO—Stationery and printing

  9

  Intial Contract services—Hotel services

  9

  Becton Dickinson—Medical consumables

  8

  Jamont—Hand towels

  8

  Remploy—Patients appliances

  8

  The Buying Agency—Catering equipment

  8

  Toshiba—X-Ray film/equipment

  8

  Biomet—Medical consumables

  6

  Charringtons—Oil

  6

  Davis and Geck—Medical consumables

  6

  Kimberley Clark—Toilet tissue

  6

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the annual salary costs of(a) the six divisional directors of purchasing, (b) the staff in the divisional offices and (c) the members of the national purchasing unit of the NHS Supplies Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1993–94 total salary costs—including national insurance and superannuation contributions, overtime and allowances—are as follows:

  a. six divisional directors of purchasing

  £285,000

  b. all divisional staff, including warehouse staff

  £35·8 million

  c. all national purchasing unit staff

  £1·2 million

  NHS Supplies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what were the salary costs of NHS employees engaged in supplies work at(a) regional, (b) district and (c) unit level for 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  The nearest available information relates to January and February 1992. At that time, there
  67
  were around 5,000 supplies staff employed by over 70 different employing authorities. The staff costs were approximately £64 million a year, including national insurance, superannuation, overtime and allowances.

  NHS Expenditure
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been, in 1992–93 prices, total gross public spending for each year since 1991–92; and what is the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for NHS trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for 1991–92 to 1993–94 is shown in the table. Forward estimates of these figures are not prepared.

  Year

  Public expenditure: NHS trusts1 £ million

  1991–92

  2,632

  1992–93

  6,635

  1993–94

  213,052

  1 This figure comprises NHS trust income from NHS purchasers of health care plus external finance. All figures are at 1992–93 prices.

  2 Forecast outturn.

  Regional Offices
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a map showing the new boundaries for the eight regional health authorities which are to replace the existing 14; and whether the proposed reorganisation of the NHS management executive will maintain these regional offices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is currently consulting on proposals to determine new national health service regions and establish new regional health authorities. The proposed boundaries of the eight new regions are described in the consultation document, copies of which have been sent to all hon. Members and are available in the Library. It is proposed that the regional health authorities would share common boundaries with the new regional offices which are to be created as part of the national health service management executive.

  Qualified nurses in each regional health authority September 1979 to 1992, England: Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Northern

  14,580

  14,880

  15,170

  15,320

  15,720

  16,040

  16,590

  Yorkshire

  15,180

  15,740

  16,250

  16,610

  16,810

  17,290

  17,880

  Trent

  18,180

  18,190

  18,830

  19,480

  19,800

  20,400

  21,370

  East Anglian

  7,220

  7,430

  7,580

  7,810

  8,020

  8,420

  8,820

  North West Thames

  15,390

  15,590

  16,490

  16,830

  16,250

  16,850

  16,870

  North East Thames

  16,690

  16,490

  16,420

  18,550

  19,180

  19,210

  19,580

  South East Thames

  16,560

  17,090

  17,040

  17,530

  17,780

  17,770

  18,030

  South West Thames

  13,730

  13,990

  13,970

  13,650

  14,160

  14,160

  14,260

  Wessex

  11,080

  11,330

  11,250

  11,750

  12,140

  12,430

  12,810

  Oxford

  8,580

  9,000

  9,070

  9,160

  9,320

  9,870

  10,110

  South Western

  13,200

  14,110

  14,550

  14,450

  14,560

  14,680

  15,220

  West Midlands

  19,850

  20,790

  21,360

  21,970

  22,560

  23,020

  23,820

  Mersey

  11,860

  12,130

  12,120

  12,240

  12,540

  12,570

  12,930

  North Western

  18,140

  19,270

  19,440

  20,400

  21,010

  21,810

  22,470

  SHAs

  2,790

  2,930

  2,990

  3,300

  3,480

  3,200

  3,360

  ENGLAND

  205,670

  212,500

  216,880

  219,300

  223,320

  227,720

  234,130

  Anorexia Nervosa
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data has been collected by her Department in relation to the prevalence of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not collect information on prevalence of conditions. Arrangements for assessing and meeting the needs of sufferers from anorexia and bulimia nervosa are matters for health authorities locally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what official guidance her Department has issued to general practitioners or health authorities regarding the recognition of, and treatment for, anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities have been advised in the mental illness key area handbook to consider the need to provide access to specialist in-patient facilities for eating disorders on a sub-regional basis and making available family and cognitive therapy as part of their purchasing decisions. No specific further advice has been issued by the Department to general practitioners.

  Senior Nurse Managers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior nurse manager posts there were in each region in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses, who achieved their basic qualifications in the northern region before 30 September in each year since 1987, were in post in the national health service one year later.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified nursing staff were employed in each region in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  69

  Qualified nurses in each regional health authority September 1979 to 1992, England: Whole-time equivalents (cont.)

  Region

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  16,910

  17,280

  17,410

  17,260

  16,950

  16,880

  17,140

  Yorkshire

  18,060

  18,530

  18,700

  18,670

  18,540

  18,480

  18,160

  Trent

  21,830

  22,540

  22,840

  22,720

  23,090

  23,290

  23,610

  East Anglian

  8,970

  9,280

  9,550

  9,720

  9,760

  9,810

  9,820

  North West Thames

  16,740

  16,040

  16,060

  15,850

  15,590

  16,280

  15,770

  North East Thames

  19,560

  19,850

  20,000

  19,570

  19,800

  20,050

  20,020

  South East Thames

  18,430

  18,520

  18,880

  19,070

  18,740

  16,620

  17,360

  South West Thames

  14,060

  13,860

  14,090

  14,150

  13,760

  14,120

  14,960

  Wessex

  12,990

  13,190

  13,660

  13,660

  13,970

  14,130

  14,140

  Oxford

  10,250

  10,540

  10,690

  10,680

  11,030

  11,320

  11,620

  South Western

  15,460

  15,770

  15,730

  15,870

  16,320

  16,130

  16,770

  West Midlands

  24,380

  25,090

  24,770

  25,140

  25,460

  25,210

  26,470

  Mersey

  13,040

  12,910

  13,130

  13,260

  12,930

  12,620

  12,720

  North Western

  22,810

  22,770

  22,960

  23,160

  22,920

  23,230

  23,120

  SHAs

  3,310

  3,240

  3,450

  3,390

  3,390

  5,050

  4,850

  ENGLAND

  236,770

  239,360

  241,920

  242,190

  242,340

  243,250

  246,570

  Notes:

  Figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 wte.

  Figures exclude agency staff.

  SHAs figures for 1991 and 1992 include the special hospital services authority.

  Community Day Care Services
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require local authorities to charge for community day care services.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities already have discretion to charge for day and domiciliary services and there are no plans to change this.

  Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the report prepared by Price Waterhouse to inform the London Implementation Group on the future of Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No work has been carried out by Price Waterhouse for the London Implementation Group on this subject.

  Young People (Containment)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what powers exist for her to impose a curfew, in selected and known areas, on young persons aged under 16 years after 10.30 pm; and if she will make as statement;

  (2) what powers exist to contain, restrain or apprehend persons aged under 16 who are clearly not under parental control and who might be judged at risk or in need; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such powers. If a young person needs to be apprehended this would be a matter for the police. Under the Children Act 1989 an emergency protection order can be sought from the court if it is satisfied there is reasonable cause to believe the child would suffer significant harm.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average annual cost of employing(a) a senior manager, (b) a consultant, (c) a senior house officer, (d) a qualified nurse, (e) an ambulance driver, (f) a porter, (g) a
  70
  medical laboratory, scientific officer and (h) a cleaner in the national health service for each year since 1986–87 at (i) cash prices and (ii) 1986–87 prices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 June, at columns 181-82. Final figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  RHAs (Capital Assets)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total capital assets of the regional health authorities both in cash terms and in terms of development potential.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total capital assets of regional health authorities in England in cash terms were, at 31 March 1993, £766,507,176.

  The 1992 revaluation of the national health service estate provided regional health authorities with estimates of the development potential of their land and buildings. These figures are not available centrally.

  Health Service Reform
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will happen to the realised and potential capital assets of the regional health authorities upon(a) a merger and (b) abolition.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Proceeds from the sale of capital assets released through the merger or abolition of regional health authorities will be used for the benefit of patients.

  Cars
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1990 the expenditure on cars for(a) regions, (b) districts and (c) trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following information has been taken from the financial returns of regional health authorities, district health authorities and national health service trusts.
  71

  Expenditure on staff cars—leased and contract hire charges

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Regional Health Authorities

  3,966,651

  5,385,946

  District Health Authorities

  44,369,828

  41,069, 621

  NHS Trusts

  5,363,110

  24,010,267

  Total

  53,699,589

  70,465,834

  Notes:

  1. Information for 1990–91 is not separately identifiable.

  2. The data supplied for 1992–93 are provisional only.

  3. The figures include the direct leasing/contract costs only.

  Community Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish guidelines on charging for community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance was issued in December 1992 about residential care and nursing homes. Further guidance was issued in May this year and more will be issued shortly.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of her Department regarding the status of repetitive strain injury as a medically identifiable condition.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 4 November, at column 451.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior managers in the national health service there were on each spinal point 1 to 30; what was the flat salary on each point; what was the annual cost of employment per whole-time equivalent on each point in each year since the introduction of these grades; and what was the number of unit general managers in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the number of district general managers in groups 1, 2 and 3, the salary range in each group and the annual cost of employment per whole-time equivalent in each group in each year since the introduction of these grades.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville)—gave him on 27 July at columns 835-39.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the administrative costs in each of the national health service regions in each year since 1987–88 in(a) cash prices, (b) 1987–88 prices and (c) as a percentage of total expenditure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS budget was spent on administrative costs in each year since 1986.
  72
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The percentage of total revenue expenditure for the national health service in England spent on pay and pay-related costs of all staff at headquarters level, and their office costs and overheads, together with the total costs of the Dental Practice Board and the Prescription Pricing Authority is shown in the table.

  Administration as a percentage of Total Revenue Expenditure for the National Health Service in England

  Per cent. expenditure on administration

  1986–87

  3·7

  1987–88

  3·8

  1988–89

  3·4

  1989–90

  4·0

  1990–91

  4·6

  1991–92

  3·6

  1992–93

  3·4

  Source:

  Summarised accounts of the district health authorities, special health authorities, regional health authorities, family health services authorities, the Prescription Pricing Authority and the Dental Practice Board for England.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1992–93 do not include the Prescription Pricing Authority or Dental Practice Board as this information is not available.

  2. The figures for 1992–93 are provisional.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table showing the number of hospital beds available by specialty in each region in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information has been published and copies of the national and regional summaries are available in the Library. The data for the years 1979 to 1986 are contained in the publication "Hospital Statistics—Form SH3", which records bed availability at individual specialty level. The data for the years 1987–88 to 1991–92 are contained in the "Summary of Bed Availability—Form KHO3". These data are classified by broad ward category, recognising the more flexible use of bed facilities. The summaries for 1992–93 are to be published shortly and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Managers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what bonuses are payable to hospital managers; and whether the successful completion of a hospital closure is a matter for bonus payments.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: National health service general and senior managers are entitled to performance-related pay linked to individual success in achieving their authorities' objectives. NHS trusts determine the remuneration of their executive directors.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Fuel Poverty Assistance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the Overseas Development Administration to provide fuel poverty assistance to states of the former Yugoslavia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Albania, Georgia and Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We provide humanitarian aid to all the countries mentioned, including Albania, in ways which take account of their overall needs and the responses of other donors. Our contributions specifically designed to help meet the energy requirements of refugees and other displaced people this winter are as follows:

  £ million

  Bilateral

  UK Share of EC

  Former Yugoslavia

  10·7

  n/a

  Iraq

  3

  3·1

  Georgia

  4·7

  Azerbaijan

  6·2

  Armenia

  6·6

  13·7

  20·6

  Structural Adjustment Programmes
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much bilateral aid money has been spent in support of structural adjustment programmes in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  £ million

  1983

  43·1

  1984

  32·3

  1985

  45·8

  1986

  60·3

  1987–88

  101·3

  1988–89

  118·3

  1989–90

  155·9

  1990–91

  145·7

  1991–92

  114·7

  1992–93

  133·1

  The figures given for the first four years are on a calendar year basis. Thereafter, the amounts are presented for financial years.

  Total gross bilateral aid to British dependencies 1979—1992–931 2

  £000

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Anguilla

  1,060

  991

  1,296

  1,059

  1,426

  1,026

  1,086

  1,589

  1,536

  1,550

  1,784

  1,728

  820

  2,225

  2,080

  Bermuda

  15

  28

  12

  —

  33

  17

  17

  30

  68

  59

  32

  16

  17

  2

  12

  British Virgin Islands

  781

  1,232

  1,241

  1,471

  1,161

  718

  1,172

  831

  566

  2,489

  2,211

  4,399

  1,214

  1,857

  1,213

  Cayman Islands

  283

  443

  199

  34

  2

  —

  470

  1,649

  —

  309

  2,593

  1,126

  4,183

  1,774

  119

  Falkland Islands3

  915

  1.015

  1.058

  4,025

  9,053

  6,016

  10,700

  10,252

  8,165

  6,735

  3,389

  2,487

  1,430

  1,286

  58

  Gibraltar

  3,214

  4,948

  4,010

  1,898

  2,352

  8,163

  22,452

  14,299

  9,029

  6,932

  8,685

  343

  970

  1,078

  1,676

  Hong Kong

  185

  376

  245

  199

  203

  125

  312

  195

  217

  249

  216

  217

  312

  404

  359

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the EC's technical assistance in the Commonwealth independent states programme for nuclear safety; and what is the United Kingdom's contribution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the three years from the start of the TACIS programme in 1991, a total of 236 mecu—around £180 million—has been committed for work on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union. The work has covered three main areas; plant operational safety, design safety and support to the regulatory authorities.

  For 1993, the total budget for nuclear safety is 103 mecu or £80 million—which is allocated as follows:

  Mecu

  £ million

  Russia

  48

  37

  Ukraine

  32

  25

  Regional

  8

  6

  EBRD (contribution to Multi-lateral fund)

  15

  12

  Total

  103

  80

  The regional programme will mainly cover Russia, Ukraine and Belarus with limited assistance being provided to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Comparable figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  The UK currently contributes around 16·5 per cent. to the total cost of the assistance provided by TACIS.

  Environment Conference (Addis Ababa)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information the Overseas Development Administration has received on the outcome of the African ministerial conference on the environment, held in Addis Ababa, on 26 to 27 November, in regard to the effect of decisions upon aid programmes sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are seeking to obtain a report of the meeting and will consider its implications.

  Dependencies (Aid)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the annual aid allocated for each year since 1979 to(a) Anguilla, (b) Bermuda, (c) British Antarctic Territory, (d) British Virgin islands, (e) the Cayman islands, (f) Diego Garcia, (g) the Falklands Islands, (h) Gibraltar, (i) Hong Kong, (j) Montserrat, (k) Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno islands, (l) St. Helena, (m) St. Helena dependencies, (n) South Georgia and South Sandwich islands and (o) the Turks and Caicos islands; what was the population of each dependency in 1979; and what it is today.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:
  75

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Montserrat

  528

  1,209

  1,127

  1,823

  1,041

  1,268

  1,223

  2,015

  1,309

  1,866

  2,164

  5,382

  4,139

  2,969

  3,271

  Pitcairn Islands

  —

  47

  —

  —

  4

  41

  187

  137

  22

  106

  —

  4

  52

  41

  56

  St. Helena and Dep

  3,935

  3,795

  4,062

  5,834

  6,533

  7,471

  9,354

  9,202

  12,241

  11,057

  20,524

  24,239

  11,759

  9,136

  9,060

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  1,015

  1,274

  3,362

  5,716

  4,217

  3,923

  3,588

  5,387

  5,356

  4,258

  5,647

  4,424

  4,981

  9,957

  8,009

  >1 British Aid Statistics are complied by financial year from 1987–88 onwards.

  >2 No aid was given to British Antarctic Territory and Diego Garcia.

  3 Includes South Georgia.

  Estimated population of United Kingdom dependent territories

  1979(000)

  1991(000)

  Anguilla

  7

  9

  Bermuda

  54

  60

  British Virgin Islands

  11

  17

  Cayman Islands

  17

  27

  Falklands Islands

  2

  2

  Gibraltar

  26

  27

  Hong Kong

  4,930

  5,859

  Montserrat

  11

  12

  St. Helena and dependencies

  6

  6

  Turks and Caicos

  7

  13

  Notes:

  The populations of British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory—Diego Garcia—and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are zero.

  The population of the Pitcairn island group has been stable since 1978 at between 50 and 60.

  Sources:

  Where possible national census figures and estimates have been quoted. Where these are not available figures have been taken from the UN Demographic Yearbook, the Caribbean development bank and the Commonwealth Yearbook.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for which of the overseas dependency states of EU member states the Development Council has agreed to finance environmental projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Development Council does not discuss individual projects. No EC-financed projects concerned solely with the environment are currently under way in the EC overseas countries and territories programme, although a regional environmental project for British Caribbean dependent territories is under consideration.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank voted in favour of the document "Expanding Access to World Bank Information" when this matter was discussed by the executive directors of the World bank; and if he will place a copy of the instructions to the executive director in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply he received from the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), on 1 December at column 576.

  European Development Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed and what decisions taken at the European Development Council in Brussels on 2 December; and what proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey attended the Development Council at which the main items were the mid-term review of the Lomé convention; follow-up to the 1992 resolution on development co-operation to the year 2000, including the adoption of a resolution on poverty alleviation; and agreement on a resolution on rehabilitation in countries emerging from crisis. All this work forms part of a long-term agreed work programme to which we are making a prominent and positive contribution.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service Administration
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to reduce the management costs of health boards and NHS trusts.

  Mr. Stewart
  The NHS management executive monitors the management costs of health boards and NHS trusts and is finalising revised arrangements appropriate to the new roles of boards and trusts.

  Forestry Commission
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Munro
  Around 3,000 individuals and 300 organisations have written to Ministers and to the Secretary and members of the Forestry Review Group, setting out their views on the work of the group.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidelines to NHS trust hospitals concerning the practice of publicly advertising the private use of such hospitals on behalf of commercial organisations.

  Mr. Stewart
  No. It is for NHS trusts to decide how to make the best use of capacity over and above that required for NHS purposes. Income from non-NHS services is used to enhance benefits for all patients.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has issued to NHS trusts concerning the salaries of senior managers and others; and if he will make a statement.
  77
  Mr. Stewart
  On 12 November 1992 and 29 January 1993, chairmen of NHS trusts were informed that the increase in salaries of senior managers and other staff in 1992–93 should not exceed 1·5 per cent. Revised arrangements for the pay of general and senior managers have been commended to trusts in NHS circular MEL(1993)114 of 30 August 1993. I have deposited a copy of this circular in the Library.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the start-up grant for each NHS trust is calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: Grants of up to £175,000 have been set aside for new NHS trusts. These are intended for one off expenditure in the run-up to the trusts becoming operational. Additional funds have been specifically secured and earmarked for this purpose.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the turnover of each NHS trust.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The information available for 1993–94 is as follows:

  Trust

  Forecast Income £000

  Aberdeen Royal Hospital

  111,165

  Caithness and Sutherland

  13,549

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  102,346

  Grampian Healthcare

  130,375

  Moray Health Services

  21,595

  Raigmore Hospital

  49,102

  West Lothian

  61,915

  Ayrshire and Arran Community

  53,995

  Monklands and Bellshill

  50,471

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  68,449

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  42,561

  Royal Scottish National Hospital

  19,777

  South Ayr Hospital

  43,512

  Southern General Hospital

  75,568

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  38,155

  Victoria Infirmary

  53,484

  Yorkhill

  49,696

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what training chairmen and non-executive directors receive on corporate governance following their appointments to NHS trust boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  Chairmen and non-executive directors attend induction conferences that include corporate governance among the subjects covered. In consultation with boards and trusts, the NHS management executive is developing additional opportunities for training in this and other areas.

  NHS in Scotland employees1, number in post; by health board and type of contract: at 30 September

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19932

  WT

  PT

  WT

  PT

  WT

  PT

  WT

  PT

  Wt

  PT

  Argyll and Clyde

  5,856

  4,897

  5,662

  4,988

  5,655

  5,138

  5,525

  5,037

  5,479

  5,094

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,391

  3,588

  4,388

  3,672

  4,574

  3,724

  4,494

  3,788

  4,428

  3,763

  Borders

  1,409

  1,063

  1,373

  1,068

  1,355

  1,103

  1,348

  1,137

  1,338

  1,140

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,066

  2,030

  2,036

  2,095

  2,046

  2,149

  2,018

  2,209

  1,968

  2,217

  Fife

  4,469

  2,660

  4,410

  2,776

  4,315

  2,973

  4,123

  3,145

  3,930

  3,145

  Forth Valley

  4,244

  3,005

  4,296

  3,320

  4,199

  3,403

  4,124

  3,649

  4,111

  3,640

  Grampian

  8,272

  5,043

  8,006

  5,235

  7,961

  5,581

  7,958

  5,906

  7,825

  5,349

  Greater Glasgow

  21,833

  10,991

  20,256

  11,090

  19,592

  11,030

  18,844

  11,087

  18,361

  11,016

  78
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the total accumulated receipts of NHS trusts that have achieved a 6 per cent. return on assets.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information is available only in respect of the two first-wave NHS trusts whose audited accounts have been published. The total receipts for these trusts in 1992–93 was £157,014,000. Both exceeded the 6 per cent. return on their assets.

  NHS Staff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to publish statistics for the numbers of whole-time equivalent staff in the NHS using the same breakdown as that adopted by the Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  Detailed statistics for staff employed by the NHS in Scotland are published each year in "Scottish Health Statistics". The 1993 edition is due for publication next month. The only extra feature of the data published in the 1991–92 annual report of Greater Glasgow health board is a breakdown into community and hospital categories. "Scottish Health Statistics" includes such a breakdown for nursing, medical and dental staff.

  The classification of other staff in this way would require extra coding to be undertaken by the health authorities in order to provide the data centrally. A consultation exercise concluded earlier this month revealed that health boards, directly managed units and NHS trusts sought no increase in the level of data they are required to provide.

  There are no plans to collect data splitting staff into the hospital and community categories at present.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has issued to national health service employers concerning the payment of unsocial hours allowances for staff.

  Mr. Stewart
  For staff whose pay and conditions are determined nationally a variety of agreements has been reached for different staff groups as part of their overall pay and conditions of service package. Details of such agreements are contained in handbooks.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time NHS employees there were in each health board area in each of the past live years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The information requested is detailed in the table.
  79

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19932

  WT

  PT

  WT

  PT

  WT

  PT

  WT

  PT

  WT

  PT

  Highland

  3,141

  2,143

  3,150

  2,198

  3,251

  2,235

  3,170

  2,342

  3,072

  2,360

  Lanarkshire

  7,096

  4,513

  6,817

  4,835

  6,469

  4,735

  6,104

  4,739

  5,983

  4,766

  Lothian

  13,129

  7,926

  12,343

  8,004

  11,965

  8,191

  11,709

  8,472

  11,424

  8,798

  Orkney

  228

  156

  236

  189

  230

  207

  236

  213

  237

  231

  Shetland

  290

  179

  305

  170

  315

  173

  259

  130

  265

  134

  Tayside

  8,549

  4,689

  8,560

  4,763

  8,330

  4,605

  8,152

  4,614

  7,790

  4,577

  Western Isles

  337

  353

  347

  419

  357

  414

  369

  408

  393

  431

  Notes:

  1 Excludes general medical practitioners and general dental practitioners. Includes employees of NHS trusts and health boards.

  2At 31 March 1993 except medical and dental which are at 30 September 1992.

  3Whole-time includes consultants with maximum part-time contracts. Part-time includes honorary medical and dental appointments.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in each of the past five years of salaries paid to NHS employees suspended on full pay.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available centrally.

  Murder
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (a) men and (b) women have been convicted for murder each year since the abolition of capital punishment;

  Male Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in Scotland since 1 January 19661

  Number of years served by prisoners before release on life licence

  Year of conviction

  Number of prisoners convicted

  Less than 7 Years

  7 Years+

  8 Years+

  9 Years+

  10 Years+

  11 Years+

  12 Years+

  13 Years+

  14 Years+

  15 Years+

  16 Years+

  17 Years+

  18 Years+

  19 Years+

  20 Years+

  21 Years+

  22 Years+

  23 Years+

  Number of prisoners still in custody

  1966

  19

  —

  —

  3

  8

  4

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1967

  23

  —

  1

  5

  5

  4

  1

  2

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1968

  24

  —

  2

  —

  3

  5

  5

  5

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  1969

  20

  —

  —

  4

  3

  4

  3

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1970

  22

  —

  —

  1

  6

  6

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1971

  37

  —

  —

  4

  7

  17

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1972

  32

  —

  1

  1

  14

  7

  4

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1973

  31

  —

  —

  1

  10

  7

  3

  2

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1974

  29

  —

  —

  2

  7

  7

  3

  2

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1975

  36

  —

  1

  2

  6

  11

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1976

  35

  —

  1

  5

  5

  5

  3

  2

  6

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1977

  46

  2

  1

  3

  2

  5

  5

  6

  2

  4

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1978

  28

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  6

  5

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1979

  29

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  4

  5

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1980

  24

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  6

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1981

  27

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  1982

  39

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1983

  35

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1984

  36

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  1985

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  1986

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1987

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1988

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  1989

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1990

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  1991

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  1992

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  1993

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  1 Excludes prisoners who died in custody or were transferred out of the scottish prison service, e.g.to England, While still serving their sentence.

  Source:Departmental records.

  Female Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in Scotland since 1 January 19661

  Number of years served by prisoners before release on life lincence

  Year of convication

  Number of prisoners convicted

  Less than 7 years

  7 Years+

  8 Years+

  9 Years+

  10 Years+

  11 Years+

  12 Years+

  13 Years+

  14 Years+

  15 Years+

  16 Years+

  17 Years+

  18 Years+

  19 Years+

  20 Years+

  21 Years+

  22 Years+

  23 Years+

  Number of prisoners still in custody

  1966

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1967

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1968

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1969

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1970

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1971

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1972

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1973

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1974

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1975

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1976

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1977

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1978

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1979

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1980

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1981

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1982

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1983

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1984

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1985

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1986

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1987

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1988

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1989

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1990

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1991

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1992

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1993

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1 Excludes prisoners who died in custody or were transferred out of the Scottish Prison Service, e.g.to England, Whild still serving their sentence.

  Source: Departmental records.
  80
  if he will present in tabular form the number of years each of these persons served before being released, classifying it by the year of conviction; and if he will indicate those (i) men and (ii) women who are still imprisoned by year of conviction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the tables.
  81
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the average amount of time spent in prison by(a) males and (b) females who were sentenced to imprisonment for murder and have since been released during the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The information is set out in the table.

  Year of release

  Male

  Female

  1984

  10 years 4 months

  10 years1

  1985

  10 years 6 months

  —

  1986

  10 years 6 months

  —

  1987

  11 years

  9 years 7 months2

  1988

  10 years 5 months

  —

  1989

  12 years 4 months

  —

  1990

  11 years 10 months

  12 years1

  1991

  13 years 6 months

  —

  1992

  12 years 6 months

  10 years1

  1993

  11 years 2 months

  11 years1

  11 prisoner.

  22 prisoners.

  Source: Departmental records.

  Life Sentences
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women prisoners were serving a life sentence on 1 December.

  Mr. Lang
  I have asked Mr. E. Frizzell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, to arrange for a reply to be given to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. E. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of men and women prisoners serving a life sentence on 1 December.
  On that date the number of male and female prisoners serving life sentences, detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure (HMP) or detained Without Limit of Time (WLT) in Scotland was as follows:

  All discharges for patients with Weil's for each Health Board of Treatment for the years 1988-August 1993

  Health Board of Treatment

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Jan-Aug 1993

  Grampian

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Glasgow

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Highland

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Tayside

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Scotland

  2

  2

  3

  2

  0

  1

  Note:

  Figures refer to consultant episodes.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the system 3 poll commissioned by Scottish Homes to ascertain the attitudes of tenants to stock transfers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes has conducted a number of surveys in Scotland using system 3.
  82

  Male

  Female

  Life

  422

  6

  HMP

  13

  0

  WLT

  23

  1

  458

  7

  Forestry
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the chairman and members of the Forestry Review Group; on what date he expects to receive their report; and whether the group will go out to public consultation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Review Group consists of the following officials:

  Mr. H. H. Mills, Secretary, The Scottish Office Environment Department (Chairman);

  Mr. T. R. Cutler, Director General, Forestry Commission;

  Mr. D. S. Grundy, Commissioner, Forestry Commission

  Dr. S. Harding, Forestry Commission;

  Mr. M. L. Williams, HM Treasury;

  Mr. K. Cosgriff, HM Treasury;

  Mr. T. J. Osmond, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

  Mr. L. K. Walford, Welsh Office;

  Dr. R. Shaw, Department of the Environment;

  Mr. D. Green, Prime Minister's Policy Unit;

  Mr. S. Hampson, The Scottish Office Environment Department;

  Mr. A. Cameron, The Scottish Office Environment Department;

  Mr. G. S. Pearson, The Scottish Office Environment Department (Secretary).

  I expect to receive the group's advice in the new year. This advice is, and will remain, confidential to Ministers.

  Weil's Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Stewart
  The number of discharges for patients in NHS hospitals with a diagnosis of Weil's disease from 1988 to August 1993 is shown in the table.

  The survey undertaken in the east end of Glasgow was commissioned, following a competitive process, at a cost of £3,800.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of each of the Scottish new towns what is(a) the value of assets sold in each of the last five years, (b) the

  83
  value of assets sold to date in the current financial year and (c) the financial targets set for the sale of assets in the current financial year.

  £million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Sold to date

  Target

  Cumbernauld2

  16·393

  16·136

  18·686

  18·970

  15·476

  16·177

  21·023

  East Kilbride

  15·865

  31·434

  24·653

  21·293

  20·222

  29·331

  55·616

  Glenrothes

  10·058

  12·009

  18·698

  14·585

  8·880

  15·691

  25·054

  Irvine

  9·126

  7·294

  6·125

  5·033

  3·677

  2·827

  5·150

  Livingston

  8·413

  15·841

  21·542

  13·877

  19·227

  12·088

  15·957

  1 The figures are expressed in cash.

  2 The figures cover receipts from housing, industrial, commercial and land sales.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees there were as at 30 November of each of the Scottish new town development corporations.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is in the table below:

  Number of permanent staff, including manual Workers

  Number of temporary staff, including staff on fixed terms contracts

  Total

  East Kilbride

  394

  69

  463

  Glenrothes

  148

  26

  174

  Cumbernauld

  348

  44

  392

  Livingston

  409

  56

  465

  Irvine

  268

  15

  283

  Health Board Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the successful bid for the urology contract with the Ayrshire and Arran health board was the cheapest bid made for the contract;

  (2) on how many occasions the NHS management executive has intervened in tendering processes for contracts awarded by each health board during the last 18 months;

  (3) if he will ask the NHS management executive to look again at the basis on which Ayrshire and Arran health board have awarded the contract for urology services to the South Ayrshire trust;

  (4) what consideration was given by the NHS management executive to the urology contract awarded by Ayrshire and Arran health board to the South Ayrshire NHS trust after the executive had ordered a re-run of the tendering process;

  (5) whether the purpose-built facilities for urology services within the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust will now be used; whether South Ayrshire NHS trust will have to build new facilities for the urology unit; how much the new urology facilities at the South Ayrshire NHS trust will cost; and how much the new urology facilities in the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust cost to build; (6) if he will make a statement outlining the procedure adopted by Ayrshire and Arran health board in awarding a contract for urology services to the South Ayrshire NHS trust;

  (7) if he will make a statement on the NHS management executive's remit as regards scrutiny of the award of health board contracts;

  (8) on whose instructions the NHS management executive ordered a re-run of the tendering process for
  84
  Mr. Stewart
  Information about the value of the assets sold is not available centrally. The actual receipts from the sale of assets are shown in the table.

  urology services in Ayrshire and Arran health board; and whether this was supported by Ayrshire and Arran health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]: The role of the NHS management executive in relation to contracting between health boards and NHS trusts is to ensure fair play and that contracts are awarded so as to improve patient care within available resources.

  Following representations, the then chief executive of the NHSME asked Ayrshire and Arran health board to explain the background to its decision to award the area urology contract to the North Ayrshire NHS trust. From the information subsequently provided, it appeared that the tenders had not been prepared on a comparable basis. The health board accepted the NHSME's view that the two trusts should be invited to resubmit bids based upon a detailed specification.

  The subsequent decision to award the contract to the South Ayr trust was a matter for the health board as purchaser and did not require further reference to the NHSME. The board's decision does not affect the viability of the day surgery unit at Crosshouse hospital which opened on 4 October 1993 at a cost of almost £1 million. The South Ayrshire NHS trust plans to open new day surgery facilities, estimated to cost £3 million, at the Ayr hospital in January 1995.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the competing NHS trusts were given access to the original bids of the other NHS trusts bidding for the contract during the re-run of the tendering process for the urology contract in Ayrshire and Arran; and what is the standard practice in this matter.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993] : Specific guidance on conducting a tendering exercise for healthcare has not been issued centrally, but a paper on openness in the NHS—MEL(1993)38—was issued by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. This paper set out a framework for those involved in contracting in which it was emphasised that a lack of openness within the negotiation process was damaging to long-term relationships. In the re-run of the tendering process for Ayrshire and Arran urology contract, each trust agreed to allow the other trust sight of its bid under the original tendering exercise.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland ( 1 ) what plans he has to commission an epidemiological survey into the incidence of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if he will make a statement;
  85
  (2) if myalgic encephalomyelitis is recognised by his Department as a disease; how it is categorised; what special funding he has made available for its treatment; how much his Department is spending on research; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what advice he has issued to health boards on myalgic encephalomyelitis; what further advice he intends to issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 19931]: Myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME — is widely recognised as a post-viral or chronic fatigue condition, although it is not at present included by the World Health Organisation in the international classification of diseases.

  The Department has not issued any guidance to health boards on ME and no special funding has been made available for treatment. There is, as yet, no consensus on the form that treatment should take. The uncertainties associated with the diagnosis of ME would make it difficult to mount an epidemiological survey and the Department has no present plans to mount such a study.

  The chief scientist office of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department is not currently funding any research related to ME, but is always prepared to receive and evaluate individual proposals for such research.

  Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the provision of financial assistance to hospices in each of the past five years; when the provision of matching funding to hospices started and ended; how much in both capital and revenue terms was made available to hospices under this scheme; what financial support is now available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The 13 voluntary sector hospices in Scotland have benefited since 1 April 1990 from the Government's funding initiative under which at least 50 per cent. of their running costs are met from public funds. This initiative, which initially ran for three years, but has been extended until 31 March 1995, is a transitional measure designed to enable the hospices and health boards to work together to construct a sound basis for contractual relationships and future development. Public funding in the current financial year amounts to some £6 million. The initiative does not extend to capital costs.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to support the campaign for children's hospices in Scotland.

  Mr Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: Since the campaign was first drawn to our attention, the Government have consistently acknowledged the case for the establishment of a national children's hospice in Scotland but have taken the view that the voluntary sector was best placed to take this initiative forward. We have accordingly recognised the Children's Hospice Association Scotland—CHAS—as the national body responsible for the project and have awarded it a grant of £25,000 per annum towards their core administrative costs.

  The Government's decision to make a contribution to the running costs of the children's hospice itself was announced on 26 November, Official Report, column 272. CHAS is receiving a special grant of £250,000 in each of
  86
  the current and two subsequent financial years, making a total Government contribution to running costs of £750,000.

  Domestic Violence Refuges
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many domestic violence refuges there are in Scotland; what plans he has to increase the total; what assessment he has made of the need for an increase in the number of such units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: There are 42 women's refuges in Scotland. We believe that local authorities are best placed to assess the local requirements for refuges and to develop services accordingly. However, the Scottish Office is providing grant under sections 9 and 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to Scottish Women's Aid to enable it to develop services and possible information and advice. The grant for the current year is £115,000.

  Witness Protection
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish a witness protection scheme in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a national witness protection scheme. Provision already exists in law to take action against people who threaten or injure witnesses. Decisions about the level of protection to provide for witnesses in individual cases are an operational matter for the police.

  Councillors Allowances
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing what the daily attendance allowance for elected members of local authorities in Scotland(a) was and (b) would have been in each year since 1974, had the system of payments (i) remained unaltered and (ii) been index linked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: Details of the allowances paid to individual local authority members are not held centrally.

  Prior to 1991, each local authority was required to pay an attendance allowance but had discretion to determine the actual rate paid to elected members within the prescribed maximum specified in the Local Government (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1975, as amended.

  Since April 1991, each authority has determined its own arrangements within the requirements of the Local Authorities Etc. (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, as amended. The regulations no longer require authorities to pay an attendance allowance.

  The prescribed maximum amount of attendance allowance for a period of 24 hours between 16 May 1975 and 31 March 1991 is shown in the table. The table also illustrates, for the period until 1993-94, the effect which application of the annual GDP deflator would have had on the prescribed maximum of £10 payable in 1975.
  87

  Prescribed Maximum

  With effect from

  £

  16 May 1975

  10·00

  30 November 1977

  11·00

  10 January 1979

  12·14

  29 December 1979

  13·28

  14 March 1981

  14·00

  8 March 1982

  14·56

  14 May 1983

  15·07

  12 June 1984

  15·52

  8 April 1985

  16·00

  24 April 1986

  16·70

  1 September 1987

  17·55

  1 April 1988

  18·25

  1 April 1989

  19·50

  1 September 1990

  21·00

  Uprated by GDP Deflator

  Year

  £

  1976–77

  11·35

  1977–78

  12·90

  1978–79

  14·30

  1979–80

  16·69

  1980–81

  19·75

  1981–82

  21·66

  1982–83

  23·20

  1983–84

  24·27

  1984–85

  25·50

  1985–86

  26·89

  1986–87

  27·76

  1987–88

  29·29

  1988–89

  31·42

  1989–90

  33·48

  1990–91

  36·16

  1991–92

  38·57

  1992–93

  39·92

  1993–94

  41·02

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department is currently funding, supporting or participating in which have direct relevance to people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The Scottish Office is currently funding 28 such studies to a total of £1.5 million. This demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to their policy of encouraging people with disabilities to live independent lives fully integrated into the community. The studies are listed in the table.

  Department and Study

  Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Chief Scientist Office.

  1. The Development of a computerised compartmental pressure monitoring system for routine clinical use in management of long bone fractures.

  2. Observational studies of individuals with profound mental handicap and physical and/or sensory disabilities in White Top Centre, University of Dundee.

  3. Distortion characteristics sound quality and speech. Intelligibility for hearing aids.

  4. The effect of long-term intermittent self-catherisation on bladder and renal function in the neuropathic bladder.

  5. Interactive strategies of users of augmentative communication systems and their partners.

  6. The determination of optimum wheel configurations for wheelchair users.

  7. Enhancing the communicative competence of adult persons with severe learning difficulties (mental handicap).

  8. Communication disorders in patients with dominant hemispheric intracranial neoplasms.

  88

  9. Resettlement of severely disabled people in independent living units.

  10. Measuring communication needs in children with profound mental handicap.

  11. A comparison of neuropsychological and functional outcome following severe and moderate head injury; access to and uptake of rehabilitation services.

  12. Objective assessment of central visual function in multiply handicapped children.

  13. Measuring disfunction of basic movement control in cerebral palsy.

  14. The development of language screening instruments for use with young children who may be language delayed.

  15. Sustaining a fractured neck of femur and implications for more efficient use of health resources.

  16. A randomised controlled trial of the effect of an exercise programme on the bone mass of elderly women.

  17. Management of sub acute back pain; the validation of a "fear avoidance" questionnaire and an early behavioural intervention.

  18. Evaluation of the functional independence measure (fim) as a measure of health care outcome for elderly acute hospital in-patients.

  19. Evaluation of whole gut levage treatment of severe constipation.

  20. A method of visual field analysis using digital signal processing of visual evoked potentials.

  Central Research Unit

  21. Information services for people with disabilities, their carers and service providers.

  22. Assessment, plannning and resources in supported accommodation for adults with learning difficulties.

  23. The costs and quality of care for disabled people in the community care framework.

  Health Policy and Public Health Directorate

  24. Volunteer Development Scotland project to test ways of involving volunteers with people with severe physical and mental handicaps in long-stay wards.

  Scottish Office Education Department

  25. Scottish Higher Education Funding Council project to support a database of services and facilities available to disabled students in the higher education sector.

  26. Transition to Adulthood for Young People with Special Educational Needs:

  27. Health Education in Scottish Schools: Meeting Special Educational Needs.

  Scottish Office Environment Department

  28. Construction Industry Research and Information Association study on design guidance for improving existing buildings, to which the public are admitted, for disabled people.

  Canniesburn Hospital
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask Greater Glasgow health board to consider which of its patients could be transferred to general surgical care under the Canniesburn hospital waiting list initiative.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: No. All the patients for whom treatment has been secured under the initiative involving the Bon Secours Health System, Glasgow have been asked by Greater Glasgow health board if they are willing to receive treatment in the private sector. Those who have indicated that they do not wish to be treated in the private sector have already been offered treatment at Canniesburn hospital.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for Greater Glasgow health board the number of patients under the Canniesburn hospital waiting list initative who have agreed to surgery in(a) the private sector within the west of Scotland, (b) the private

  89
  sector within Scotland outwith the west of Scotland, (c) the private sector in England, (d) the NHS in Scotland, excluding the west of Scotland and (e) the NHS in England; and if he will also give the cost in each category for (i) the operation and escort and (ii) accommodation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: There are two waiting list initiatives which Greater Glasgow health board has been leading on behalf of other, predominantly west of Scotland, health boards which are designed to secure treatment for a number of long wait plastic surgery patients.

  The first initiative is to secure treatment for 800 patients at Canniesburn hospital where an additional consultant plastic surgeon has been recruited.

  The second initiative has taken the form of a contract award, following a full competitive tendering exercise, to the Bon Secours Health System, Glasgow. Under the terms of the contract up to 572 patients are being offered treatment. To date, 23 have indicated that they do not wish to be treated under this initiative. These patients have been offered treatment under the initiative at Canniesburn hospital.

  The contract with Bon Secours will cost around £500,000. This covers pre-operative assessment, treatment, accommodation and all necessary follow-up work for a mix of major, intermediate and minor procedures.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of consideration of the application by Raymond Gilmour seeking the prerogative of mercy under the terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The petitions submitted on behalf of Mr. Raymond Gilmour on 8 January, 12 March and 27 May this year are the subject of detailed inquiries which are not yet complete. The hon. Member will be informed as soon as a decision has been reached on his constituent's case.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when influenza vaccine will be available for all who require it.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: Vaccine shortage arose as a result of the influenza outbreak occurring earlier than expected and the failure of one manufacturer's product to meet the required standard. Other manufacturers have increased production and the supply position is now improving. Sufficient supplies should he available to meet the needs of those groups identified in the Chief Medical Officer's letter of 8 October as being at risk by early December.

  Anaesthetists
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how often anaesthetists are required to work alone.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: This information is not held centrally.
  90
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the staffing levels of anaesthetists in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: The number of anaesthetists, whole-time equivalent, employed in NHS hospitals at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is available centrally, is shown in the table.

  Numbers

  All (whole-time equivalents)

  618

  Consultant

  303

  Other career grades

  28

  Senior Registrar

  42

  Registrar

  89

  Senior House Officer

  143

  Other

  13

  While some NHS employers have recently experienced difficulty in recruiting anaesthetists, the number of senior registrars is greater than the service's forecast demand for new consultants in the next few years.

  Intensive Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that surgeons, gynaecologists and anaesthetists have immediate access to recovery rooms, and high dependency and intensive care units, 24 hours a day.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: It is a matter for health boards as purchasers of care and the relevant unit or trust as the provider to make the necessary arrangements for access to recovery rooms and high dependency and intensive care units.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and what percentage, of paediatric intensive care units have nurse staffing of 6.4 whole-time equivalent or more per open bed.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The detailed information required to respond is not held centrally. What information is held, however, indicates that no paediatric intensive care units in Scotland have 6.4 whole-time equivalent nursing staff per occupied bed.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of nurses in adult intensive care units are RSCN; and what percentage have had paediatric intensive care training.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve intensive care facilities.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: It is a matter for health boards as purchasers of care and units or trusts as providers to ensure an appropriate standard and distribution of intensive care facilities.

  Surgery
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that no urgent operations are delayed until regular operating lists are completed.
  91
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Officials of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department issued detailed guidance in a letter of 31 January 1992 updated in the form of a management executive letter of 18 May 1993. The guidance set out the roles and responsibilities of managers and clinicians in the management of waiting lists and times and delivery of waiting time guarantees. It is for clinicians to assess the relative needs of each individual patient they take on to a waiting list in determining the priority for treatment.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how often emergency operations are being performed at night by doctors in training grades without supervision.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: This information is not held centrally. The training grades of doctors, which range from pre-registration house officer to senior registrar, have access to trained staff at all times.

  Perioperative Deaths
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will carry out an inquiry into perioperative deaths similar to that carried out in NHS hospitals in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Studies of perioperative mortality have been carried out in Scotland for some years. From 1 January 1994 the whole of Scotland will be covered when the Glasgow audit of surgical deaths is merged with the Scottish mortality study to become the Scottish audit of surgical mortality.

  This audit is funded by the clinical resource and audit group, part of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many men aged 65 years and over and women aged 60 years and over have died from hypothermia in Scotland in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: The figures requested are shown in the table.

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate 1987–93

  Year

  Men aged 65 and over

  Women aged 60 and over

  1987

  52

  65

  1988

  34

  72

  1989

  44

  79

  1990

  47

  72

  1991

  31

  50

  1992

  44

  47

  19931

  23

  46

  1 Provisional figures for events registered to 6 November 1993.

  Superannuation Contributions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made for superannuation contributions transferred into trusts; and whether a trust may use any of the money for any other purpose.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: Employees of national health service trusts have the same
  92
  rights to membership of the statutory national health service superannuation scheme as other NHS employees. Their contribution to the scheme, and those of their employers, are payable to the Exchequer to fund superannuation benefits, and cannot be used for any other purpose.

  Health Service Workers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the results of the survey of health service workers will be published; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that the state of morale among health service workers will be recorded in the published text.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The results of the survey of approximately 40,500 NHS staff in Scotland were published on 29 November 1993. The report "What Those who Work Within the NHS in Scotland Think 1993" addresses the issue of staff morale.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Nurses (Teaching)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his target for the number of nurse teaching posts; and what estimate he has made of the number of nurse teaching posts which will be lost in(a) Scotland and (b) Glasgow in each year until the target is reached.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The number of nurse teacher posts is dependent on the number of nurses who require to be trained. Retention of nurses has improved markedly over the last few years. As a result there has been a reduction in the number of student nurses in line with the number of job opportunities available. The effect of this is that the number of teaching posts in colleges of nursing and midwifery is being reduced. The management executive advised health boards in March 1993 of their view that colleges should seek to achieve a student:teacher ratio of 15:1 for preregistration nursing programmes by 1 April 1994. The number of teachers then required will depend on the assessments being carried out by health boards of the number of students required to enter training in 1994-95.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he is giving as to how nursing teachers will be chosen for redundancy; what terms they will be offered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: No guidance will be issued to health boards on the redundancy of nursing teachers. This is a matter for individual health boards as employers to determine in the light of local circumstances.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify for each local authority the amount of accumulated capital receipts.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: The arrangements operated in Scotland for the control of local authority capital expenditure differ from those operated in England and Wales. In Scotland local authorities must spend their capital receipts in the same year as they are

  93
  raised if the receipts are to confer additional spending power. The system in Scotland does not, therefore, lend itself to the accumulation of capital receipts.

  Sheriffs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheriffs there are; and how many are women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: There are 99 sheriffs in post, of whom 92 are men and seven are women. Of 114 temporary sheriffs, 109 are men and five are women.

  Private Patiients
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private patients have been using national health service paid beds in Strathclyde for the first 10 months of 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: Only provisional figures for the period January to August 1993 are available. One hundred and thirty-one private patients have been discharged from NHS hospitals in Strathclyde region. This compares with 313,803 NHS patients discharged for the same period.

  Judges
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many judges there are; and how many are women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: There are currently 25 judges of the Court of Session; all are men. In addition, there are eight temporary judges, of whom one is a woman.

  Health Service Administration
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take in order to reduce bureaucracy within NHS hospitals and trusts.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: In negotiating contracts with NHS trusts, health boards are responsible for ensuring value for money. In addition, the NHS management executive is finalising new arrangements for monitoring management costs.

  Committee of the Regions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his appointments to the European Union's Committee of the Regions by(a) name, (b) age, (c) occupation and (d) political affiliation; and what recent representations he has received concerning these appointments.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: Details of Scottish members and alternate members nominated for the Committee of the Regions of the European Communities are as follows:
  94

  Member's Name and Council and Political Affiliation

  Current Age

  Charles Gray:

  Strathclyde Region—

  Labour

  64

  Rosemary McKenna:

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District—

  Labour

  52

  Brian Meek:

  Edinburgh District—

  Conservative

  54

  Duncan McPherson:

  Highland Region—

  Independent

  63

  Daniel Coffey:

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District—

  SNP

  39

  Alternative Members Name and Council and Political Affiliation

  Current Age

  Keith Geddes:

  Lothian Region—

  Labour

  41

  Jean McFadden:

  Glasgow District—

  Labour

  52

  Marcus Humphrey:

  Grampian Region—

  Conservative

  55

  Peter Peacock:

  Highland Region—

  Independent

  41

  Clive Sneddon:

  North East Fife District—

  Liberal Democrat

  48

  Occupation was not a consideration in putting these names forward and such details are not centrally held.

  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations concerning these nominations.

  Income Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average per capita income in Greenock and Port Glasgow compared with(a) the Scottish average, (b) the United Kingdom average and (c) the European average in cash and percentage terms for the latest available year.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: Information relating to household income is not available below the level of Scottish regions.

  Police (Rapid Response Cars)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police forces operate rapid response police cars; what is the normal size of such police crews; and what are their main functions and activities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: One Scottish force currently operates armed response vehicles on a full-time basis. Two vehicles, each manned by two firearms officers, operate within the force area on a 24-hour basis. Their primary function is to provide a rapid response to any incident which involves the use, or alleged use, of firearms and to provide initial containment until any necessary additional resources can be mobilised with a view to bringing the situation to a satisfactory conclusion.

  Advocates
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many advocates there are in practice at the present moment; and how many are women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: There are 323 advocates currently in practice, 54 of whom are women.

  Administrative staff in post in NHS in Scotland at 31 March

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  wte

  Per cent. of all staff

  wte

  Per cent. of all staff

  wte

  Per cent. of all staff

  wte

  Per cent. of all staff

  wte

  Per cent. of all staff

  wte

  Per cent. of all staff

  Scotland

  2,871·9

  2·2

  2,996·2

  2·4

  3,341·4

  2·7

  3,643·3

  3·0

  3,853·2

  3·1

  4,123·5

  3·4

  Argyll and Clyde

  269·3

  2·9

  294·9

  3·2

  322·0

  3·6

  329·2

  3·6

  351·8

  3·8

  369·6

  4·1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  142·0

  2·1

  149·7

  2·2

  159·6

  2·3

  177·1

  2·6

  182·8

  2·4

  192·9

  2·8

  Borders

  41·6

  2·0

  45·0

  2·1

  52·5

  2·5

  54·3

  2·6

  59·6

  2·8

  62·9

  2·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  68·6

  2·0

  73·5

  2·1

  73·9

  2·2

  86·4

  2·5

  87·2

  2·5

  102·9

  3·0

  Fife

  139·2

  2·1

  147·2

  2·3

  165·5

  2·5

  170·4

  2·6

  175·6

  2·7

  188·9

  3·0

  Forth Valley

  114·2

  1·8

  111·9

  1·8

  129·8

  2·1

  142·6

  2·3

  162·8

  2·6

  178·3

  2·8

  Grampian

  256·2

  2·3

  274·4

  2·4

  301·1

  2·7

  331·0

  2·9

  348·7

  3·0

  385·2

  3·4

  Greater Glasgow

  606·4

  1·9

  559·6

  1·9

  631·2

  2·3

  688·2

  2·5

  705·4

  2·7

  767·9

  3·0

  Highland

  97·9

  2·1

  103·2

  2·3

  112·9

  2·5

  126·7

  2·7

  129·3

  2·7

  136·4

  2·9

  Lanarkshire

  154·1

  1·5

  167·4

  1·6

  177·3

  1·3

  189·1

  1·9

  188·4

  2·0

  206·0

  2·2

  Lothian

  410·3

  2·1

  467·8

  2·5

  519·9

  2·9

  551·8

  3·1

  561·2

  3·2

  595·6

  3·4

  Orkney

  7·0

  2·1

  9·0

  2·7

  9·0

  2·5

  8·0

  2·1

  12·0

  3·1

  13·5

  3·3

  Shetland

  7·0

  1·7

  6·0

  1·4

  7·0

  1·6

  11·0

  2·6

  14·3

  3·3

  17·8

  4·8

  Tayside

  266·6

  2·3

  260·3

  2·7

  1308·1

  2·6

  330·5

  2·8

  348·8

  3·1

  363·2

  3·3

  Western Isles

  18·1

  3·0

  18·1

  3·1

  17·9

  3·0

  19·3

  3·2

  20·9

  3·4

  24·3

  3·5

  CSA

  273·5

  6·0

  308·2

  6·8

  353·7

  7·8

  427·8

  9·1

  500·3

  9·7

  513·8

  9·7

  State Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4·2

  1·0

  4·2

  1·0

  1 Non-medical and dental staff numbers relate to 30 September 1990.

  Notes:

  1. Excludes management and clerical grades.

  2. Includes the following grades: scale 1 to 17 administrative and clerical staff for 1988-89 and grade 4 to 6 administrative and clerical staff for 1990–93.

  3. Staff described as "administrative" include many groups of staff whose nature of work may not be strictly administrative eg computer programmers, system analysts, accountants and information specialists.

  4. Calculations of percentages are based on total staff which include medical and dental staff at 30 September and all other staff at 31 March of each year.

  Health Boards
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board(a) the current annual account and (b) the present number of managerial employees.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The revenue allocation for each health board for 1993–94 and the managerial employees engaged by them at 31 March 1993 and detailed in the table.

  NHS in Scotland: Revenue allocations and managerial employees

  1993–94 Revenue allocation £ million

  Number2

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Scotland

  2,809·0

  1,509

  1,490·7

  Argyll and Clyde

  232·0

  115

  113·9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  186·0

  105

  104·1

  Borders

  58·8

  23

  22·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  82·3

  52

  50·5

  Fife

  171·9

  81

  79·2

  Forth Valley

  140·7

  81

  80·4

  Grampian

  270·7

  196

  191·2

  Greater Glasgow

  588·3

  294

  290·6

  Health Boards
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health board employees, in respect of each health board area in Scotland, each year since 1988 were engaged in administration; and what percentage they represented of the total number of persons employed by that health board in each of those years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: The information requested is given, in whole-time equivalent terms, in the table.

  1993–94 Revenue allocation £ million

  Number2

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Highland

  114·0

  81

  81·0

  Lanarkshire

  259·8

  91

  90·4

  Lothian

  409·3

  22·2

  218·8

  Orkney

  12·3

  7

  7·0

  Shetland

  14·5

  8

  8·0

  Tayside

  245·0

  135

  135·0

  Western Isles

  23·1

  18

  17·8

  1 Managerial employees include administrative and clerical grades 7 and above, senior and general managers, a small number of staff on protected grades and some professional staff who have transferred to senior manager grades.

  2 At 31 March 1993.

  Domiciliary Care
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proposals he has to implement monitoring measures in relation to the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant in the independent sector on domiciliary care; and if he will make a statement;
  97
  (2) what procedures he has introduced in order to monitor local authority compliance with the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant for domiciliary care in the independent sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: There is no special transitional grant in Scotland. The necessary statutory powers are not available in Scottish legislation. My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met representatives of local authorities on 13 August 1993 and made it clear that if necessary the Secretary of State would seek equivalent powers to those available in England and would if necessary ensure the success of our policy of promoting a flourishing mixed economy of care in Scotland. Arrangements for monitoring the community care reforms in Scotland are set out in circular SW 16/1993. A copy is in the House Library.

  Residential Care homes (outturn)

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  1 April to 31 March 19993

  1 April 1993 to 29 November 1993

  Private

  14

  6

  9

  Voluntary sector

  11

  9

  17

  Corresponding information on Private nursing homes is not held centrally.

  Domestic Fires
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fires occurred in private dwellings in(a) Strathclyde and (b) the rest of Scotland in each of the past 10 years; how many fatalities where such fires took place occurred among (i) children aged under 14 years and (ii) other persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: Based on reports from local authority fire brigades on fires attended, the numbers of fires and of fatal casualties in dwellings in Strathclyde, in other parts of Scotland and in Scotland as a whole in each of the years 1983-1992 are as set out in the table. An analysis of fatal casualties by age groups is being prepared and I will write to the hon. Member when this information is available.

  Strathclyde

  Other parts of Scotland

  Total Scotland

  Year

  Fires

  Fatal casualties

  Fires

  Fatal casualties

  Fires

  Fatal casualties

  1983

  4,060

  62

  4,675

  74

  8,735

  136

  1984

  4,446

  67

  4,966

  61

  9,412

  128

  1985

  4,461

  80

  5,307

  64

  9,768

  144

  1986

  4,528

  70

  5,195

  62

  9,723

  132

  1987

  4,368

  77

  4,887

  61

  9,255

  138

  1988

  4,687

  65

  4,825

  81

  9,512

  146

  1989

  4,818

  48

  4,965

  40

  9,783

  88

  1990

  4,832

  64

  4,979

  51

  9,811

  115

  1991

  4,928

  62

  4,871

  55

  9,799

  117

  1 1992

  4,817

  38

  4,795

  44

  9,612

  82

  1 Provisional figures.

  Registered Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered homes have lost their registration in each of the past four years; how many of these were(a) private care homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) charitable homes or nursing homes and (d) other; and under which provisions of the legislation the deregister took place.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: Outturn details for adult residential care homes, including cancellation, are available only for the two financial years ending 31 March 1993. The table also gives details for the period 1 April to 29 November of the current year. Regional and islands council social work authorities have powers to refuse or cancel registration under section 62 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, as amended by the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987. Cancellation has occurred in only one case, and the others represent homes that have closed or reclassified as no longer requiring registration.

  The Government continue to seek reductions in fatalities by means of publicity and education initiatives and, as part of those campaigns, continue to promote the installation and maintenance of smoke alarms.

  River Clyde (Dredging)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual cost of the dredging of the River Clyde; which organisations and other parties make a contribution to this operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the information on the past annual costs incurred by the Clyde port authority in dredging the River Clyde given in my reply to him of 15 April 1993.

  It is the Government's policy that port authorities, including Clydeport Ltd. should manage their businesses on a commercial basis; and that the costs of dredging should be met by charges to the users of ports or by other parties who benefit from the dredging.

  I understand that Clydeport Ltd. is discussing the cost of dredging the River Clyde with the principal users and beneficiaries of the river at this time. These discussions are commercially confidential.

  Prisons
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new money is to be made available for(a) the construction of new prisons and (b) the renovation of existing prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: There are no plans for the construction of any new prison establishment in Scotland. However, planning is being taken forward for the provision of a new 50 prisoner place houseblock at HM prison, Greenock.

  99
  Subject to planning consent and other necessary approvals, construction work is provisionally scheduled to start in the latter part of 1994-95.

  The estates strategy for the service is contained at chapter 9 of, and annex B to, the Scottish Prison Service corporate plan, a copy of which was deposited in the Library in August this year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  London Convention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will now publish the official position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the issues considered at the London convention in early November.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 25 November, at column 118.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the operation of her Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department has no such unit. Documents generated by my Department which are given security markings are kept under routine review by the originating units, which must ensure that such documents are declassified or downgraded as necessary.

  Hastings Shingle Bank
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will undertake a survey of the Hastings shingle bank to ascertain the impact on it of the aggregate dredging so far and the implications on the fishery of future dredging proposals.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry's directorate of fisheries research is conducting regular studies of the sediments and benthos in the area of the Hastings shingle bank. Although periodic studies of fish stocks in the English channel do not provide conclusive information about specific areas such as the shingle bank, catch statistics in the area appear to lend some support to the concerns expressed by local fishermen about crabs and sole.

  A new survey programme will be starting in January using scallop dredgers in order to establish the distribution of overwintering crabs and to assess the significance of the shingle bank to the eastern channel crab fishery. In addition MAFF scientists are setting up a study to monitor the migration of sole across the bank to the shallow inshore waters. This survey work will cover the period of spawning migration next spring.

  We will be weighing the implications of this work very carefully in formulating our advice under the Government view procedure.

  Live Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 24 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler)Official Report, column 65, what explanations he received from the Commission for its differing conclusions on the enforceability of journey limits for livestock as opposed to compulsory feeding and watering times.

  Mr. Soames
  The proposals for amendments to directive 91/628/EEC on protection of animals during transport were deposited in the Library of the House on 22 September 1993, reference 8441/93. The Commission's explanatory memorandum referred to the conclusions of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, which the Commission accepted, on the question of journey limits. They pointed out in particular that it would be simple to evade a journey limit by using intermediate places of destination.

  Badgers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what method is used by her wildlife unit at Royal Air Force station, Aston Down in badger removal operations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The wildlife unit surveys farms which have had a cattle tuberculosis breakdown for evidence of badgers. Where removal operations are sanctioned, it traps badgers live in cages and humanely destroys them.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations she has received in the last six months about the export of live animals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The public response to campaigns from animal welfare organisations on transport of animals results in large numbers of representations to the Government. During the last six months, the Government have received over 23,000 pieces of correspondence and 136 petitions, representing approximately 8,000 signatures, on this issue. Proposals from the Commission to amend directive 91/628 on the welfare of animals during transport were sent to over 500 interested organisations and individuals for comment this summer. We received 86 replies.

  In the negotiations, the Government are seeking Community rules which are properly enforceable and will provide strong welfare safeguards for all categories of animals during transport.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when her Department intends to review the current ban on the export of live cattle from the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The export of cattle over six months of age from the United Kingdom to other member states is prohibited under European Commission decision 89/469/ EEC. This is because of the position on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The EC Scientific Veterinary Committee in conducting a scientific evaluation on BSE in September
  101
  1993 endorsed the Community control measures on BSE. The position will be kept under review in the light of the improving disease situation.

  The position in relation to third-country trade varies depending upon the import policies of the countries concerned. We are working hard to ensure that the relevant authorities of important potential overseas markets are aware of the improving BSE situation in the United Kingdom and that their import policies fully reflect this.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will be able to provide figures for live animals exported to other EC member states since 1 January; and what will be the sources of her information.

  Mr. Soames
  Initial data recently released by the Central Statistical Office indicate that the value of exports of live animals to other EC member states for the first half of 1993 amounted to £83.1 million. However, this figure is

  Cereal Production ('000s tonnes)

  Change from 1992 to 1993

  1992

  1993

  '000s tonnes

  as a percentage

  EC Total

  168,059·6

  163,999·0

  -4060·6

  -2·42

  Belgium

  1,998·0

  2,048·5

  50·5

  2·53

  Denmark

  6,954·3

  8,524·0

  1,567·7

  22·57

  Germany

  34,758·5

  35,717·2

  958·7

  2·76

  Greece

  4,946·4

  4,950·0

  3·6

  0·07

  Spain

  13,867·2

  16,838·1

  2,970·9

  21·42

  France

  60,449·5

  55,376·0

  -5,073·5

  -8·39

  Ireland

  2,016·0

  1,606·1

  -409·9

  -20·33

  Italy

  18,413·2

  16,625·0

  -1,788·2

  -9·71

  Luxembourg

  152·5

  152·2

  -0·3

  -0·20

  Netherlands

  1,349·6

  1,337·7

  -11·9

  -0·88

  Portugal

  1,091·0

  1,217·5

  126·5

  11·59

  United Kingdom

  22,063·4

  19,606·7

  -2,456·7

  -11·13

  Source: Eurostat (October 1993) & MAFF

  Agricultural Production
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value, in each year since 1979 of(a) the overall agricultural production in the United Kingdom, (b) overall food imports, (c) cereal and cereal substitutes imported into the United Kingdom and (d) cereal exports; and if she will express each figure as a percentage of the amount needed for self-sufficiency.

  Food and Agriculture

  Cereals

  Agricultural output £ million

  Imports of food, feed and drink1 £ million

  Level of United Kingdom self-sufficiency in Food and Feed per cent.

  Imports of Cereals £million

  Exports of cereals £ million

  Production as per cent. of total new supply for use in United Kingdom

  1979

  3,801

  6,653

  53·3

  565

  80

  77

  1980

  4,238

  6,341

  59·0

  496

  274

  88

  1981

  4,775

  6,781

  61·1

  438

  476

  103

  1982

  5,362

  7,321

  61·5

  401

  531

  105

  1983

  5,118

  7,982

  61·2

  420

  466

  103

  1984

  6,108

  9,097

  62·9

  410

  711

  114

  1985

  5,402

  9,482

  57·7

  468

  539

  108

  1986

  5,801

  10,070

  56·5

  500

  882

  123

  1987

  5,868

  10,276

  56·8

  469

  524

  121

  1988

  5,701

  10,602

  53·9

  452

  352

  107

  1989

  6,577

  11,420

  58·5

  361

  579

  121

  1990

  6,918

  12,288

  56·5

  375

  633

  121

  102
  subject to revision under the new arrangements provided by the INTRASTAT system. No details are yet available for the actual number of animals involved.

  Further details can be found in the CSO's "Business Monitor MM20A: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with the World (including data for countries within the European Community: Intrastat)." A copy of this can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Cereals
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the change in cereal production between 1992 and 1993 expressed as a tonnage and in percentage terms in each European Union country and in the European Union as a whole.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table. It should be emphasised that 1993 figures in particular are only provisional at this stage.

  Mr. Jack
  The table shows figures for agricultural gross product; the total imports to the United Kingdom of food, feed and drink, and the percentage of self-sufficiency of the United Kingdom in food and feed. The value of both imports and exports of cereals is also shown, but it has not been possible to include the element for imports of cereal substitutes in this reply. I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly with further details.

  No statistics are available on self-sufficiency in cereal and cereal substitutes, but usage of cereals is known, and statistics on this are included in the final column of the table.
  103

  Food and Agriculture

  Cereals

  Agricultural out £ million

  Imports of food, feed and drink1 £ million

  Level of United Kingdom self-sufficiency in food and feed per cent.

  Imports of cereals £ million

  Exports of cereals £ million

  Production as per cent. of total new supply for use in United Kingdom

  1991

  6,909

  12,262

  57·9

  356

  626

  119

  1992

  7,132

  13,407

  56·5

  463

  631

  115

  1 Food, feed and drink cover Divisions 01-09, 11, 22 and Section 4 of the SITC system details of which can be found in the Central Statistical Office publication "Guide to the classifiction of Overseas Trade Statistics", MA 21.

  Mink
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of the number of mink presently in the wild in the United Kingdom; and in which regions are they most prevalent.

  Mr. Soames
  The control of wild mink is the responsibility of occupiers of land the Ministry has not collected details of their numbers or distribution.

  However, data published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology show that wild mink are widespread, with particular concentrations in mid and lowland Scotland and south-west England.

  Fur farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the minimum statutory size of a cage in which(a) Arctic fox and (b) mink may be kept on fur farms.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no legislation governing the minimum cage size for Arctic fox or mink.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of the licensing arrangements necessary for the establishment and operation of a mink farm.

  Mr. Soames
  To qualify for a licence to keep mink, the farmer must comply with the conditions of the Mink (Keeping) regulations 1975 (as amended). These specify that mink must be kept in escape-proof cages or other containers and, except when they are in transit, within an enclosure or building which satisfies the requirements of the regulations. These requirements specify the height of the enclosures, the materials to be used to construct them and the measures which must be taken to prevent escapes. Additionally, every enclosure must have an appropriate number of cage traps, in case mink should escape from their cages.

  Before a licence can be renewed, the farm is inspected by ADAS, the Ministry's advisers on wildlife, to ensure the farmer complies with the requirements of the legislation.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fox farms there are in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  The keeping of fox species is not subject to control in England, Wales and Scotland and information is not, therefore, collected on the number of farms keeping this animal. In Northern Ireland, the keeping of one species of fox, the Arctic fox, is subject to licensing under the Arctic Fox (Importation and Keeping) Regulations 1988. No licences have been issued in Northern Ireland to keep this animal since the regulations came into force.
  104
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she takes to ensure the proper qualifications of those involved in the killing of farmed fur-bearing animals; and what records are kept of such persons.

  Mr. Soames
  In monitoring welfare standards on fur farms, the state veterinary services operates to the guidelines laid down in the relevant recommendation adopted by the Council of Europe. That recommendation specifies that the killing of farmed fur-bearing animals must be carried out by a competent person. It does not require records of such persons to be kept.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the minimum acceptable specifications for the perimeter guard fences of mink farms.

  Mr. Soames
  The minimum acceptable specifications for the perimeter guard fences of mink farms are set out in schedule 2 to the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended. A copy of the regulations is in the House of Commons library.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions since 1984 an application for a licence for a mink farm has been refused; and what was the reason for each refusal.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is readily available only from 1987 onwards. Since then, no applications for licences to keep mink in a mink farm have been refused.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the environmental and welfare needs of farmed fur-bearing animals; and what plans she has to make provision for such needs.

  Mr. Soames
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council's review of fur farming considered the environmental and welfare needs of farmed mink and fox. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make specific recommendations on the keeping of fur-bearing animals and recommended that the industry should carry out further research. Research is being carried out in other countries such as Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, whose industries are large enough to bear the costs involved. We will be pressing for the best possible welfare standards on a European Community basis.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her policy on offering free veterinary advice to fur farmers.

  Mr. Soames
  The state veterinary service provides fur farmers with free advice on animal welfare matters.
  105
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each year since 1984 her officials or the state veterinary service have visited mink farms for the purpose of(a) assessing welfare and (b) inspecting slaughter methods.

  Mr. Soames
  Records of veterinary visits to mink farms dating back to 1984 are not available. There are currently 15 mink farms in Great Britain, each of which is visited by the state veterinary service on an annual basis.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her Department's policy towards the farming of Arctic foxes within the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We are seeking the best possible welfare standards for all types of fur farming on a European Community basis.

  Infant Formulae
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) by what date she is hoping to implement the provisions of the European directive on the marketing of infant formulae;

  (2) if she will make a statement summarising the provisions of the European Community directive on the marketing of infant formulae;

  (3) if she will make a statement setting out the arrangements which will be adopted for consultation about the provisions of the European directive on the marketing of infant formulae; and when that consultation will begin.

  Mr. Soames
  The Commission directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae and follow-on formulae requires member states to introduce national laws by 1 June 1994. We will be seeking to meet that deadline.

  Directive 91/321 lays down compositional and labelling requirements for infant formulae and follow-on formulae. Among these are requirements that the labelling of infant formula contains a statement concerning the superiority of breast feeding, and the use of any term that suggests that infant formula is equivalent or superior to breast milk is prohibited. Pictures of infants and other imagery that might idealise the product are also prohibited. The advertising of infant formula is permitted only in certain professional magazines and can contain only information of a scientific or factual nature. The directive prohibits manufacturers from supplying free or subsidised supplies.

  Draft proposals for GB regulations implementing the directive have been prepared and were issued for consultation to interested parties in the normal way on Friday, 3 December 1993.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by her Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Jack
  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which current documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO are not automatically available.
  106
  There are unlikely to be a great number of such files, but no central file record is kept in MAFF, and to obtain this information by a departmental inquiry to all the various registries would be very time-consuming and costly.

  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  Surplus Beef
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will make a statement as to how surplus beef released by the European Commission is being distributed in Nottinghamshire;

  (2) if she will outline the mechanisms adopted by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce for the distribution of surplus beef released by the European Commission into the United Kingdom; and if she will list the local authority areas in which the distribution is being undertaken by (a) local authorities, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) individuals.

  Mr. Jack
  The distribution of produce to eligible recipients under the EC surplus food scheme is carried out through charitable or non-profit making organisations. This year, 1,055 organisations have been designated by Agriculture Departments in the United Kingdom to distribute 12,200 tonnes of beef released from intervention for processing and canning. The Intervention Board executive agency is currently co-ordinating deliveries of the beef to designated organisations which will then make their own arrangements to distribute the produce locally.

  A list of designated organisations, including those in Nottinghamshire, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for each of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by her Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.

  Mr. Jack
  The public do not have a statutory right to attend board or committee meetings of executive non-departmental bodies; nor do they have the right to inspect the minutes of meetings.

  In nearly all cases, legislation requires that the annual report and accounts are published and laid before Parliament. The exceptions are the Agricultural Wages Board and the agricultural wages committees, whose reports do not include the accounts because the costs of running the board and committees are met directly from MAFF and Welsh Office funds. Neither the board nor the committees control funds.

  The annual reports and annual accounts of the bodies are available to the public, either free or at reasonable cost, except for the AWC and AWB, for which annual accounts are not prepared as noted above.

  Ministerial Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.
  107
  Mr. Jack
  The cost of providing a car service to the Ministers in this Department was £232,931 in the 1992-93 financial year. Four vehicles are involved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Private Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what, representations he has received regarding the financial difficulties facing people who have been in private care or nursing homes since before 1 April.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received several representations recently, both from individuals and representative bodies, about the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the work of the Child Support Agency since its operation began; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Ministers keep the operations of the Child Support Agency under regular review, as they do the operations of other next steps agencies. The Child Support Agency is still very new, but it has made a determined start on its important task of ensuring that more children receive more maintenance, more reliably.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss its assessment of absent parents already making contributions towards the upkeep of their children.

  Mr. Burt
  I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meet the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss a wide range of operational matters. The most recent of these meetings was on 16 November.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received from hon. Members regarding the working of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Since the agency began its operations in April 1993, this Department has received in the region of 3,700 representations from hon. Members, covering a range of views.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made currently with the review of the operation of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency was set up to secure more maintenance, more reliably, for more children and that is what it is doing. We believe that the basic principles of the scheme stand up to scrutiny and are supported by the vast majority of people in this country. We have been looking very carefully at the comments and concerns being raised about the Child Support Agency and testing them against the basic structure and principles which are in place and which were endorsed by Members from all parties. If, after examination, we think we can make the scheme better still, we will do so.
  108
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what statutory basis the Child Support Agency reveals to a former partner full financial details of the person he or she has divorced together with those of that person's second partner.

  Mr. Burt
  Regulation 10 of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations 1992 provides for a maintenance assessment notification, which is sent both to the parent with care and the absent parent, to show the details of protected income calculations which include the income of an absent parent's new partner. The intention is that sufficient information should be provided to both the parent with care and the absent parent to enable them to exercise their statutory right to seek a review or to appeal.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he plans to the way in which the Child Support Agency is administering the collection of child maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency has a range of collection and enforcement powers to ensure that it is able to meet its objective of obtaining maintenance for children. The Government have no plans to change these powers, though they keep all aspects of the Child Support Agency under review.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether clean-break settlements are to be taken into account in the formula used by the Child Support Agency for assessing maintenance payments from absent parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The maintenance assessment formula already reflects the practical consequences of a capital or property transfer, commonly referred to as a clean break settlement between spouses, by allowing for the current housing costs of the absent parent and taking account of the parent with care's income including that from capital.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Act introduced a new way of assessing maintenance for children and ensuring that this would be paid. It reflects the Government's view that both parents are responsible for supporting their children where they are able to do so, even if their own relationship has broken down. The Government have no plans to amend the Act.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards replying to letters from hon. Members about child support where the Member has raised a matter of Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Letters to Ministers from hon. Members, about child support policy will receive a ministerial reply. Letters about operational matters or individual assessments will, in general, be passed to the chief executive of the Child Support Agency unless substantive policy issues have also been raised.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents who were already
  109
  paying child support under previously agreed arrangements are appealing against the additional payments assessed by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency does not currently collect information in the form requested. To the end of October, under 1 per cent. of assessments made had resulted in appeals.

  Work-related Injuries
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of his Department's budget is used in social security payments connected with injuries sustained(a) in war and (b) at work.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1991-92, the latest year for which final figures are available, benefit expenditure on war disablement and war widows pensions totalled £842 million. This represented 1.4 per cent. of the Department's total benefit spending of £61,819 million.

  In the same year, expenditure on industrial injuries disablement and death benefits totalled £655 million, or 1.1 per cent. of the Department's total spending.

  Support for the Elderly
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for the elderly.

  Numbers and percentage of pensioners in the bottom decile, 1979 and 1990–91.

  Pensioners in the bottom decile

  1979

  1990–91

  BHC

  AHC

  BHC

  AHC

  Number (millions)

  1·9

  1·7

  1·2

  0·6

  As a percentage of all pensioners

  22

  19

  12

  6

  As a percentage of all in the bottom decile

  35

  31

  21

  11

  Source:

  1979,1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys and Households Below Average Income 1979– 1990–91.1990–91 is the years 1990 and 1991 combined.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers and percentages relate to individuals in benefit units headed by a person over state pension age.

  2. Individuals are located on the income distribution according to their equivalised household disposable income.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of(a) single pensioners and b) pensioner couples had incomes below one half of average household income each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  An answer covering each year since 1979 could he supplied only at disproportionate cost. The available information is published in tables F1(BHC) and Fl (AFC) of "Households Below Average Income 1979–1990/91", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average gross weekly income of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples in the lastest year for which figures are available; and what has been the average growth in income of each group since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1990–91, information from the family expenditure survey shows that the average gross weekly income of(a) single pensioners was £110·20 and (b) pensioner couples was £214·80. This represents an average growth in income since 1979 of (a) 42 per cent. for single pensioners and (b) 41 per cent. for pensioner couples.
  Note 1: Pensioner couples are couples where the husband is over state pension age.
  110
  Mr. Hague
  Since 1979, my Department has more than maintained the real value of the basic retirement pension; improved choice and flexibility in pension provision; and targeted additional resources to poorer pensioners. Spending on benefits for the elderly has increased in real terms by 40 per cent. since 1979—to nearly £34·5 billion in 1992–93. Also, as announced in the Budget last week, increases on the income-related benefits over and above the normal uprating will amount to 50p for single pensioners and 70p for couples in April 1994. The basic state pension rate will also be increased by 50p on top of the normal uprating plus an additional 20p for couples as part of the package of help for VAT on domestic fuel.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households were in the bottom decile of the income distribution in 1979, and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  The most recent information is given in the table. The figures are counts of pensioners, not pensioner households, with a pensioner couple counting as two. Figures are given both in terms of before housing costs—BHC—and after housing costs—AHC.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners received at least 50 per cent. of their income from state benefits in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  The percentage of pensioners receiving 50 per cent. or more of their income from state benefits is as follows:

  Pensioner couples: 61 per cent.

  Single pensioners: 76 per cent.

  All pensioners: 70 per cent.

  Source: Information from combined 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys covering period 1990-91.

  Note 1: "Pensioner couples" are couples where the husband is over state pension age.

  Note 2: "All pensioners" are single people over state pension age and couples where the husband is over state pension age.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of the basic state retirement pension for(a) a single pensioner and (b) a pensioner couple in 1979 and at each uprating since 1979; and what it would have been if it had been uprated in line with whichever was the higher of average earnings or prices.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.
  111

  Rate of basic retirement pension

  Actual rates

  If increased by the higher of earnings/prices

  Single £ per week

  Couple £ per week

  Single £ per week

  Couple £ per week

  November 1979

  23·30

  37·30

  —

  —

  November 1980

  27·15

  43·45

  27·60

  44·20

  November 1981

  29·60

  47·35

  30·90

  49·50

  November 1982

  32·85

  52·55

  33·50

  53·65

  November 1983

  34·05

  54·50

  36·40

  58·30

  November 1984

  35·80

  57·30

  38·25

  61·25

  November 1985

  38·30

  61·30

  41·60

  66·60

  July 1986

  38·70

  61·95

  43·45

  69·55

  April 1987

  39·50

  63·25

  45·90

  73·45

  April 1988

  41·15

  65·90

  49·50

  79·20

  April 1989

  43·60

  69·80

  54·15

  86·65

  April 1990

  46·90

  75·10

  59·40

  95·05

  April 1991

  52·00

  83·25

  65·85

  105·40

  April 1992

  54·15

  86·70

  71·05

  113·70

  April 1993

  56·10

  89·80

  74·55

  119·30

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the state pension for(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples would have been in April had the pension been uprated in line with the higher of retail prices index or earnings since 1980.

  Mr. Hague
  (a) £74·55 for single pensioners and (b) £119·30 for pensioner couples at April 1993.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the number and

  Thousands

  £ per week

  Up to 100

  100-150

  150-200

  200-250

  250-350

  Over 350

  Pensioner couples

  Number

  285

  9,655

  470

  309

  270

  318

  Pensioner Couples-Proportions

  Percentage

  11

  37

  18

  12

  10

  12

  Thousands

  £ per week

  Up to 100

  100-150

  150-200

  200-300

  Over 300

  Single Pensioners

  Number

  3,023

  692

  296

  233

  173

  Percentage

  68

  16

  7

  5

  4

  Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source: Combined 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the mean and (b) the median income of (i) single pensioners and (ii) pensioner couples, before and after housing costs, in 1990–91.

  Mean net income £ per week

  Median net income £ per week

  Single pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  Single pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  Before Housing costs

  94·80

  181·20

  75·20

  138·60

  After Housing costs

  82·50

  170·90

  54·40

  123·20

  Note: Pensioner couples consist of couples where the husband is over state pension age.

  Source: Combined 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys covering period 1990–91.
  112
  proportion of (a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples who have total gross weekly incomes of (i) £0 to £50, (ii) £50 to £100, (iii) £100 to £150, (iv) £150 to £200, (v) £200 to £250, (vi) £250 to £300, (vii) £300 to £350, (viii) £350 to £400, (ix) £400 to £450, (x) £450 to £500 and (xi) £500 and above.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the tables. To allow a reliable number of sample cases to be taken into account certain ranges of the distribution have been merged in order to ensure estimates are based on at least 100 cases. The estimates are liable to error.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual spending on family credit, and what was the spending on family income supplement in 1979.
  113
  Mr. Burt
  Family credit expenditure is expected to be £965 million in 1993–94. This is 14 times more in real terms than the £24 million spent on family income support in 1978–79.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is taking to encourage local authorities to stop fraudulent claims of housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced improved incentives which will encourage local authorities to increase their efforts against fraud. Local authorities will now be able to share to a greater extent in the savings produced through the detection of fraud. Subsidy reductions, next year, will be targeted at authorities that do little or nothing to uncover fraud.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid in housing benefit(a) nationally and (b) in the London borough of Ealing in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing benefit paid nationally

  Housing benefit paid in the London borough of Ealing

  £ million

  £ million

  1989–90

  n/a

  36

  1990–91

  4,941

  42

  1991–92

  6,058

  69

  1992–93

  17,348

  Not yet available

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Personal Pensions
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the results of his Department's policies to encourage personal pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government are committed to encouraging choice and flexibility in pension provision, and has already introduced two new options for contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme—appropriate personal pensions and contracted-out money purchase occupational pension schemes. It is clear that individuals wish to take advantage of the choices available to make provision for their own retirement—more than 5 million people have used personal pensions to contract out of the state earnings-related scheme since the option was introduced in 1988. A 1 per cent. additional rebate for appropriate personal pension holders aged 30 and over was introduced from April 1993, fulfilling our manifesto commitment and ensuring that personal pension holders continue to find it worth while to maintain their pensions. The Government are considering measures to ensure that personal pensions remain attractive across the age range.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to give additional support to lone mothers and lone fathers.
  114
  Mr. Burt
  We have already improved the incentives to work in the social security system so that lone parents are currently £30 a week better off in work and receiving family credit than out of work and on income support.

  From October 1994, we will provide additional support for both lone parents and couples through a £40 disregard of child care costs. This will provide a powerful incentive for families to move back into work with family credit and make themselves better off.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to give greater support to single parent families.

  Mr. Lilley
  We have already improved the incentives to work in the social security system so that lone parents are currently £30 a week better off in work and receiving family credit than out of work and on income support.

  From October 1994, we will provide additional support for both lone parents and couples through a £40 disregard of child care costs. This will provide a powerful incentive for families to move back into work with family credit and make themselves better off.

  Maxwell Pensions Unit
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the work of the Maxwell pensions unit.

  Mr. Hague
  In addition to its continuing work with those engaged in the recovery of pension scheme assets, the unit is providing substantial administrative assistance to the Maxwell Pensioners Trust. The Government fully support the trust's initiative to promote an overall settlement of disputes relating to missing Maxwell scheme assets as an alternative to prolonged and costly litigation.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has taken to reduce the level of fraudulent claims for social security benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  We are placing a greater emphasis on fraud
  prevention by increasing staff training and making more use of information technology. A range of other initiatives currently under way include a one-stop service, research into strengthening identity requirements and better verification details for claims and payments of benefits.

  Last year, our investigators caught more than 270,000 people cheating the system, making record savings of £558 million.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has commissioned into the long-term levels of resources to be devoted to social security expenditure by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department has an active research programme, drawing on internal and external research. The results of the most recent research were published in July in the Department's report "The Growth of Social Security", which was intended to stimulate and inform public debate on the social security programme.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he proposes to the payment of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 1 December,Official Report, column 1037.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the effect of the assessment he has made of proposed changes in invalidity benefit and pension age on the appeal against the social security commissioners' decision which concerned the IVB rules linked to state pension age.

  Mr. Scott
  The appeal has been listed for hearing by the Court of Appeal on either 14 or 15 February 1994. The proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1 December 1993 do not affect the decision to proceed with this appeal.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much more than inflation benefits for poor pensioners have been increased since 1989.

  Mr. Hague
  The total extra help above normal upratings made available to pensioners on income-related benefits since 1989 is now worth around £1 billion a year.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of people(a) male and (b) female covered by SERPS; and what percentage of the work force this is in each case.

  Mr. Hague
  The answer is in the table.

  1Number (millions)

  2Percentage of work force

  Total

  9·7

  43·7

  All men

  4·5

  38·8

  All women

  5·2

  49·1

  1Source: 1 per cent. sample of National Insurance contributors.

  2Source: Labour Force Survey—Employment Gazette. United Kingdom 1990–91 (excluding self-employed persons, Her Majesty's Forces and persons on work related government training schemes).

  The figures are based on the number of people who paid class 1 contributions at the not-contracted out rate; excluding those people with appropriate personal pensions.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many men with earnings above the lower earnings limit were not contracted out of SERPS during the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many women with earnings above the lower earnings limit were not contracted out of SERPs during the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1990–91, the numbers of(a) men, and (b) women, in the United Kingdom who paid class 1 national insurance contributions and were not contracted
  116
  out of SERPS, or were not holders of an appropriate personal pension in place of SERPS, were (a) 4·54 million and (b) 5·25 million.

  Source: 1 per rent. sample of National Insurance contributors.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to increase benefits for families of children with disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  Families with disabled children have access to a wide range of social security benefits, including, for example, invalid care allowance, disability living allowance and child benefit. On 1 December 1993 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that all major benefits would be increased in April 1994 fully in line with inflation, with additional help to meet the cost of VAT on fuel for more than 15 million people.

  Brain Damage
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards have been made under the Vaccine Damage Act 1979 for brain damage sustained in each year between 1976 and 1992; and how many of these awards were for damage following injections of triple and/or pertussis vaccines.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund Commissioner
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what decision he has made about the appointment of a new social fund commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I am pleased to announce that Mrs. Rosalind Mackworth has agreed to serve as the Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain for a further period of 18 months from 1 December 1993. I understand that Mrs. Mackworth has also agreed to act as Social Fund Commissioner for Northern Ireland.

  Since taking up the post of Social Fund Commissioner in December 1987, Mrs. Mackworth has been instrumental in establishing the social fund inspectorate as a respected and independent source of review. I am sure that I can rely on Mrs. Mackworth to maintain and even improve upon her excellent record.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that those choosing to opt out of the state earnings-related pension are informed of the risks to their pension due to the loss of the guaranteed returns offered by SERPS.

  Mr. Hague
  Some 15 million people are contracted out of the state earnings-related pension schemes— SERPS. Around 10 million of these are members of their employer's pension scheme and 5 million have a personal pension. Members of salary-related occupational schemes will receive a guaranteed minimum pension—GMP—at state pension age from their employers, provided as a condition of contracting-out of SERPS. There is no risk that an individual's pension entitlement will be lower than that offered within SERPS.
  117
  Individuals with a personal pension build up their own fund based on contributions made by themselves, their employer and the Government. The Government's contribution reflects the level of investment required to provide a pension equivalent to a GMP. These contributions and the return on their investment form "protected rights" guaranteeing a minimum value for the fund. An occupational money purchase scheme works in a similar way with the Government's contribution being provided through a rebate in the amount of national insurance contributions payable.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to monitor the performance of the investment funds associated with the personal pension plans of those who have opted out of SERPS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  It is for individual scheme members, in conjunction with their financial advisers, to monitor the performance of their chosen pension scheme. In order to help them to do so, the trustees of personal pension schemes are required to provide to members, at least once in every period of 12 months, written details of the value of the member's protected rights under the scheme and the value of the member's accrued rights, other than protected rights.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the number of those taking out personal pensions and who(a) have and (b) have not opted out of SERPS who have allowed their policy to lapse after (i) one year, (ii) two years, (iii) three years, (iv) four years and (v) five years;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total sum lost by policy holders who have allowed personal pension plans to lapse (a) after one year, (b) after two years, (c) after three years, (d) after four years, (e) after five years. and (f) in total.

  Mr. Hague
  Personal pensions used for opting out of SERPS do not lapse. Membership continues until cancelled either by the individual concerned or by the trustees or managers of the scheme. Personal pensions not used for opting out of SERPS become paid up when the member ceases to make payments into the scheme. In both cases, those contributions which have already been paid into the schemes continue to be invested to produce benefits for the contributor.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the total sum charged in commission on the personal pension plans of those who have opted out of SERPS and who make additional contributions to their plans for the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total sum charged in commission on the personal pension plans of those who have not opted out of SERPS for the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) what is his estimate of the total sum of charges other than commission made on the personal pension plans of those who have opted out of SERPS and who make additional contributions to their plans for the last year for which figures are available;

  (4) what is his estimate of the total sum of charges other than commission made on the personal pension plans of those who have not opted out of SERPS for the last year for which figures are available.
  118
  Mr. Hague
  The data requested are not collected. Consideration of the level of charges and commissions associated with personal pensions is a matter for individual investors in their choice of scheme. The Financial Services Act 1986 governs the disclosure to investors of charges and commissions associated with life insurance based products. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently directed the Securities and Investments Board to come forward with new rules and proposals to make the costs associated with life insurance based investment products, including most personal pensions, more transparent.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the total sum charged in commission on appropriate pension plans for the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total sum of charges other than commission made on appropriate pension plans for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  The data requested are not collected.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that the state earnings-related pension can operate in such a way as to provide an alternative to private provision for those who wish to make full provision for their retirement.

  Mr. Hague
  The state earnings-related pension is already one of several alternatives available to individuals choosing how best to make provision for their retirement.

  Benefit Statistics
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the saving in the whole range of social security benefits, including exemption from prescription charges and other associated benefits, if everybody was deemed to have earned £100 per week between the ages of 18 to 65 years who was fit and able to work.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall let my hon. Friend have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Income Support
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received income support transitional protection in 1988 in(a) Newham and (b) nationally; how many in each of the same areas received no income support increase due to transitional protection in each successive year; and how many of these had (i) pensioner premia and (ii) disability premium.

  Mr. Burt
  The figures for those receiving income support transitional addition in Great Britain are in table 1. It is not possible to provide reliable figures for Newham. Those with a transitional addition in May of each year would not have received an increase at the uprating in the April of that year. However, the following increases over and above normal uprating were made available on top of transitional additions:October 1989—new rate of pensioner premium introduced for those aged 75-79 and special increase in higher pensioner premium—worth £2·50 a week for a single person and £3·50 for a couple.
  October 1991—increase in family premium, child personal allowances and under age 25 single personal allowances.
  October 1992.all pensioners premiums increased by £2 for a single person and £3 for a couple.
  119
  Table 2 shows the numbers receiving a special transitional addition in Great Britain. All will have

  Table 1

  Income Support Claimants in Receipt of a Transitional Addition

  May 1988

  May 1989

  May 1990

  May 1991

  May 1992

  Total Cases with TA1

  1,585,000

  497,000

  134,000

  29,000

  10,000

  Higher Pensioner Premium

  220,000

  73,000

  15,000

  2,000

  Under 1000

  Enhanced Pensioner Premium

  Nil

  Nil

  14,000

  1,000

  NIL

  Pensioner Premium

  491,000

  168,000

  23,000

  2,000

  1,000

  Disability Premium

  63,000

  27,000

  9,000

  3,000

  1,000

  1 Transitional Addition

  Table 2

  Income Support Claimants in Receipt of a Special Transitional Addition

  May 1988

  May 1989

  May 1990

  May 1991

  May 1992

  Total Cases with STA1

  2,000

  2,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  Higher Pensioner Premium

  1,000

  1,000

  Under 1,000

  Under 1,000

  Under 1,000

  Enhanced Pensioner Premium

  NIL

  NIL

  NIL

  Under 1,000

  Under 1,000

  Pensioner Premium

  Under 1,000

  Under 1,000

  Under 1,000

  NII

  Nil

  Disability Premium

  Under 1,000

  1,000

  Under 1,000

  Under 1,000

  Under 1,000

  1 Special Transitional Addition

  1. Source: Income Support Statistical Enquiries 1988-1992

  2. Figures given in both tables are rounded to the nearest thousand

  3. Enhanced Pensioner Premium was introduced in October 1989

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 3 December 1993. There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been assessed for the disability allowance for chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and, of those assessed, how many have been successful.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 28 November 1993, about 9,000 cases had had all necessary employment and medical inquiries completed, and of these about 1,100 will receive an award of industrial injuries disablement benefit.

  "Fighting Fraud in 1992–93"
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of producing the report "Fighting Fraud in 1992–93"; how many copies were printed; and how many have been circulated to date.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefit fraud 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.
  120
  benefited from upratings as special transitional additions are increased by the normal uprating factor used for income support.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 3 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 was the cost of producing the report Fighting Fraud in 1992/93; how many copies were printed; and how many have been circulated to date.
  I am able to tell you that the total cost of producing the report was £3,679·43. A total of 1,800 copies were printed and as at 26 November, 1,446 have been circulated.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will appear in the Library.

  Claimants, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Doncaster area were receiving invalidity benefit for each year ended April in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993 and (e) 1993–94 to date.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of invalidity benefit 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 Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 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 how many people in the Doncaster area were receiving Invalidity Benefit for each year ended April in (a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993 and (e) 1993–94 to date.

  121
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because separate statistics were not kept for Invalidity Benefit (IVB) claimants until May 1991 and a yearly count of recipients is not maintained. I should also explain that, because Agency District boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries, a small part of the Doncaster area falls within that of the Mexborough Benefit Office within the Agency's Rother and Dearne District.
  Statistics covering the small number of Mexborough customers who live in the Doncaster area could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I have provided details for the area covered by Doncaster District only. The latest available figures show that on the last working day of October 1993, 14,370 people were claiming IVB.
  On the last working day of May 1991, the figure was 12,558 and on the last working days of April 1992 and April 1993, 11,662 and 12,953 respectively.
  The statistics include some customers who have claimed but are not actually receiving IVB. This is because there are circumstances in which although there is underlying entitlement to IVB, because a higher overlapping benefit is in payment, no IVB is actually paid. These figures were obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in the District Office.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the increased use of doctors to make assessments for disability living allowance claims.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  122
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Kate Hoey, dated 3 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 if he will make a statement on the increased use of doctors to make assessments for disability living allowance claims.
  Decisions on Disability Living Allowance continue to be made by independent adjudicating officers. Wherever possible, these are based on information provided by the customer on the claim form and on guidance in the Disability Handbook. In some cases other evidence is needed, perhaps in the form of a medical examination. Of course, a person may ask for a medical examination rather than supplying additional supporting information.
  It is true that the number of medical examinations has increased this year, reaching a peak in August 1993 when 28% of cases were decided following a report by an Examining Medical Practitioner (EMP). This compares with 20% of cases in April 1993. However, numbers are now decreasing again and in October 1993, 25% of cases were referred to an EMP.
  A number of factors have contributed to this increase:
  a large proportion of customers are requesting a visit from an EMP in preference to completing the self-assessment part of the claim form.
  as Adjudication Officers gain in experience they recognise more readily the cases which would be more effectively dealt with by an EMP's visit. For example, because a customer may be understating their needs.
  Self assessment has been widely welcomed. However, we would not want to reduce the element of choice by discouraging anyone from asking for a medical examination if that is what they prefer.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

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

Falkland Islands: War Crimes Inquiry
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to end the inquiry into alleged war crimes committed in the Falklands.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in August 1992 the Secretary of State for Defence referred the allegations to the Crown Prosecution Service, which asked the Metropolitan Police to undertake an investigation, which is in progress. The extent and nature of that investigation are operational matters for the commissioner in which Ministers cannot intervene. As soon as the investigation is completed the police will submit a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will than decide whether any action needs to be taken.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I apologise for being inattentive at the start. In asking him a further question perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that it is nine months since I raised this matter in your Lordships' House, when all noble Lords thought that it should be dealt with as quickly as possible in order to avoid embarrassment or humiliation.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that evidence taken by the police in Argentina from members of the defeated armed services must on any the country concerned is the United Kingdom, France, Ecuador, or any other country: it is beyond credence that evidence from defeated armed services will not be biased and therefore suspect. Therefore, is it not now impossible to bring charges against any member of our own valiant and heroic task force since the public will never believe that the evidence on which charges are based is not suspect or biased? Is it not time for the Government to intervene, as I am sure any other government in the would would, in order to avoid our sinking further into this ever-worsening quicksand which must result in some embarrassment or humiliation to somebody?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered the matter and it was thought right that the Metropolitan Police should be invited to inquire into the allegations. That is what is happening. It would be premature to make any decision upon the matter until the report on those investigations is complete and is submitted to the director. Obviously the source of any evidence which the report discloses will be relevant in considering what
740
is to be done in the light of the report. However, that is a matter to be considered at the appropriate time. I am certainly not in a position to offer any comment upon it now.
Regarding time, if they are to be thorough such investigations necessarily require some time. I have no reason to believe that the Metropolitan Police have taken longer over the inquiry than circumstances would justify.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the allegations being investigated are based on a book? Will he further confirm that the allegations of war crimes refer to incidents which occurred on the battlefield in the heat of battle? Can he let me and the House know whether a similar inquiry is being made in Argentina in response to allegations that Argentinian soldiers engaged in similar war crimes? Finally, is it not a disgrace that British soldiers should be placed in this position at this time?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is extremely important for the proper safeguard of any fighting forces that in the event of members of those forces being captured they are treated properly. The Geneva conventions to which we are party are intended to make those obligations plain. The allegations which are being investigated are such that in the view of the Crown Prosecution Service they require investigation. I cannot say whether they concern matters that should be regarded as occurring in the heat of battle. Obviously that is a circumstance which must be taken into account. I have read reports about investigations by the Argentinians. I am not in a position to say what is occurring in that connection at present.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, will it not ultimately be a matter for the Attorney-General in his semi-judicial role rather than as a member of the Government, to decide whether a prosecution should be launched, taking into account all matters such as the public interest?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is perfectly correct. The ultimate decision is one taken under the superintendence of the Attorney-General. The report has been called for by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be made to the director.
I should like to emphasise, as my noble and learned friend has done, that it is a matter for those with a responsibility for prosecution. It is not a matter for government as a whole. In giving the reply that I have given, I speak in this Chamber on behalf of the Attorney-General.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a noble purpose in sending the task force to the Falkland Islands was to maintain the rule of law? Is it not therefore more appropriate to follow the course indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, in order to indicate that in this country at least we follow the rule of law, whether convenient or uncomfortable?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of sending the original task force was to maintain the rule of international law. I am sure that we are all thankful that that enterprise was so successful. It is essential that we as a country should maintain the rule of law in all circumstances. The inquiry is being pursued under that policy with a view to an appropriate decision being taken in the light of the full circumstances disclosed by the inquiry about whether or not any further proceedings are required.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask this question of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When is it expected that a decision will be made on whether or not to charge any of those men with murder; and by whom will that decision be made?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the decision will be taken following the receipt of the report. I am not in a position to say at this moment precisely when that report will be completed. A decision will be taken by the prosecuting authorities; that is to say, the Director of Public Prosecutions under the superintendence of the Attorney-General.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, why is the issue a matter for the Metropolitan Police and the Attorney-General? By tradition, usually acts committed on active service are dealt with by the services themselves and come under the Advocate-General's Department; or has everything changed nowadays?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, everything has not changed. However, this matter was referred by the Ministry of Defence to the Crown Prosecution Service. That service invited the Metropolitan Police to make the inquiries. That may have a bearing on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as to the precise nature of the allegations in question. However, that is the course of events that has taken place. I believe that to be appropriate in the circumstances of this specific case.
Lord Renton: My Lords, since this is a military matter, will not the Judge Advocate General be consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in taking appropriate decisions, I am sure that the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General will consult all whom they believe to have a proper role in tendering advice in the circumstances of this matter.

NHS Hospitals: Research
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which NHS hospitals are in the top five for their research ratings, and what steps are being taken to ensure that research is not impaired by NHS market changes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, for the first time this year the eight London postgraduate special health authorities have been rated for research but the results are not published in the form of a league table.
We are committed to the protection of good quality research and development in the NHS and a task force has been established to advise Ministers as to how best to protect and develop research within the new NHS.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, will the Minister tell us what action is planned by the Government to rescue the University College group of hospitals from destruction by market forces? Will she bear in mind that that group has the highest possible reputation for research? It is because of the extra costs associated with outstanding research that it is now threatened with closure. It is on that account that the Government should step in to save that group.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before answering the supplementary question, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord on exceeding his three score years and 10 by another year and wish him many happy returns.
The Government are very concerned to protect research and because of that we commissioned a study to determine the excess costs attributable to research and development in postgraduate teaching hospitals. That study was completed in October and has provided the basis of support in relation to prices for the special health authorities. We intend to subsidise research and development at around 40 per cent. of overall annual expenditure for at least a three-year period.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I welcome the establishment of the task force which the noble Baroness has just announced. In the review, will that task force be invited to take account of university-based research undertaken in clinical departments which is impossible to distinguish in many instances from that carried out within the NHS hospitals? Will the task force further take note of the reduction of funding of many university clinical departments as a result of the transfer of funds from the university budget to that of the research councils?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the task force will consider that matter. Also, the study to which I just referred, which was commissioned by the management executive, identified the excess costs that are attributable to research and development in post-graduate teaching hospitals. So to some extent the matter is taken care of.
We have seen an enormous increase in the amount of money that has been put into clinical research over the past 10 years. The total funding for the current year is £71 million. In addition, there is £150 million capital that is promised over two years, which represents a growth of 20 per cent. in three years. That will also take into account the increase in student numbers and the reorganisation of medical education and research in London.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the welcome point which the noble Baroness made, would it be sensible for the department to ensure that staff associations are kept in touch with the specialist medical scientists? That is vital for the improvement of our National Health Service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we work very closely with all the staff in the National Health Service.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House the identities of the persons comprising the task force, their occupations and qualifications?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it would take a great deal of your Lordships' time to do that because there are 150 expert persons of distinction involved in the process.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that much of the important research and development done in the health service is carried out in hospitals which are not special health authorities? Although we welcome the special funding which will be given to them, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Ashley about the University College hospitals and the Middlesex hospitals, can the noble Baroness confirm that they have the highest research rating for undergraduate research and teaching in this country but that they will not receive any special funding under the arrangements which she has announced?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that this is just a first step. We are anxious to assess the research that is taking place in all the hospitals in the country, but it will take some time and the first step is just the special health authorities.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I appreciate that if 150 people are involved it would take too long to mention them at Question Time, but will the noble Baroness ensure that the names of those in the task force will be made available in the Library?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, certainly. They are contained in the booklet, Special Health Authorities Research Review, and I shall place it in the Library.

Common Agricultural Policy: Cost
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the total expenditure in pounds sterling in 1993 on the common agricultural policy, and what total is proposed for 1994.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the cost of the CAP to the European Community in 1993 is estimated at £27.6 billion. The 1994 draft budget has been set at £28.1 billion.
Lord Jay: My Lords, now that we claim to be at the heart of Europe, is it not rather disappointing that not merely is there not to be a decrease, but there is to be a further major increase in the wasteful and extravagant expenditure of huge sums of public money?
Earl Howe: My Lords, think that the important point to make is that, following the reform of the CAP, the cut in support prices and the increase in direct payments to farmers will result in consumer savings, but increased taxpayer costs. The overall resource cost will be lower than it would otherwise have been. At the end of the reform period, annual costs imposed by the CAP on consumers should be around £1 billion lower in the UK and around £8 billion lower for the EC as a whole.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government insist upon obtaining a reduction in that enormous and wasteful figure?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's premise and the Government have consistently argued that the cost of the CAP remains far too high. It hampers the efficient allocation of resources within the economy. We are pressing for further reductions in support levels so that costs can be reduced.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, despite all the pressure and persuasion that the Government say they exert "at the heart of the Community" in these matters, gross contributions to this sum by the United Kingdom from the Consolidated Fund represent some £3 billion? Included in the expenditure for which the Minister has given the total, some £1 billion is wasted on a ridiculous tobacco subsidy and tobacco consideration which are quite useless to the United Kingdom and to Europe. Moreover, the sum includes £1.5 billion in respect of the storage of surplus foods in the European Comrnunity.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the emphasis of CAP reform is to reduce the reliance on intervention and storage costs about which the noble Lord feels so strongly. The thrust of the Government's position is to work over time towards a more market-oriented CAP with less reliance on agricultural support generally.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is it not the case that the cost of the common agricultural policy expressed in pounds sterling is greatly inflated by the devaluation of sterling—a development no doubt vigorously supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jay? In order to put the matter into perspective, and to assist the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, can my noble friend say how much of the money comes back to the United Kingdom in the form of agricultural subsidies, export restitution and the British budget rebate?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right because the switch-over mechanism under the green currency system has meant that various ERM realignments since the autumn of last year have added some £1.2 billion to the budgetary costs of the CAP. That is something which we regard as most regrettable.

745
On the other hand, our receipts under the CAP are estimated at £2.1 billion in 1993 and £2.8 billion in 1994. Our share of the receipts will rise over the full period of CAP reform to 9 per cent. of total CAP expenditure.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the cost has increased in billions of ecu as well as sterling, and that has nothing to do with devaluation? Although I am sure he is doing his best, is it really much comfort that we are now paying people to produce nothing, whereas previously we were paying them to produce too much?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord will himself be aware that there is no doubt that the CAP, as originally conceived, fulfilled a worthwhile purpose—namely, to eliminate food shortages in Europe. With the achievement of that objective, the justification for the CAP will rest much more on its cost-effectiveness. That is the thrust of our policy, as I have explained.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, will the Minister agree that one of the most important aspects of the reform is the transfer of resources into agri-environment initiatives? Although those initiatives involve the reduction of production support, they mean that there is support for sustainable agriculture and a maintained countryside landscape.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord because he has enunciated very well the dual thrust of the policy as it now is—namely, to ensure a supply of food as well as a well managed countryside.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister referred to the possible benefits to consumers, will he also make it clear to your Lordships' House that the CAP has cost every family in the country since the time we joined the Community an enormous amount extra, well above what we would have had to pay for food if we had not had the CAP? Can he say whether the figure of £1 billion which he mentioned will completely redress the problem or only partly do so?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there will still be a cost to consumers under the common agricultural policy at the end of the reform period. However, what I can say is that the savings that would be made in the absence of the CAP are often overestimated. If there were no CAP then world prices would be markedly higher.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that the common agricultural policy costs every consumer in this country £1,200 a year?
Earl Howe: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that figure, for the reasons that I have just stated. I believe that it overestimates the position that would exist were the common agricultural policy not there.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend can go a little further with an answer
746
which he gave earlier to this House and explain precisely whether the Government will be working overtime to reduce the iniquities of this absurd policy; or whether they will merely be working "over time", which I fancy might take a little longer?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we shall be working very hard indeed to see that, over a period of time, the cost of the CAP comes down.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, we have been told many times by the Government, and again today, about the difficulties of securing a reduction in this ridiculous amount. Does the Minister agree that the fact that the matter has been raised again by so many noble Lords today shows how much concern there is about it? On this occasion will the Minister be specific and tell the House what are the main obstacles to the reduction?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are one member state in a Community of 12. As the noble Lord will be aware, agreement on matters of this kind should be reached as far as possible by consensus. It is not always possible to do that in the twinkling of an eye. Nevertheless, I believe that we have made real progress over the past few years, not least in the CAP reform measures of May 1992.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether the implementation of the MacSharry proposals will, in the aggregate, result in a reduction in the cost of the CAP, or will it mean in effect that, although the MacSharry proposals may reduce surpluses, there will be no reduction in the global cost of the common agricultural policy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the MacSharry proposals as subsequently amended will reduce the cost of the CAP, if one defines the cost as the budgetary expenditure for the Community combined with the cost to consumers.

London Underground
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to prevent breakdowns on London Underground due to ageing plant and equipment.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, responsibility for the maintenance operation of the Underground network lies with the management of London Underground Ltd.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is estimated that there are some 30 years of underspending on the Underground to be overcome in order to make the service reliable and efficient? In those circumstances, was it not a little unwise for the proposed investment in the Underground to be cut by something like one-third last autumn? Do the Government realise that, in the antiquated state of the infrastructure that presently serves the Underground, further breakdowns

747
are almost inevitable, causing inconvenience, disruption and possible accidents? Is that not a matter that the Government should take seriously into account?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we do take the matter most seriously into account. That is why in the next three years some £3 billion will be spent by London Transport on investment. That is 10 times more than in a three-year period under the last Labour Government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, how can the Minister give that appalling reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; namely, that London Transport is the responsibility of London Transport, or words to that effect? Has he not heard that 5,000 to 6,000 Londoners were walking through mud and water to get to safety? Does he realise that people's confidence in London Underground is now diminishing? Will he agree that ultimately the safety of people travelling on London Underground or anywhere else in the United Kingdom must rest with our Parliament? That is why the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, put his Question to the Minister. Will he now endeavour—it will be a big endeavour—to give a straightforward, honest reply?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord surprises me. I answered the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, couched his Question in those terms are entirely a matter for the noble Lord. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, knows the noble Lord's mind. As always, safety will be a top priority, and LUL will not run an unsafe service. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, would be the first to say that £3 billion over the next three years is a lot of money, and a great deal more than has been put in before.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, the Minister referred to what happened under the last Labour Government. I can tell him that the trains ran on time very satisfactorily, unlike today. The Government carry responsibility for the tragic circumstances in which the Tube system finds itself. Will the Minister agree that spending money in the future will not solve the problem, and that something must he done now?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been a steadily increasing profile of expenditure under the Conservative Government since they came to power in 1979. That is why investment will be at record levels.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it be possible to persuade London Underground to spend all its available resources on restoring the quality of the equipment of its current services and to cut out expansions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, London Underground will be spending some £1¾ billion on existing services, and that includes refurbishing the Central Line, which will be completed in the not too distant future. Fifty per cent. of the electrical faults at present suffered by London Underground are on the Central Line. That is why that line is being tackled first and as a priority.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning at three Underground stations I encountered five escalators that were not working, including one at Embankment, which involved a very long climb, an occupation that is totally unsuitable for an elderly Peer? I do not know what the official statistics show about keeping up to the standards laid down by the Government, but my impression is that conditions get worse rather than better. The Government must presumably be interested in the impact that that must have upon our foreign visitors. Can the Minister say whether it is the result of shortage of money, or whether we are not very good at making machinery?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord suffered the problems that he did this morning; my sympathy lies with people who are not Peers who also suffered the same difficulty. I do not have the figures with regard to escalators; but I can say with regard to lifts that the target for 1993–94 was a 92 per cent. service, and the current performance is 91.3 per cent. I remember answering exactly the same Question from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter some years ago. What I do know is that the service has improved considerably and we shall continue to set high standards for London Underground.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Henley will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Hong Kong.
London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on Broadcasting—

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Ardwick,

B. Eccles of Moulton,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Mancroft,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

E. Strathmore and Kinghorne,

L. Thomson of Monifieth (Chairman),

E. Winchilsea and Nottingham.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)—

L. Boston of Faversham,

E. Strathmore and Kinghorne,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)—

L. Dainton,

L. Flowers,

B. Platt of Writtle.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a long and rather technical Bill, though that should not dent the eagerness with which it should be welcomed. It is of great practical importance to business. We know this because business has been telling us so. The reason businesses want it is that it will save them money—estimated at around £30 million a year. When we were unable to include it in the programme for the previous Session, businesses wrote to tell us how important trade marks are to them and how crucial it was to modernise the law governing them. When press speculation this autumn suggested that pressure on the programme might once again displace this Bill, they lobbied again. Since the Queen's Speech, several businesses have taken the trouble to write to thank us for including the Bill.
Moreover, we are confident that we are giving industry the Bill that it wants. In 1990 the Government published a White Paper Reform of Trade Marks Law, setting out their proposals for legislation on this subject. This received a very favourable reception from business and from professionals working in this field.
The cornerstone of the Bill is an EC directive, No. 89/104, to approximate the laws of the member states
750
relating to trade marks. It forms the basis of the substantive provisions in Part I of the Bill. This is an important single market measure and is one of the few measures listed in the Commission's White Paper Completing the Internal Market, which still awaits implementation.
The directive does not attempt a wholesale harmonisation of national trade mark laws. Rather it concentrates on those areas where differences between the position in respective member states can distort competition. In particular, it harmonises the conditions for validly registering a trade mark and the rights conferred by registration. In other words, if the House will excuse the cliché, it helps to achieve a level playing field.
For example, one of the issues which trade mark law must address is conflict between marks. If a trade mark whose registration is applied for conflicts with a mark already on the register, then it is liable to be refused. Most countries have rules for assessing such conflicts. The position in Germany, however, under the unharmonised law is that conflict is very readily found. There are therefore many instances where a mark cannot be registered in Germany because it is held to conflict with an earlier trade mark, even though the two marks happily co-exist, without causing confusion, in the rest of the European Community. Indeed, the barriers to trade which result from the differences between German law and that of other member states are responsible for many of the trade mark cases that have come before the European Court of Justice. Implementation of this directive will reduce or eliminate those differences.
Let me give two further examples. While an earlier mark may prevent the registration of a conflicting later mark, if the later mark does get onto the register, then after the passage of time it cannot normally be challenged. In France, however, under the old law, it was possible for a mark to be cancelled on such grounds even after it had been on the register for several decades. The directive prohibits such a challenge after a period of five years. Most member states' laws require that a trade mark be used for the goods or services for which it is registered, and provide for it to be cancelled if it is not used. Denmark, however, had no such requirement but has now introduced it in its law implementing the directive.
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the main changes that will be required in order to comply with the directive are twofold. First of all, the test for what may be registered as a trade mark will in future essentially depend on whether it is in practice capable of distinguishing its owner's goods from those of another. Thus for example the case law that has built up under the existing law makes it difficult or impossible to register a geographic name, or a laudatory epithet, as a trade mark. In future, if the mark is distinctive in the marketplace it should be registrable. Likewise the three-dimensional shape of goods or their packaging will be registrable as a trade mark, provided it is actually distinctive.
Secondly, the rights conferred by the registration of a trade mark will be broadened. At present, a trade mark owner can sue someone for infringement only if they

751
use the mark on the precise goods for which it is registered. If the other person uses the mark on similar goods, or uses it to sell services related to the goods for which it is registered, then he would have to fall back on an expensive and unpredictable action for passing-off. Clause 9 of the Bill, in implementation of the directive, extends infringement rights to cover similar goods. Moreover in the case of a mark having a reputation, it extends them to non-similar goods, where unauthorised use of the mark would take undue advantage of the mark or be detrimental to its distinctive character or repute.
I hope that I have demonstrated that implementation of this directive will, by modernising the law and reducing differences between member states, assist in the completion of the single market and bring real benefits to United Kingdom business.
The directive should have been implemented by the end of 1992. The Government are proud of this country's record in implementing single market measures and regret that it proved impossible to meet the deadline for this directive. As the House will be aware, however, pressure on the parliamentary timetable has been particularly fierce. Implementation by statutory instrument was of course considered, but the Government's view was that that would have been very difficult and the results unsatisfactory. I believe that industry shares that view and I am sure that the House does too.
As well as implementing the directive, Part I of the Bill deals with the procedures involved in trade mark registration. Here the Bill implements the deregulatory promises in the White Paper, in particular in regard to the simplification of the registration of assignments and licences.
Under the present law, where the proprietor of a registered trade mark applies to register the same or a similar mark for similar goods or services, the registrar requires that the two marks be "associated". Marks that are associated cannot be sold separately. The purpose of that is to protect the public against being misled into thinking that different goods bearing identical or similar trade marks originate from the same source when in fact they do not. For the same reason, the registrar is required to examine any application to assign a trade mark in respect of only some of the goods for which it is registered. All that involves work for the Patent Office (which has to be paid for by its customers) and work for trade mark owners and their agents. In the Government's view, it is disproportionate to any consumer protection benefits that it may produce. In any case, it is the parties concerned who would have the most to lose if an assignment leads to confusion. After all, the purpose of a trade mark is to distinguish its owner's goods; he is not likely to connive at a situation in which his business is confused with someone else's.
Another deregulatory change concerns the licensing of trade marks. Before the Trade Marks Act 1938, which this Bill repeals and supersedes, there was no statutory recognition of trade mark licensing. Indeed, there was doubt as to whether such a licence could be granted without impairing the trade mark's capacity to distinguish, thereby endangering the validity of its registration. The introduction in the 1938 Act of a
752
system of registered users was therefore a radical step. The legislators at that time, however, felt that a system of unrestricted licensing could lead to deception of the public. For that reason, the only form of licensees given statutory recognition was registered users. The law requires an application to register a user to be accompanied by voluminous documentation, and requires the registrar to examine it, calling for further documents if necessary, and to register the user only if he is satisfied that this would not be contrary to the public interest.
Times have moved on. The public have grown accustomed to goods or services being supplied under licence from the trade mark owner, for example, as part of a franchise operation. Moreover, as with assignments, the strongest guarantee against the public being deceived is that it is in the proprietor's best interests. A trade mark is valuable property in terms both of its power to attract customers and of the royalties which can be demanded from licensees. It is in the owner's interest to ensure that licensees use it properly. The Bill therefore simply provides that a trade mark may be licensed. In response to the wishes of industry, provision will be made for licences to be recorded on application from one of the parties, but it will be voluntary.
It could be said that the framers of the 1938 Act and its predecessors saw the Registrar of Trade Marks as having a consumer protection role. In our view, this should no longer be the case First of all, there are other bodies, official and unofficial, which are much better placed to perform such a role. Moreover, modern consumers are more sophisticated than was the case half a century ago. Secondly, as I have tried to explain, the vetting of assignments and licences by the registrar seems to be directed at protecting the public against an unreal danger —that trade mark owners will connive in the devaluation of their property. Certainly the elaborate procedures demanded by the present legislation are disproportionate to any benefit to the public. Scrapping them is reckoned by business to contribute getting on for half of the £30 million which the Bill will save them annually. The other half will come from the ability to use the Madrid Protocol. That forms a major element of Part II of the Bill, which deals with international matters.
At present, a UK trade mark owner who wants to protect his mark in overseas markets must apply separately for registration in each of the countries concerned. That involves going through whatever procedures each country requires and paying fees in local currency. It may be necessary to employ a local lawyer—indeed, some countries insist on it. As can be imagined, all that involves a great deal of trouble and expense.
Trade mark owners in most other European countries, by contrast, are able to avoid many of the problems by making use of an international arrangement called the Madrid Agreement. Under this, a trade mark owner can obtain an international registration, which has the same legal effect in those member countries that

753
the applicant has designated as though a trade mark application had been filed direct with the authorities of those countries.
The United Kingdom is not a member of the Madrid Agreement because our system does not fit well with it. In most of the countries in the agreement there is little or no examination, so that fundamental objections to a trade mark may come to light only when there is litigation. By contrast, our trade marks system is based on registration only after a full examination, so that registration carries a high presumption of validity. The system of time limits and fees under the Madrid Agreement is tailored to the deposit-type systems of most of its members. Adherence by the UK would, for example, mean foreign trade mark owners being subsidised by domestic users of the system, which is clearly unacceptable.
Although the Madrid Agreement has functioned for over 100 years and has a membership of over 30 countries, its membership has been fairly static. In particular, it has not appealed to countries with systems like ours, such as the USA, Canada, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. For that reason, a protocol to the Madrid Agreement was concluded in 1989 which overcomes all the difficulties we had with the old agreement. The UK took a leading part in the negotiations leading to the protocol, and we have signed it. Ratification however needs this Bill. Clause 50 provides for the making of regulations for giving effect to the protocol. Were I asked to name the single most important provision in the Bill, I would say that that is it. That is certainly the message we have been getting from businesses, who foresee major savings from being able to use the protocol. The protocol is not yet in force. There is no point in ratifying it for countries party to the old agreement until a substantial new country is also ready to do so. All the signals are that UK ratification of the Madrid Protocol is what is needed to set it in motion.
Part II of the Bill makes provision with regard to Community trade marks. I shall not say a lot about those. The Bill does not establish or give effect to Community trade marks; that will be achieved by a directly-applicable council regulation which, it is hoped, is now nearing agreement in Brussels. All the Bill does (in Clause 48) is to provide for consequential provisions to be made by regulation. The Community trade marks system will operate in parallel with national systems, offering trade mark owners a choice of which suits them best.
Part II also gives explicit effect to some obligations concerning trade marks under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. In particular, those are obligations to protect well-known marks and emblems of other countries and intergovernmental organisations. Hitherto, the Registrar of Trade Marks was able to take account of some of those obligations in the exercise of his discretion over registration. Other aspects of the obligations might be met through an action for passing-off. However, that is a less than satisfactory situation and, as I said, the Bill will give explicit effect to all those obligations.
754
Parts III and IV of the Bill contain administrative and other supplementary and general provisions and the usual final provisions. Much of that re-enacts (with modifications) provisions in the existing law concerning such matters as the powers and duties of the registrar, appeals and trade mark agents. I shall single out two changes for mention.
First, I turn to Clauses 86 to 88 which concern trade mark counterfeiting. Provisions making the fraudulent use of a trade mark were introduced into the 1938 Act in 1988 by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Those clauses replace those provisions with a widened scope. Section 58A of the 1938 Act was cast in terms of deception of the customer. Since that was enacted, there has been a dramatic growth in the sale of what are sometimes called "brand copies"—garments, watches and so forth which feed on the reputation of famous trade marks while the trader is able to escape prosecution under the Trade Marks Act by admitting that they are fakes. It was thought in some quarters that such goods would still be caught by the Trade Descriptions Act, but a ruling earlier this year showed that that is not so. That prompted much lobbying of my department to change the law. Some of the lobbying came, as might be expected, from the owners of the famous marks being copied. However, we were particularly struck by letters from other traders who deal in the genuine goods and who complain of being undercut by market stalls or boot fair traders selling blatant copies.
Clause 86 is, as I say, broader in its scope, and the offence of trade mark counterfeiting is defined in much the same terms as trade mark infringement. I might add that there is an obligation to apply criminal sanctions against wilful counterfeiting under the intellectual property code being negotiated in GATT.
Secondly, Clause 96 breaks new ground by putting on the trade mark owner the burden of proving that the mark was used, where that is contested. That was foreshadowed in the White Paper and welcomed by trade marks practitioners. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible for an interested person to apply to have a mark cancelled from the register if it has been out of use for more than five years. Under the present law, the burden of proving use rests on the person seeking the cancellation—generally someone wanting to register a similar mark. It is difficult and time-consuming to prove a negative, whereas if a trade mark is being used it is a straightforward matter for the proprietor to show that and reasonable for him to be called upon to do so.
Finally, some general remarks about the White Paper. Several countries in the world have trade marks laws which are based on ours—mainly, but not exclusively, Commonwealth countries. When the White Paper was published in 1990, it was generally expected that its implementation would mean us moving away from those countries at the same time as we harmonised with our Community partners. It is therefore interesting, and gratifying, to find that reports or draft laws published in several of those countries—Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong, South Africa—cite or follow our White Paper.

755
This is, as I said, a long Bill. However, that does not mean that it is cumbersome. There has been clarification rather than compression. The present law was much criticised for complexity and obscurity. The amendment Act, passed in 1984, while performing the valuable task of introducing registration of marks for services, unfortunately made the text of the law even more complicated. The present Bill provides a completely new and self-contained code governing the registration of trade marks. Those professionally involved with trade marks who have seen it have supported both the policy and the presentation. I hope and trust that your Lordships will be able to do likewise, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my first task is to welcome the Bill. It represents a considerable improvement to the law of trade marks and related matters. It is an overdue embodiment in out law of EC Directive 89/104. I am delighted to see the legislation start in your Lordships' House. Of course, I do not believe that the Bill, as drafted, is perfect. I shall illustrate this afternoon places where it is somewhat obscure, where it is less than convincing and where it can be strengthened. But we can deal with that more fully in Committee. I am delighted also that it is proposed to take the Committee stage in a Public Bill Committee, away from the Floor of your Lordships' House. The Bill is technical and not at all party political. It will be a good test of our ability to work together in the best tradition of our House; to improve a Bill but to retain its essence.
As an economist I have always been fascinated by problems of intellectual property. We dealt with the major area of copyright in 1987–88. No doubt we shall need to come back to that and patents when the intellectual property aspects of the Uruguay Round come to be incorporated into British law. Trade marks and passing off seem more esoteric. In my view they are just as interesting, especially when we consider their role in enhancing competition and consumer protection.
The non-specialist may not appreciate what is so fascinating to the economist; namely, that trade marks which grant a firm a degree of monopoly power and appear to strengthen what is called, "imperfect competition", actually promote competition and, unless they are abused, are advantageous to the consumer. They strengthen competition by enabling the producer to identify and promote those goods or services he offers. They signal to the consumer the quality of those goods or services and their commercial origin. Properly enforced, trade mark law can prevent the use of marks which may deceive or confuse the consuming public.
At the same time, the law in this area protects the property rights of the proprietor or owner of the trade mark. But I cannot emphasise too often to your Lordships what, for want of a better expression, I call the "Adam Smith doctrine"; the justification and purpose of business activity are to satisfy consumer demand. Firms exist for consumers; not the other way round.
756
Let me now go on to say some things about the chief aspects of the Bill. I cannot cover every topic of interest—we can wait for Committee stage for that. One immediate reason for welcoming the Bill is that it reduces the need for action on passing off by extending the ambit of registered trade marks. But there remains great scope for the use of passing off actions. Given that there are many similarities from the public's point of view—that is, there are no apparent differences between an unregistered trade mark and a registered trade mark, and the licensing provisions in regard to registered trade marks are clear while those in passing off are a mess—can we not take the opportunity to bring those latter aspects in line in the Bill? Both consumers and firms would gain. It is a matter for consideration whether we can devise appropriate amendments in Committee.
I welcome the closeness of the Bill to the directive in general, but I have to ask whether the language and continental drafting techniques, if I may use that expression, will satisfy British lawyers in this area. Expressions I have in mind are, for example. "bad faith", "good faith", "bona fides", "well known trade mark", "reputation" and so on. We need some explanation of what such terms mean, or are supposed to mean.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes clear that distinctiveness is vital and is not a proviso, as stated in Article 2 of the directive. As is well known, distinctiveness is fundamental to our conception of trade marks. The problem is that, having emphasised that and therefore having departed from the directive in Clause 1, Clause 3, which concerns absolute grounds for refusal, now appears to be ambiguously phrased. This again is probably a matter of wording, and the drafting can be tidied up in Committee.
I turn to Clause 5, which is about relative grounds for refusal. This seems to offer a simple and effective approach to the problem, but again the use of language may be confusing. Both the words "identical" and "identity" are used. I know that that occurs in the directive as well. As I understand the matter, which is another way of saying "as my advisers tell me", to an English lawyer a change of word or expression generally signals a change in meaning. My judgment is that we ought to stick to "identical" at all times, if we can.
I shall now jump ahead to Clause 42, There are wording problems here. Although subsection (1) (d) bears some resemblance to the law under the old Act, there was no real way a mark could be removed from the register because of a change in the quality of the goods. I understand that, while everyone knows what the word "quality" means as a matter of common sense, there are difficulties with its application under the new law. Nonetheless, the clause as a whole has a welcome clarity. Again, in another part of Clause 42, the words "proper reasons" appear. I am advised that the expression "proper reasons for non-use" have no meaning in English law. I would welcome the Minister's views on that.
It is also Clause 42 which covers a couple of other important matters. One is that a registered trade mark

757
gets that status either from use or intention to use—that is also what Clause 28(3) is about. We must ask—the Minister was somewhat alluding to this—whether the revocation provisions cover the case where it becomes apparent that there was no intention to use from the outset. On the face of it, it does not. This relates in addition to what is the available line of defence against improperly registered trade marks.
The grounds for revocation are extremely important. One reason for that has been mentioned by the Minister—we have already accepted that there can be Community trade marks which can be registered, and are then fully protected in the UK. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to do away in due course with substantive examination of applications by the registrar. If the extent of substantive search and examination is reduced, and the Community mark route becomes the cheaper one, we have a problem. The Community route will become the favoured one, and for Community marks, I reiterate that I am advised that very little will be required by way of examination. Therefore many marks may be registered with little justification, and there will be more cases in which revocation becomes vital to protect a rival trader. We must see in Committee whether we have drafted revocation requirements tightly and strongly enough.
On the general question of trade marks, unlike other forms of intellectual property, they have a continuing function in the market place. That is why the wording of Clause 42 is so important. They are indicators of origin. I mentioned at the outset that they are also, at least to the public, indicators of quality, though, I am advised, this has only been recently recognised in United Kingdom case law. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether one purpose of the Bill is for us to catch up with European jurisprudence which sees trade marks as indicators of quality as well as origin. This takes me back to economics. Contemporary economic analysis interprets a trade mark as a quality symbol. Two questions then arise. Do we need, and do we have the power, to revoke a registration if the firm, having established a high reputation for its products, subsequently goes down market? We see that happening all the time. How far do we allow a firm to extend its existing trade mark to new ranges of goods or services, the quality of which is not apparently up to the standard of existing ranges?
Clause 42 refers to "geographical origin". This, together with Schedule 2 (on certification marks), explicitly recognises that this class of registration can indicate geographical origin, something we have been slow to protect in this country. Geographical names are presently prima facie not registrable in English law. Stilton is protected, as is Champagne, at common law, but the common law and associated trade mark law is quite rightly reluctant to extend this kind of recognition too far. Nonetheless, we shall need to scrutinise the way this clause and the relevant schedule operate. Indeed, in due course we may have to go further and with respect to geographical names protect our consumers of produce as well as, for example, the French do.
Once again the subject of economics arises. The
758
single market is supposed to mean the end of protection across the Community, and not allow the favouring of the domestic producer within the European Union. But it is not illegal for consumers to wish to purchase from domestic suppliers as a matter of principle. It is up to them. The difficulty is that geographical origin is not what it used to be. In a world of free trade many goods, if not most, contain components made in other places. With multinationals having factories in many countries of the European Union, a product with the same trade mark may be manufactured in a variety of countries. The word "Peugeot", which I assume is a registered trade mark, does not necessarily mean—does not at all mean—"Made in France" any more, and without a doubt "Ford" does not mean "Made in England". I have to ask, therefore, whether there are not problems of misleading signals of geographical origin that can arise here. I hasten to add that, even if there are, it is not clear what one can do about them.
I turn to unregistered trade marks and what I believe is called the "honest concurrent user", a subject to which the noble Lord alluded in his speech. I am referring to a firm which has built up its own reputation with a name or trade mark the same as or similar to another registered one and would itself like to get on the register. Unlike the old law, in the new law there appears to be nothing enabling the registrar to register such a mark. The only protection for such a trader arises under Clause 10, which makes honest concurrent use not an infringement. My interpretation of Clause 10(3) is that the reference there is to use in a particular locality. The trouble with it is the use of the words "particular locality". Does that rule out the expansion of the honest concurrent user's business?
More generally, the purpose of these reforms is to make registration easier and to give greater protection. This will be done, first, by refusing registration of similar marks for similar products—and in some cases even for dissimilar products, as the noble Lord has himself pointed out—and, secondly, by extending the scope of infringement so that use of the same or a similar mark on goods for which the proprietor is not registered is still actionable. Encouraging registration can only be helpful. It helps firms in that they can the more easily avoid clashes.
This takes me back to Clause 1 and the use of the word "detrimental". Will the effect of that be too strong? On the face of it, it seems to rule out, for example, comparative advertising—"My product is better than that product" where I mention a trade mark—although that is often helpful to consumers. In this connection certain remarks in Clauses 9 and 11 seem to affect so-called parallel importing from non-European Union countries. Is that the case; and if it is, what is the justification?
Clause 19 refers to threats. The basic question is to do with a firm's response to what it truly believes to be an infringement. I assume that threats will normally be made against the producer who makes illegal use of the relevant trade mark, and this remains permissible. But where does the retailer stand who has acquired these goods? Why should he be protected from threats, since his goods are deceptive? He should not be able to claim

759
as a matter of course that threats against him are unjustifiable. But equally, should a retailer not be protected against an unscrupulous firm which knows that the goods are genuine, but wishes the retailer not to sell them, and thus threatens the retailer with
"proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark"?
This is a question of balance. I am interested in the Minister's immediate response, if any, but we will of course pursue this in more detail later. I add that if there is proper examination by the Trade Marks registry in the first place, threats of action may become largely irrelevant.
My next remarks are to do with enforcement. Obviously, the proprietor of the trade mark must be assumed capable of looking after himself. But the law as drafted sees a role for trading standards officers. This is not new, but I take this opportunity to praise the work of these public servants in this and many other areas. The problem is, partly because of shortage of funds, but also because different authorities vary in their priorities, that interventions on trade marks and passing off differ in different localities. I am not one for a dull uniformity or wish to stifle initiative, but it makes little sense for trade marks to be better protected in one part of the country than another.
Clause 88 on enforcement seems to be very strong. It has, of course, to be read in the light of Clauses 86 and 87 which combine to specify offences together with court proceedings and appeals. We have to ask—I believe that I heard the Minister say this but I repeat the question: is the intention to make enforcement in all its forms easier and more effective, and does the Bill succeed in doing that?
As the Bill recognises, we are also well into the territory of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Many of the infringements arising in respect of trade marks are close to or connected with offences covered by trade descriptions. Again it is worth asking—we shall come back to it in Committee—whether there are improve-ments to the Trade Descriptions Act which we should take this opportunity to introduce.
A particular trades description problem I must mention relates to something the Minister said. It concerns what is called the honest fake and the honest faker. Consider a street trader in Oxford Street selling fake Rolex watches very cheaply. They are so cheap nobody could reasonably believe they were genuine. The point holds a fortiori if the seller himself calls out, "Buy my fake Rolexes". I assume Rolex have a case under trade mark law, but the best way to deal with these infringements is under trades description legislation.
Can the Minister assure us that no unnecessary complications arise in such a case and also that the Trade Descriptions Act will not need to be amended? If I revert to what noble Lords know to be my more cynical mood, I believe that I can be persuaded that anyone who buys such a watch cheap deserves no more protection than caveat emptor. For their own education the only way they will learn is if they get their fingers burnt! Perhaps that is too cynical.
Another topic I must raise under Clause 86 is what the lawyers call mens rea. The first part of this clause seems to say that an offence is committed if the
760
defendant does the act with an intention to gain or cause loss. There is no requirement that he knows or has reason to believe that his use is an infringement. But in contrast in subsections (2) and (3) words like "knowing" or "having reason to believe" and "believed on reasonable grounds" appear. I ask the Minister: is it the intention of the Government that those expressions should not appear in subsection (1)? I also ask why the question of belief in subsection (4) of this clause pertains only to whether use was licensed by the proprietor? Why not in all circumstances?
I was intrigued to hear the noble Lord say that perhaps the most important part of the Bill was the incorporation into our law of the Madrid Protocol. I shall have to reflect on that. I am always willing to be persuaded by the Minister, but to make life easier, can he make sure that copies of that protocol are made available to noble Lords, notably me, before we get to the Committee stage of the Bill? If it is that important I should have read the actual words.
My conclusion is simple and it is the same as when I started: I welcome the Bill. I shall do all I can to help it proceed onto the Statute Book. I look forward to the work in Committee where we can get down to detail arid improve the Bill where that is necessary.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his very clear exposition of the objectives of the Bill. It is a technical Bill and is therefore that much harder to deal with in straightfor-ward language. Before I deal with a little of the detail, perhaps I may just take a moment to say that I am sure other noble Lords, as I do, will miss the involvement of my late noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I am sure that he would have seen that we all took the right decisions in the debates on this Bill.
The Bill has been generally welcomed by those who have an interest in the matter and we therefore must welcome it too. But it makes it all the more important that we ensure that the Bill takes every opportunity to do all that the consumer needs by way of protection and that opportunities are not missed. We need to strive for a less expensive and less complicated system than we have at present. The layman, inquiring about trade mark protection, is both blinded by science and baffled by cost. The new legislation must not become an experts' charter. Throughout we must remember the consumer.
I recently had cause to inquire about the cost of protecting as a trade mark a character that was to appear in an educational video. The makers of the video thought that the character might become attractive for rather wider exploitation. Inquiries revealed advice that registration in 13 classes, at a cost of about £11,500 per class, should be quite seriously considered. That was for the United Kingdom alone. I believe that there is a very great deal that we could do to assist those who produce innovative work and whose work needs to be protected. The changes which are introduced must help the individual who has need to protect himself even if his means are not very great.
Like the Minister, I too am interested in the relationship between trade mark protection and other

761
forms of protection such as passing off and copyright. We need to be sure that we provide an effective, straightforward means of enforcement. I was interested to see Clause 19 in the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred. That provides a,
"remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings".
I have heard that welcomed by those who have been on the receiving end of threats from the makers of a recent film about dinosaurs who have been seeking to protect and restrict the term "dinosaur" and "Jurassic" for their own use. That has an air of absurdity, but it also put into a new light for me the wisdom of government Ministers using words like "neanderthal".
For me the serious point here is I am not convinced it is appropriate that there should be a statutory restriction of the threat of proceedings. We need to start from the basis that the law is there to be used and that we must be very cautious about restricting people's ability to use it.
I too welcome the anti-counterfeit provisions which provide for distasteful activities which we would all think were quite immoral and which should be made criminal offences. I hope that the United Kingdom will no longer be the home of the counterfeiter. It is a scandal that items like jeans, perfume and jewellery are sold on the strength of their counterfeit brand names. I am concerned about the resources which will be required for the enforcement of the new provision and the extension of the responsibility of local weights and measures authorities. I agree that it is probably appropriate that they should take on the work, but we need to be aware of the additional strains that would put on the system. We also need to see whether additional powers are required so that the attack is not merely on the small middleman who is selling the goods, but is aimed at getting information from that middleman so that we can find out who is producing the goods, because that person is the real villain. We need to look also at the relationship between civil and criminal proceedings.
Counterfeiting is not confined to trade-marked goods. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act introduced criminal offences where copyright was infringed, and the Government recognised the seriousness of that. The Minister referred to the fairly recent court ruling that the use of a disclaimer is a defence to proceedings for infringement, and referred to traders using a disclaimer and then trading with impunity. I welcome the provisions which will assist the manufacturers whose goods sell because of a trade mark.
However, the proposed provisions are of no help to one of this country's major industries, the record industry. I use the word "records" to cover compact discs, cassettes and all other forms of record. They sell because of their content. Traders are now deleting the trade mark from the packaging, and record piracy is continuing to cost the industry something of the order of £20 million per year. In Committee, I shall be inviting your Lordships to consider using this Bill to extend to trading standards officers powers to search and seize
762
counterfeit goods where they believe that an offence is committed or will be committed under the equivalent copyright legislation.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the simplification of registration in more than one class although I shall want to be assured about how the system of classification will be prescribed. As the Bill is drafted, there is a very brief reference to "prescription".
I hope that we can be assured also about the cost of transition to the new system. It must not involve expense for existing trade mark holders. On the costs of enforcement, the Bill provides that the relevant court is the High Court. I think that we might usefully discuss in Committee the use of the specialised patent court where the costs incurred might be less.
We shall need to debate a great deal of the detail and many of the definitions. The two that struck me were the words "identity" and "similarity". The classicists among your Lordships will, I am sure, have a field day in helping us to distinguish those two provisions and perhaps in persuading us that they are not sensible words to use in such close conjunction.
Finally, I welcome the provisions which will bring us into line with the rest of Europe. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will give us the benefit of her experience in making sure that we have the right provisions. I welcome the fact that the DTI has discussed the matter fully with the industry. I believe that there are still some matters which industry would like us to debate and which may not have been taken on board in the Bill as drafted. I hope that we can take on all reasonable points that are raised with us. I look forward to dealing with the detail in Committee.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is now almost exactly a year since I tabled a Question asking when legislation would be brought forward to implement the proposals in the White Paper and to comply with the European Community trade mark directive. In fact, it was on 8th December last year. That Question was prompted by the Institute of Trademark Agents among others and I know that they, as well trade and industry generally, are delighted that we now have this Bill before us and that it is starting in your Lordships' House. I feel certain, as the White Paper was published more than three years ago and has been the subject of intensive and wide consultation, that it will be possible—it should be possible—to deal with it efficiently, thoroughly and expeditiously.
In any event, I think that the Bill is very readable, even if it is long and technical as my noble friend the Minister said, and that must be good for our consumer on the Clapham omnibus. I, too, am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for setting the scene, telling us about the anomalies that have existed and explaining the Bill's provisions with his customary panache, if I might put it that way.
It is not necessary for me to reiterate at length the advantages that will result from enabling traders to protect their marks internationally in a number of countries by means of a single application. But I understand that a conservative estimate of the savings is

763
some £10 million per annum. There will also be savings as a result of the less restrictive requirements for registration and the formalities for licensing and assignrnent—not to mention the greater expense that some companies have suffered in having to resort to sometimes lengthy passing-off actions in order to protect their marks. The fact that considerable savings in public service manpower are listed in the Bill's explanatory memorandum is, of course, an additional plus factor.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it will certainly give us all satisfaction to know that we no longer lag behind other major trading countries in the area of trade mark protection. As well as being fair to our own industry, this will surely make us more attractive to foreign companies which wish to invest here. In that respect, perhaps I might ask my noble friend the Minister for an update of a previous question that I have posed. How many of our European Union partners have already complied with the trade mark directive?
As has been said, although a few points relating to the Bill as drafted may get a preliminary answer today, others may require more detailed examination and explanation at later stages. Many of the issues that I had intended to raise have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, one additional issue that I think should be tackled is the fact that the Bill does not specifically address the problem of availability of registration for retail services. As such registration is possible in, for example, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States and in some other European countries, it would be useful to have further clarification on that point. The Bill provides a golden opportunity for that.
There is also the subject of comparative advertising, which has already been touched on, in which an advertiser uses a competitor's trade mark to identify a competitor's product and compare it with his own. The Bill does not tackle that—or, at least, it does not attempt to clarify the issue. That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. There may be good reasons for not making that clarification, but the lack of clarity is seen in some quarters as leaving both trade mark owners and those who wish to engage in comparative advertising in an unsatisfactory and uncertain position. Any clarification on that point from my noble friend the Minister would be welcome.
Counterfeiting is another matter to which my noble friend the Minister referred when introducing the Bill and which is causing certain sectors of our industry considerable problems. The enhancement of anti-counterfeiting measures in the Bill is therefore very welcome. But there is scope for further action—for example, tougher sentences for counterfeiting offences could give added bite.
There is also an exemption for private imports in the Customs Provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the need to find methods of tracing not only the middlemen in these matters, but also the producers. Although the exemption for private importers is an existing provision of our law and, on the
764
face of it, seems entirely reasonable, apart from the knock-on effect that any sale of a counterfeit product may have, there are, it appears, some regular travellers who abuse the exemption by regularly importing small quantities of watches, garments or the like. So that is another matter of principle which could well be dealt with.
On a more specific point, Clause 7 empowers the Secretary of State to make an order to discontinue refusal to register a trade mark on relative grounds, but that power is tied to the start-up of the Community trade marks system which we all hope will take place soon, but which could take place from any time onwards into the next century. Is it not possible to provide more certainty by specifying a set period, preferably four or five years only? The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to that matter, but he was speaking rapidly at the time so I am not sure that he made that point.
I, too, say that I do not wish to seem to be niggling by raising those questions and minor points, which could be subject to amendment in Committee and at other stages, because I believe that this is an important, good Bill which will benefit our industry. I end as I began, by congratulating the Government on introduc-ing the Bill good and early in the Session, and on the fact that, overall, the Bill provides a well thought out, comprehensive updating of our trade mark law. I am pleased to be able to give it my support.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words in support of the Bill. I congratulate the Government on having found parliamentary time for it. It is the type of Bill—highly desirable, with no obvious enemies and wanted by officials and industry alike—that Ministers, especially, dare I say it, politically ambitious Ministers, are tempted to leave on the shelf because of the lack of political mileage to be got out of it.
As I am advised by the CBI, I should like also to record its thanks to the Government for introducing the Bill, and in particular its appreciation of the thorough consultation process which the Government and their agency, the Patent Office, conducted before bringing forward the Bill. That has produced an unusual situation, whereby the CBI is at present not seeking any amendments to the Bill, despite its having more than 100 clauses and being on a subject which concerns its membership directly. All congratulation to the Government, the Patent Office and its enlightened and capable director, Mr. Paul Hartnack. If only all legislation could be so well prepared. Perhaps it shows what can be done when politics does not rear its ugly head.
The Bill is necessary, partly because of the obsolescence of existing national legislation and partly because of the need to comply with the European directive. Industry has no quarrel with the harmonisa-tion proposed under the directive. On the contrary, the ability in future to make a single trade mark registration which will be valid throughout the member states of the Union is seen to be one of the chief benefits of the Bill and a necessary feature for a single market. The degree

765
of harmonisation imposed by the directive is not seen to be excessive. Indeed, it brings with it some other incidental advantages; for instance, industry welcomes the opportunity for the first time in this country to include shape in a trade mark registration, as with the Coca Cola bottle. That is a European import into the thinking on this subject.
In time, I should expect that the number of registrations recorded by the British Patent Office in Newport will decline as registrations shift increasingly to the Community patent office in Alicante. Alicante is not, of course, the centre of the universe. Trade mark registration tends to require personal appearances. Of course, a visit to the Mediterranean always has its attractions. Industry is reconciled to the decision, but I am bound to say that there is concern that the Community patent office will load onto its fees a great deal of extra cost, deriving from the need to operate in several different languages, to attract skilled personnel off the beaten track and so forth.
Will my noble friend the Minister give an assurance that the Government will watch closely the fees which the Community patent office charges, and do their utmost to ensure that they do not develop into a source of grievance for industry? I am sure that Her Majesty's Government do not want to see the single market given a bad name in that way.
There is another matter which has already been raised upon which I should like to ask the Government for clarification. In the wake of the case of Queen v. Price, the enforcement authority (the Trading Standards Office) is, I am informed, now wary of bringing prosecutions against street traders selling counterfeit goods in case it should again be pleaded successfully in their defence that no offence has been committed provided under some sort of disclaimer the trader has acknowledged that the goods are counterfeit. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised that matter. From what my noble friend the Minister said in his introductory speech, it is plain that the Government are aware of the problem. I am not clear whether my noble friend was saying that once the Bill is enacted that situation need no longer pertain because there will be in future be no doubt that an offence is still being committed despite the disclaimer.
The Bill will bring considerable savings to industry: savings in the present costs of making multiple trade mark registrations; in the cost of bringing infringement action; and costs resulting from the loss of trade. Those are difficult to quantify, although an attempt has been made to do so. The Government quoted some figures in the Bill's preamble, and my noble friend the Minister repeated them this afternoon. The Government are showing that they have taken to heart the concerns and needs of industry. I wish the Bill a swift passage.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, at the outset perhaps I may echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said about Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I worked with the noble Lord on a number of associated Bills a
766
few years ago. I greatly enjoyed working with him. His knowledge of copyright and patents will be sorely missed.
My noble friend Lady Hooper described the Bill as being, although technical, reader friendly. The trouble with a reader friendly Bill is that we can all see the easy, readable way of adding to it, and of using the Bill as the hook upon which to hang all manner of highly desirable provisions. Although we may wish to make amend-ments, in Committee we should resist the temptation to add to the Bill because it is greatly desired and overdue. The sooner it is on the statute book, the sooner the benefits will be felt by all concerned.
I shall touch on just two elements of the Bill. My noble friend the Minister rightly drew attention to Clause 86 which relates to anti-counterfeiting measures. I recall at the outset of the Uruguay Round attending a Minister's meeting on that point in New Zealand. We are pussy-footed about anti-counterfeiting measures. Counterfeiting is sheer, absolute piracy. We must deal with it in those terms. It is no good pretending that it happens elsewhere—as indeed it does—and so it has nothing to do with us. If domestic law can be stiffened by the Bill, then it must be. Nevertheless, I should like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the fight against that piracy is still going on internationally. Therefore, I too am delighted that the Bill will ratify the Madrid Protocol. Nevertheless, other conventions must be brought into play. They deal with countries which have not ratified that protocol and will not be party to it.
My noble friend Lord Reay and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the possibility of giving trading standards officers powers under the Bill to enforce Section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. My noble friend Lady Hooper suggested that the Bill might be the vehicle for the introduction of tougher new sentences for counterfeiting offences. I have a great deal of sympathy with both thoughts, and I agree with them. It is one of the issues on which one might hang "goodies", which may have to be resisted. Might we expect legislation in the not-too-distant future which takes care of those matters which are dealt with in legislation now sadly out of date? My noble friend does not have to be more specific than that.
The second issue I wish to raise is that of retail services. The Bill deals with service marks and trade marks which are to be drawn together and it removes from the old Act the necessity of proving that the service given is for the provision of money or money's worth. In effect, retailers will be able to register a complementary service. That may be the provision of shopping bags or baskets and crèche facilities where no money necessarily has to change hands.
The trouble is that as the Bill stands whatever complementary service is offered—as I say, that might be a crèche, a shopping basket, the free polishing of shoes, the pressing of a suit or the drying of a raincoat while one shops in a store—each would have to be registered. I understand that the Bill does not provide for the single registration of a retail service. That might be, for example, Marks and Spencer or C & A. While the former can register their products under the trade

767
mark—St. Michael or Canda respectively, which is virtually a patent on a product description—most consumers would recognise a reputation, a guarantee of quality and a service offered by names such as M & S and C & A. There are others—I do not single out those two retailers as being special.
It is the belief of the retailers that their reputation is at stake if that retail service cannot be registered. They also believe that the name is conducive to customer loyalty. We have heard of examples such as the shop which had on its front its name spelt "H" a short gap and then "arrod". I do not believe that many people would regard that as being "Harrods" but Harrods most certainly did. Harrods brought an action in Sydney under Australian law. They won the action. The other shop was prevented from using the name "Harrods", which has implicit in it quality, reliability and a certain reputation. There have been other cases in this country.
If one were able to register the names that would protect a retailer, that would be helpful; but I am not aware of such a provision in the Bill. Can my noble friend the Minister give me an assurance on that matter? If not, perhaps he will permit me to frame an amendment which will allow retail services to be included in the trade mark registration.
As my noble friend Lord Reay and other noble Lords have said, this is a jolly good Bill and everyone wants it. I look forward to a fairly short Committee stage. I am sorry to see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, shake his head. If he speaks very fast perhaps we shall be able to shorten the proceedings. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the better for all concerned.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Cawley: My Lords, I apologise for omitting to put my name on the speakers' list. Until 1973 I was a practitioner in trade mark law. I had frequent jousts before the Registrar of Trade Marks with the late Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Sometimes he won and sometimes I won.
When during the past 35 years measures relating to intellectual property have come before the House I have taken the opportunity to advocate a comprehensive trade mark Bill. More than 10 years ago I told the House that I would probably rise in my place in my 90s to congratulate a future government on introducing such a measure. I was pessimistic because I am only 80 years of age. The legislation is many years overdue and it has my full support in principle.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at the beginning of the debate I explained in some detail how the Bill is important for business. The remarks made this afternoon indicate that that view is generally shared in this House, and I welcome that. Noble Lords have indicated that they will wish to look more closely at certain aspects. That is to be expected. I look forward to hearing in Committee the views of the Members on the provisions of the Bill.
I too share what has been said about the late Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. When I was a Whip in the Department of Trade and Industry I dealt with the noble
768
Lord on many occasions. He was always extremely helpful to me when I was ignorant, which I often was at that stage.
I thank my noble friend Lord Reay for his congratulations on the way in which the Government handled themselves during the consultation process. I look forward to his contributions during the next stages of the Bill. I am also grateful for the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Cawley and his explanation of some of the history of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, started by quoting Adam Smith. I am extremely grateful to him for quoting Adam rather than John, and I hope that he will continue to do so.
He asked about the licensing of unregistered trademarks. That and many other questions which he raised are exactly the kind of matters which we shall discuss in great detail in Committee. But perhaps I may touch on one or two of the general points which he made; in particular the question of interpretation of the language used in the directives. I agree that there may be problems as regards interpretation, but in general harmonisation is best served by sticking closely to the directive. Courts in this country are now increasingly used to implementing Community language. However, we can discuss that further.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lady Hooper, among others, asked about comparative advertising. This Bill aims at a flexible approach so that comparisons that are useful to consumers will be allowed, whereas parasitic comparisons may be caught out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Lucas of Chilworth all spoke about counterfeiting. We believe that this Bill is sufficient and that there will be no need to amend the Trade Descriptions Act. As regards international counterfeiting, the measures to improve protection against counterfeiting worldwide are being actively pressed for in the GATT negotiations, which I hope are currently nearing their conclusion.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Reay that the Bill strengthens anti-counterfeiting provisions and should be very much welcomed by enforcement authorities because it will make their job considerably easier.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I accept entirely the point which the noble Lord makes that we shall go into further details on these matters, but perhaps I may ask him whether counterfeiting will be dealt with under this legislation or whether it will simply be via this Act into the Trade Descriptions Act.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that it will be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill but some provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act will also apply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a valid point that the system may be too costly. Officially the fees are £185 per class, which gives seven years' protection. The noble Baroness quoted costs of £110,000, which seems to be slightly excessive, but

769
those are the kind of costs which include provision for legal advice. In many cases that can exceed the net worth of the advice actually received.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in defence of my profession, I should say that the fees to which I referred were fees of trademark agents and not of solicitors.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always nice to hear the noble Baroness protecting her profession, which she does most capably.
The noble Baroness raised the matter of copyright piracy. This Bill deals specifically with trade marks and it is doubtful whether copyright changes are within the scope of the Bill. However, I understand the points which the noble Baroness raised.
My noble friends Lady Hooper and Lord Lucas of Chilworth made some interesting observations on registration for retail services. In a test case in 1989 taken up by a number of large retailers and supported by the British Retail Consortium, the Court of Appeal decided that "retail services" was too vague a term to afford the protection which was sought. Their Lordships felt that its use would disadvantage others, and that is still the Government's view. We said in the White Paper that there is no need to seek registration for retail services used by a third party; for example, a trade mark as a name of a shop. The law would clarify the extent of the remedy for infringement. That is done in Clause 9. However, if retailers are unhappy about the extent of the protection given by Clause 9, we can discuss that matter in more detail in Committee.
My noble friend Lady Hooper asked where the directive has been implemented. I can tell the House that it has been implemented in France, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. It is still awaiting implementation in this country, in Ireland and in Germany. The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg have codified the law, which awaits ratification by their Parliaments.
I said earlier that we have consulted extensively on this Bill, but we do not claim to have every single detail absolutely right. Now that the Bill has been published, my department will continue the process of discussing it with interested parties and will listen carefully to what is said. I am delighted that the overall message which I take away from this Second Reading debate is that the Bill is welcomed, and on that basis I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Public Bill Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not oppose the Motion but I should like to utter a slight note of reserve. I certainly do not oppose it because all those noble Lords who have dealt with the subject today have approved of it going to a Public Bill Committee. But my hesitation is lest we should become slap-happy about the procedure.
770
Certainly if any Bill should go to a Public Bill Committee, this is the kind of Bill which should do so. The disadvantages are two general ones and one particular one. In general, a Committee of your Lordships' whole House is an admirable forum for detailed discussion. Secondly, there is a danger that governments may use recourse to a Public Bill Committee merely to load more and more legislation onto your Lordships' House. On this occasion certainly one welcomes it because the Bill was squeezed out of last Session's business. On the other hand, that it is now in on the basis of it going to a Public Bill Committee means that room is made for another Public Bill.
The third reason is a particular one: that the Public Bill Committee sits during the morning and afternoon and therefore is denied the assistance of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary unless he is prepared to run the risk of disrupting the judicial business of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, whom we all hope will be on the Public Bill Committee. He is an expert on this branch of the law. But there is another great expert who is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
That situation obtained during discussion of the Charities Bill. In that case, the use of a Public Bill Committee was undoubtedly a success. But it meant that the greatest expert on charity law—my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson—was not available. As it happened, on that occasion another great expert—my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, who had retired as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—was available. However, it is undoubtedly a matter that should, it is to be hoped, be borne in mind before we rush into sending Bill after Bill to a Public Bill Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I share the hesitation and apprehensions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the Motion. After all, it is the basic function of the House fully to discuss legislation. A variation of our procedure which will exclude the great majority of Members of your Lordships' House from taking part in the Committee stage does, therefore, require to be looked at somewhat carefully. I shall be interested to see how it works.
However, I would welcome in advance an undertaking from the Minister that, because the Bill will have been to a Committee, the Report stage will not be hustled and that, if necessary, an additional day will be given in that respect so that some of the discussion which would have taken place in a Committee of the Whole House can, therefore, take place on Report. In the light of the amendments tabled and of previous discussion, I would welcome an assurance that rather more time than usual will be allotted for the Report stage of the Bill.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I hesitate to raise a question as regards what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has just said, but the experience on the Charities Bill Committee showed that non-Members of the Committee were perfectly free to come to the Committee and to move amendments, a privilege of which they took very full advantage. I believe that the

771
experience on the Charities Bill suggested that the procedure was a good one for a very limited category of Bill. My own view is that the Bill now before us happens to fall in that category. However, a few things did go wrong and questions were raised on the Charities Bill Committee. I trust that full note was taken of that fact in settling how the proposed Committee—that is, if it is approved—will operate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for reminding us of our responsibilities in making the decision. Of course, those responsible for making the decision have weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure and have decided that, on balance, this is precisely the kind of Bill that should be dealt with under the special procedure. The Bill before us is one which involves no party controversy and one which will, I think, benefit from the particular detail and expertise that can be given under the special procedure.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked whether we could have an extra day on Report. I am a believer in debating such matters fully. However, as to whether or not an extra day will be given will depend on necessity. Obviously, my noble friend the Chief Whip will maintain discussions through the usual channels. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his support in regard to the procedure. There have been only about six times over the past 12 years when we have needed to use the special procedure. I suspect that, on balance, noble Lords feel that it has worked extremely well.
On Question, Bill committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Hong Kong
4.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment, (Lord Henley): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
"I will, with permission, Madam Speaker, make a statement about Hong Kong.
"We have an important job to do in the remaining years of British sovereignty in Hong Kong. We intend to carry out these responsibilities, with the support of this House. Part of our task will be to make arrangements for the elections to the district boards, municipal councils and the Legislative Council in 1994 and 1995.
"There is no argument between Britain and China over the principle that Hong Kong's democratic institutions should continue to develop. That is set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It provides that by 1st July 1997 Hong Kong's legislature will be constituted by elections. China's Basic Law for Hong Kong after that date spells out more fully that process of political development.
772
"The issue is how these principles should be turned into practical arrangements. The proposals which the governor put forward in October 1992 with our full support were carefully framed to be consistent with the Basic Law. We have all along wished to proceed in agreement with China, in order to assure continuity in this important part of Hong Kong's life. That is why we have put so much effort since April into achieving an agreement in the talks with China.
"The talks have been concerned with complex electoral issues. But the underlying question is simple. Will we bequeath to Hong Kong an open and democratic system offering the electorate a genuine choice? Or will we settle for a system based on small electorates open to manipulation and corruption?
"The answer to that question affects the character of Hong Kong. Hong Kong owes its success in large measure to the rule of law supported by a clean and efficient administration. If that precious asset is to be preserved in modern circumstances, the territory needs an elected and credible legislature which can stand up for its way of life.
"That is why elections held under British administration in Hong Kong must be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. On that basis, we have made a concerted effort through 17 rounds of talks to reach agreement with China. I discussed matters twice with the Chinese Foreign Minister during this period. The Prime Minister sent a message to the Chinese premier. We have offered to make important moves to accommodate Chinese views, without compromising our essential requirements, as part of an acceptable agreement.
"We made plain from the outset that the talks could not continue indefinitely and that it would be for the Legislative Council to consider and pass the necessary legislation. This will be a time-consuming task. Some 48 constitutional and electoral instru-ments in Hong Kong are affected and may need amendment. All the primary legislation needs to be in place by July 1994. Some of the more urgent measures need to be on the statute book by February.
"When time began to press, we therefore explored fully the possibility of an interim agreement, which would enable us to get on with legislation on the more urgent issues, and gain a little more time to resolve the remainder.
"I explained to the Chinese Foreign Minister in New York on 1st October that this aim would not be achieved by an interim package limited only to the district board and municipal council elections. To deal with all the more urgent issues, an interim package needs to include the voting age and the voting method for all three sets of elections, including the Legislative Council, and the abolition of appointed membership in the district boards and municipal councils.
"The Chinese side evidently had no difficulty of principle with an interim package covering some LegCo issues. They accepted our proposal that the voting age should be lowered to 18 for all elections. They also seem to have had no difficulty of principle

773
with our proposal that the voting method should be single seat-single vote. They accepted that this should apply to the district board and municipal council elections. But they refused to accept as part of an interim package that the single seat-single vote method should apply to the Legislative Council.
"We and the governor consider that there are compelling reasons for including this proposal in the interim package: in practical terms it would otherwise be necessary to legislate twice on the voting system, using up legislative time which will be in short supply next year; the single seat-single vote system enjoys widespread support in the Legislative Council. If we had accepted the Chinese position and introduced legislation to apply this voting method to the district boards and municipal councils only, the council might have extended the measure to apply to the elections to its own body. That would lead straight back to further difficulties with the Chinese Government. We would not have saved time: we would have wasted it.
"Despite our best efforts, it has not been possible to reach agreement on this issue. The question of abolishing appointed members also remains un-solved. Time has now run out for pursuing these points.
"It is necessary to introduce legislation on them into the Legislative Council before their Christmas Recess. That will allow work to begin straight away in a Bills Committee. The Governor has therefore announced that he will publish draft legislation on 10th December for introduction on 15th December.
"These proposals are largely uncontroversial in Hong Kong. We had thought that they were uncontroversial with China. On a number of them it was possible to reach a common view in the talks. In those cases the legislation will reflect that. The Governor is not at this stage legislating on the main issues which remain in dispute, namely the functional constituencies, the composition of the election committee and objective criteria for the through train.
"We are not breaking off the talks. We have proposed a further round in December to pursue agreement on the remaining issues. We are prepared to work seriously and constructively to that end. We strongly hope that the talks will continue.
"Britain and China have to carry out what they agreed, namely to preserve Hong Kong's way of life and success while transferring sovereignty. That is a unique and difficult task best carried out together. The Joint Declaration makes clear the fundamental British responsibility up to 1997. We and the governor are committed to working with China in the interests of Hong Kong. We look for corresponding commitment from their side".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I reiterate what we have said on numerous occasions; namely, that we have always supported moves towards greater democracy in Hong Hong. We believe that these relatively modest
774
proposals for further democracy are consistent with the Joint Declaration. We understand that they are also consistent with the Basic Law.
This Statement is bad news for the British Government and, far more important, it is bad news for the people of Hong Kong. Why, after a year's discussion, are even the simplest of these proposals apparently still unacceptable to the Chinese Government and even an interim agreement beyond the reach of the Foreign Office, British Ministers and the Governor of Hong Kong? Why have Her Majesty's Government been unable after 17 rounds of talks to persuade the Chinese Government that the implementa-tion of these proposals is necessary?
Perhaps the Minister could give a little more detail about why the talks have collapsed and why the Chinese Government will not accept the single seat/single vote proposals that have been put to them. What hope can there be for agreement on the main issues in dispute such as functional constituencies and the objective criteria for the through train when there has been failure on these less important interim measures? Is it not apparent that the UK Government got off on the wrong foot when proposals for political reform were announced in October 1992 and never recovered from the bad start that was made as a result of the failure to consult the Chinese Government adequately at that time?
I do not wish in any way to imply that the Chinese Government's intransigence on these and other matters is acceptable. We on these Benches have been consistently critical of their human rights record, as we have of their handling of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1987. However, we cannot be other than deeply concerned about the way in which our relations with the Chinese Government on the future of Hong Kong appear to have deteriorated in the past year and a half. Those who thought that the handling of these matters by the British Government and the Governor of Hong Kong lacked subtlety have been proved to be right in the light of these latest developments.
Is it not increasingly likely that the Chinese will now set aside these proposals in 1997 and introduce their own plans? What hope is there for the through train? Is it not also clear that without a substantial recovery of trust and serious further negotiations leading to agreement there is nothing that the UK Government can do to stop that happening?
The Statement says that the Government are not breaking off the talks. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government intend to do if as a result of today's announcement the Chinese refuse to pursue talks on the remaining issues? These are important questions that must be answered.
In addition, what can the Minister tell the House in the way of assurances that pressing ahead with the proposals for political reform on a unilateral basis will not jeopardise existing arrangements for the new airport and other major capital projects that have been agreed?
Today's Statement on the failure to come to any agreement on the practical arrangements to implement earlier agreements can only give rise to considerable anxiety among all those with an interest in the peaceful

775
transfer of sovereignty in 1997 and in the long-term prosperity of Hong Kong. Above all, there must be anxiety about the great risks that are being taken with the future of the people of Hong Kong and their wish for an open and democratic system.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place.
In these circumstances it is easy to be wise after the event. We on these Benches have always supported Mr. Patten's initiative and we maintain that position. Of course it would have been better had democratisation been initiated at an earlier date, but that was not the position which faced the Governor when he took up his post. I take the view that it is better late than never.
We have to face up squarely to the very weak negotiating position in which we find ourselves. Our ability to find our way through the position which the Statement describes so frankly and vividly depends on our ability to convince the Chinese of the importance to them of the prosperity of Hong Kong, the degree to which they see that that prosperity depends on the rule of law in that city state, and the extent to which they are prepared to allow two systems to co-exist. There is no real leverage which we can exercise unless we can convince them of those elementary and crucial factors. In looking at the position in which we find ourselves today we have to confront those serious facts.
There are two other points which I should like to raise. The Chinese position affects their standing in the world, to which they are sensitive. That standing was not improved by Tiananmen Square. It is not improved by what is happening in Tibet. It has not been improved by their response at the APEC meeting to President Clinton's approach to them on human rights. In that connection I should like to ask the Minister whether we can be confident that we and the United States Government stand four-square on the position of Hong Kong and what their position is in relation to Hong Kong. It will not be improved if China remains intransigent about Hong Kong and the proposals which Governor Patten has made. They do not wish to stand alone against the tide of events in the 20th century. I do not believe that they want to jeopardise the main conduit for investment into Southern China which is transforming that whole area.
Of course we must be prepared to compromise in the negotiations, as in any negotiations, but it takes two to negotiate. If someone refuses to negotiate there is not very much that the other party can do. However, I do not believe that we should be prepared to compromise too far on the way that the legislature is elected because the rule of law depends on that.
I should like to mention the importance of the position adopted by the business community in Hong Kong. It is essential that there should be no split between business and the democratic movement within Hong Kong. The business community should be encouraged to stand behind the position adopted by the Governor. It seems to me that it has not been good news that Mr. Murdoch has sold his paper in Hong Kong to
776
someone who, it is generally believed, will not support the governor but will support Beijing. We can only hope that other businessmen do not behave in the same fashion.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the two Opposition Front Bench speakers first before I take questions from other noble Lords.
I welcome the partial support that we received from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the Labour Benches and the more fulsome support from the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, although he much regretted that events had not occurred earlier. However, I believe that he answered the question himself when he said that we have to start from where we are. That was the position that the Governor was in.
Very simply, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked why we could not obtain an agreement, and what hope there was for future discussions. She stated that this was bad news for Her Majesty's Government and for Hong Kong. It is certainly not due to lack of effort or lack of willingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have negotiated with the Chinese Government on many occasions. Nor has there been any lack of willingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government—again I stress the point—to compromise. In the end one has to ask the Chinese authorities why there has been failure. I believe the noble Baroness answered those questions herself in part by saying that there was a degree of intransigence on the part of the Chinese.
We believe that we need a system which recognises the genuine aspirations for democratic government of the people of Hong Kong and which allows further development post-1997. We believe that it is our plain duty to administer Hong Kong to the best of our ability up until 1997. That obviously includes those elections. We believe that the proposals which Governor Patten has put forward respond to those aspirations.
With regard to hope of future discussions, the Chinese Government themselves have a strong interest in a smooth transfer of power in 1997. The Chinese Government have a strong interest in a democratic and prosperous Hong Kong. We believe that if the arrangements then in place are working well and are consistent with the Joint Declaration and Basic Law, as we believe that they are, we cannot see why they should be changed. We cannot see why it is in the interests of the Chinese so to change them. Again, I stress the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, as regards China's position with the remainder of the world community. I do not believe that China's position will be in any way improved by the authorities' intransigence on such matters.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the airport issues upon which the noble Baroness touched. Our views are that those matters are quite different and should be dealt with separately and on their merits. We believe that the Chinese officials have frequently said exactly the same thing. I think that everyone agrees that Hong Kong needs a new airport if it is to remain an international trade and financial centre. The Hong Kong Government will be getting on with work on the airport where

777
possible. It is still necessary to resolve some of the financing issues with the Chinese and we hope that that can be done so that the airport can be ready on time.
Finally, perhaps I may reiterate that we believe that there will be a good deal of water flowing under the bridge between now and 1997. However, I stress that it is not only in our own interests that those matters are resolved but also in the interests of the Chinese and of the people of Hong Kong.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, there can be no doubt that the Government have had a difficult hand to play ever since the signing of the Sino-British agreement. However, I cannot congratulate them on the way that they have played it. The old saying is, "You should speak softly and carry a big stick". That is fine, but one should not speak loudly if one has no stick. I fear that the Government have got themselves into a cul-de-sac because they have totally misunderstood the basis of negotiations with the Chinese Government, who are not a democratic government. They do not therefore accept the normal canons of behaviour that we in this country, or indeed in the western world generally, accept. The Government have got themselves into a cul-de-sac; they cannot now satisfy the people of Hong Kong completely, and we are now endangering our long-term relations with China. It is a terrible example of ineptitude.
When I went to Beijing in May, I had a long talk with President Jiang Ze Min. On my return I reported fully to the Prime Minister on what I thought the position was. I told President Jiang Ze Min that I believed that the British Government were negotiating in good faith and wished to come to an agreement but that it was quite obvious from the difference between us that there would have to be a compromise in the view that we were expressing. I am not privy to any secret discussions; we all know that secret discussions about which we know nothing take place nowadays. However, on public ground no compromise has been made that the Chinese could accept.
They are not a democratic government. If they were, we should be starting from a different basis. However, they believe that the proposals which the Governor of Hong Kong has made—I believe that he has been the guiding spirit, and much responsibility rests upon him—have stretched the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement to the uttermost, and the string will stand no more. They believe that the British have been seeking to—I shall not continue. I have taken up my time.
I simply say this to the Government. The Government have no particular strength on this matter. They are building on sand at present. They should recognise their weakness and begin to negotiate on the basis of reaching a settlement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I respond briefly to the noble Lord, for whom I have the utmost respect. As I believe the noble Lord admitted, the negotiations are very difficult. We negotiate from very different positions of strength. I have to say to the noble Lord that
778
there has been considerable compromise by Her Majesty's Government throughout the many negotia-tions which have been held; and there will be many more negotiations. I reject his criticisms of our attempts to negotiate. There have been many meetings. I stress that there have been compromises by Her Majesty's Government. We would obviously be prepared to consider any further proposals by the Chinese Government.
However, it is important at this stage that we go ahead on this particular front. We intend to do so. We have offered further meetings; and certainly further meetings have been offered with the Chinese Government later this month.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister on two counts, first, that a Statement has been made, and, secondly, certainly from the British side, that talks are to resume. To my knowledge exactly a year ago bar two days this House had a quite significant debate on exactly this subject. There were many speeches from noble Lords of enormous eminence who warned Her Majesty's Government that they must take this matter very carefully indeed. In that context, I agree almost wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
Her Majesty's Government have got themselves into a cul-de-sac. Perhaps I may instance briefly one example thereof. I refer to the statement, if I heard it correctly, about not only pursuing the single seat-single-vote system but that Her Majesty's Government had thought that the limited proposals were uncontroversial with China. By definition, the single seat-single vote system is not acceptable to China, not least on the criterion of the through train. They have said that consistently. I urge the Government, please, to take on board that one has to negotiate with the Chinese in the way that the Chinese accept, and not as Westminster accepts, which the Chinese simply do not understand.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct in that we thought that some of our proposals were largely uncontroversial in Hong Kong. We also thought that some of them were largely uncontroversial in China. I have to say to my noble friend that we were able to reach a common view in talks on a number of matters. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, talks will certainly continue, and we have proposed a further round of talks in December. We will keep our door open and be prepared to continue discussions with the Chinese Government for the benefit of the future of the Chinese Government, ourselves and the people of Hong Kong. I certainly take note of what my noble friend had to say, with his great experience of the Far East, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will take it on board.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since negotiations in this round began, there have throughout been voices which warned the Government of the impossibility of achieving results on the stand which they were taking? There is a division between the business community and the government, or a large section of it. Sir Percy Cradock and virtually every other

779
former adviser of the British Government have warned them on the issue right the way through. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views on the recent article on this subject by Sir Percy Cradock. The Government are pursuing a line about which people have warned them, but they refuse to accept the possibility that what they see as a legitimate negotiation could be and is seen by the Chinese as a classic example of British 19th century arrogance which fails to recognise the realities of who will rule Hong Kong in 1997.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have seen Sir Percy's article. I regret that I have not yet had time to read it, but officials have. Sir Percy is a distinguished former public servant and he is obviously entitled to his views. But we do not believe that it is right to say that there has been any change of policy on Hong Kong. We remain committed to the approach as set out in the Joint Declaration and we need to get on with urgent legislation. There is no reason why that should damage wider co-operation, which I believe is self-evidently in the interests of Britain, China and Hong Kong. That is why we say that the discussions will continue.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, have the Government considered the wise words uttered today by Sir Percy Cradock.? They are reported in the press and, as we all know, Sir Percy was our ambassador in China at the time of the Joint Declaration. Have the Government considered the economic consequences of not carrying China with us? The recent cancellation of an order submitted for an underground railway by GEC may be a warning of what is to come.
If we act unilaterally, is there not a danger that the Chinese will do the same? The Chinese have already indicated that they will not recognise the agreement and will introduce a new legislature after the transfer of power. Do we really wish to end the last days of British responsibility in chaos and disorder? I hope that the Government will do everything possible to secure an agreement with China.
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is right to underline the concerns of business. But, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made clear, and I agree with him. business is not the only concern that we should underline on these occasions. There is the concern of the people of Hong Kong which must be borne in mind. I responded to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked about Sir Percy Cradock's article in whatever newspaper it was.
As regards any damage to the Hong Kong economy and the way of life of the Hong Kong people, what we are looking for is stability. We believe that our way forward is the right way to go and it is important that democratic processes should start. As I made clear in the Statement from the Foreign Secretary, for those reasons it is important that that process should continue as early as possible. We believe that what we are proposing does not go beyond the Basic Law which the Chinese agreed. We therefore believe that it would not be in the interests
780
of the Chinese, post-1997, as I said in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to change what we had already brought in at an earlier stage.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, is it not a fact that politicians generally speak politics? As the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, said, there is a great need to consider the commercial angle. As other noble Lords have already quietly advised the Government, that is definitely being forgotten. We talk of Hong Kong, but it is the British business in China that will be paramount in the future to the nation. China has to be the largest market for Great Britain in the next 80 to 100 years. It is surely the duty of the Government to get the matter straightened out. So far, as I see it, the Statement merely makes excuses for not obtaining a conclusion to the conversations and talks.
I believe that it is up to Her Majesty's Government, at the right moment and in the right place, to give a little, to make certain that we get agreement before we find that British business in Hong Kong and China is completely ruined.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the remarks of the noble Viscount about making excuses. Obviously our commercial interests with China are very important. Trade with China is growing. The balance of trade is in China's favour, and we would wish to maintain any close commercial relations. We do not believe that, with the trade growing, and particularly since it is growing in China's favour, any disagreements over Hong Kong which we believe can be resolved should necessarily spill over into any broader bilateral relationship, whether in trade or other matters.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a simple question. I thought that my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter made an excellent point about world opinion. He asked an important question: is the United States—a much more important country than ourselves—at one with the Government's policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the United States is fully in support of our policy on Hong Kong.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, during the long series of exchanges with the Chinese Government, we have been able to gain a clear understanding as to why they have objected to a number of the proposals which have been put forward? Will he be good enough to comment on an impression which I gained from a visit to China last month? I met a number of people, both in government and out of it, and my impression was that there is in China an absolute determination that Hong Kong should remain a very successful and prosperous commercial centre. However, there was also a considerable nervousness that it might provide a base from which political agitation could be developed to undermine the government itself in China. I should be grateful if my noble friend could comment on that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would rather not speculate on exactly why there is intransigence on these matters from the Chinese. Obviously it is a matter for

781
the Chinese Government. I can confirm that it is in the Chinese Government's interests that Hong Kong should remain prosperous after 1997. We believe that it should also remain democratic, and we do not believe that it would be in the interests of the Chinese Government to disturb the processes which have already started and which might disrupt any chances of prosperity continuing and growing.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I had hoped, having had relations with Hong Kong for many years, that 1997 would see a transfer of power and responsibility between the United Kingdom and China in a way in which there was friendship and confidence. I do not think that the Government can believe, from the interventions made today, that this House feels that that is likely to be achieved. I do not blame Her Majesty's Government entirely. I believe it is the result of a lack of understanding. My noble friend Lord Callaghan said that the Chinese are not democratic. All that I can say to the noble Lord is that in all my experience, the People's Republic of China has honoured every agreement, political or commercial. I believe that the agreement that was made between Mrs. Thatcher (the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as she now is) and the People's Republic of China will be honoured to the full.
My anxiety—one which I am sure will be felt most in Hong Kong tonight—is that the handing over of power will not be in the spirit in which the agreement was made. Therefore I hope that the Minister, while recognising his difficulties in not having direct access to the department, will see that the message of this House that will go to the Secretary of State is that we shall need to recover the spirit of the original agreement, and to find ways and means by which all the problems can be overcome. To say that we wish to see a democratic structure in Hong Kong is, I have to say to the noble Lord, rather late. I recognise that, having been a Minister of State in the Commonwealth Office who tried to bring some of it about. But there was resistance and difficulty. I think that it is probably too late now to go to the very threshold of antagonism between the two great countries who will have to make the success of that agreement possible and right for the people of Hong Kong. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise genuine anxieties, not only here but also in Hong Kong, and that some new steps have to be taken to recover some of the goodwill that we had together when we signed the agreement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, any feeling in this House will certainly be taken note of by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. He will certainly take note of what the noble Lord had to say, and also note the remarks of all other noble Lords. The noble Lord said that it was all rather late. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, we have to start from where we are. It is no use pretending that we have not done things in the past. There were reasons why we could not do things in the past, and no doubt the noble Lord will know why he could not do things in the past. I say to the noble Lord that 1997 is still four years away. Much can happen in
782
that time. We shall certainly continue to negotiate and to seek agreement so far as is possible with the Chinese Government in the best possible interest of the people of Hong Kong.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend accepted the message from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which I believe was very wise. As the noble Lord said, it was based on experience. Hong Kong is not a new problem for Parliament. We have been involved in these matters for many years. We have had delegations from Hong Kong and we have had duels year after year. I do not believe that anyone who listened to the exchanges over those years expected the position to be very different to what it is. It was quite clear that, as we got nearer to the hand-over date, the real difference between rigid communism and our democratic approach would show itself. The only message which ought to come out of what has been said is this: all the best with continuing the negotiations; achieve what you can, but the vital aim at the back of our minds is, however it ends, in or before 1997, it must not end in acrimony. It must be ended in the spirit in which the agreement was made. Quite apart from individual items, which will be battled for, let us see that that overall spirit is not completely lost.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply could not agree more with my noble friend. These matters must not end in acrimony. Perhaps I may add just one rider. They must also end in the interests of the people and the economy of Hong Kong.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order 1993
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approve the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order 1993.
Noble Lords will recall that a year ago in Edinburgh at the conclusion of the UK's presidency of the European Community, the European Council agreed a package of measures to promote economic recovery in the EC. One of those measures was a request that the ECOFIN council and the European Investment Bank give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the establishment of a European investment fund. That work has now been substantially completed, with agreement being reached on the precise role of the fund and on the draft statute which sets out its rules of operation. So the Brussels European Council on 29th October was able to commit itself to bringing the fund into existence by the new year.
The new fund had its origins within the European Investment Bank. That is one of the Community's least-known and perhaps least appreciated institutions.
Its primary purpose is to provide medium- and long-term loans to capital investment projects which further the economic development of the Community. It now operates on a very considerable scale and the UK is a major beneficiary.
In 1992, total lending amounted to nearly £13 billion, of which £1.8 billion was lent to projects in this country, making the UK the, third largest recipient among EC member states. Although the fund will be based at the bank's headquarters in Luxembourg and will be staffed by bank personnel on secondment, legally and financially it will be entirely independent of the bank. There are two reasons for that. The first is operational. The fund will complement, not duplicate, the bank's role. It will not make loans, but instead provide guarantees. In due course it may also take equity stakes in enterprises. Under its draft statute, the fund will operate in support of two classes of undertaking, small and medium-sized enterprises and planned European networks, projects to improve the links between the member states' national transport, telecommunications and energy networks. Initially the fund will provide guarantees for loans made by other financial institutions. Such guarantees are a form of insurance, for which the company which benefits will pay but which will make it easy to borrow money on reasonable terms. After two years its shareholders may allow the fund to take equity holdings. Here it would concentrate particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. The fund would not take a holding in its own name, but rather acquire stakes in financial institutions which specialise in holding such equity.
The second reason for the fund's independent status is legal and institutional. The fund would have an initial subscribed capital of 2 billion ecu, that is £1.5 billion, of which the European Investment Bank would hold 40 per cent. It is envisaged that the remaining 60 per cent. would be divided equally between the Community itself, represented by the Commission, and those of the Community's private sector banking institutions which wish to become members. That participation by the private sector is important since guarantees will not be provided directly to small and medium-sized enterprises but rather through the agency of local banks with expertise in their relevant area. The fund will be run on a commercial basis and may pay dividends on its capital.
The procedure for setting up the fund is somewhat complex. Legally what is required is for the board of governors of the European Investment Bank, which includes my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as United Kingdom representative, to set up the new body and then invite the Community and private sector banks to join. However, in order that that be done, the statute of the bank must be amended to provide the Government with the necessary powers, for the statute is a protocol of the Treaty of Rome. An amendment to the statute is thus an amendment to the treaty. In order to make such an amendment, member states must first agree the change at an intergovernmental conference; and then each must ratify the change in accordance with its own procedures. The required IGC
784
met in Brussels on 28th March, and it is in order to enable ratification by the UK to take place that I have moved this order today.
This order provides far the necessary small amendment to the Treaty of Rome to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties aS defined in Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The amendment would add a new article, Article 30, to the Protocol on the statute of the European Investment Bank. If the amendment is ratified by all member states, that article would enable the board of governors of the bank to create the European Investment Fund by unanimous decision. Once specified in order, a treaty is to be conclusively regarded as one of the Community Treaties. The order in council has to be approved in draft by a resolution of both Houses; hence, there is this debate.
To sum up, the concept of the European Investment Fund was given a big push by the initiative launched last year at Edinburgh under the UK presidency. The fund itself would prove a useful addition to the Community response to the key problems of unemployment and loss of competitiveness. Because it is targeted on small and medium sized enterprises, the important engines of economic growth and employment generation and on trans-European networks, it will encourage private sector initiative, work with the grain of the enterprise culture and so help improve competitiveness and employment. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his remarks on the order. I can speak quite briefly, for two reasons. One is that the order was discussed at some length in the other place. Secondly, this is the kind of European socialist initiative which we on this side strongly support and of which we should like to see more. I am delighted to see that the noble Earl has come round to our way of thinking on matters of this kind. This is precisely the way, but on a larger scale, in which we can deal with problems of unemployment in Europe. Let me add that I join with the noble Earl in applauding the work of the European Investment Bank which, as he rightly said, is unappreciated but quietly does very useful work.
I want to raise a couple of technical questions which I did not see answered in a way that I could understand in the other place when his honourable friend the Economic Secretary replied to the debate there. I am still a trifle lost as to the nature of the Government's commitment. The fund essentially is a guarantee, and we know that some enterprises go wrong. If the fund were to make some misjudgments—it would be through no fault of its own since the market works so that some things succeed and others fail—who would bear the cost? The Economic Secretary seemed to say that there were absolutely no public finance consequences of the fund at all. When the noble Earl has a chance to reply, I wonder whether he would explain precisely why that would be so.

785
Secondly, is there any deep significance in the ability of the fund to take an equity interest in the small and medium enterprises? I take it that the fund is technically a public sector body within the Community—or perhaps the noble Earl could tell me whether that is true—in which case, taking an equity interest sounds to me like nationalisation, certainly on a small scale but that kind of activity.
Those are technical points. I am not approaching them politically but wearing my economist's hat. I am rather interested to know the answers to those questions. Broadly, the point of my intervention is to welcome the existence of the fund and the support for it. I hope that it succeeds and that its scale of operation will increase.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I too should like to express an interest in the order that is to be discussed today. I cannot entirely share the enthusiasm of my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for its socialist content. I fail to detect anything of even a remotely pink hue. It has never been my philosophy that matters of this kind should be placed in the hands of professional bankers, and I do not see very much input from governments here.
In the Act itself, the preamble starts off by being:
"Determined to provide for the necessary financial instruments for the strengthening of the internal market and economic and social cohesion".
Those words have had a familiar and weary ring over the years. So far they have resulted, at any rate in Europe, in unemployment running from 17 million and rapidly approaching 20 million. So the determination expressed is very welcome.
Again in the preamble there is a reference to the European Council in Edinburgh giving consideration to the establishment of the fund:
"to promote economic recovery in Europe".
I am a little disappointed by the use of those terms. It seems to me that those concerned do not yet seem to have made up their mind as to what European economic recovery consists in. For some it is a recovery of the very rich to the detriment of the poor. Therefore economic recovery is not always the correct description when it is applied to the country as a whole or even to the Community as a whole.
I turn to Article A, which after all is the protocol itself and which advocates the addition of Article 30. Paragraph 2 states:
"The Board of Governors shall establish the Statute of the European Investment Fund by unanimous decision".
Over the years I have grown very distrustful of bankers establishing anything for the broad and general economic and social benefit of the Community. Paragraph 2 continues:
"The Statute shall define, in particular, its objectives, structure, capital, membership, financial resources, means of intervention and auditing arrangements".
And so it continues. Given the history of the banking community generally over the past 20 years or so, on balance I would sooner that these matters be determined by the people's representatives politically rather than by the Bank.
786
Paragraph 4 states that the "European Economic Community"—that is now an obsolete term and I am not quite sure whether it should be the European Union or the European Community:
"may become a member of the Fund"—
It does not say "shall"—
"and contribute to its subscribed capital".
It continues:
"Financial institutions with an interest in the objectives of the Fund may be invited to become members".
It does not anywhere say that governments in themselves can or intend to become members. I take it that that was the point taken by my noble friend. He wondered whether there was some remote possibility of nationalisation afoot. I see that it is quite impossible on the basis of paragraph 4.
In general, I begin to wonder how this measure will be applied. If the normal banking considerations that have littered the Community and the world spectrum over the past 25 years are any guide, then banking judgments as to the application of these guarantees would appear on the face of it to be unlikely to add much to the benefit of mankind in the Community. We can only hope—and, indeed, it is with hope in mind that I receive this order with some interest.
I note, incidentally, that the governments concerned—or the state presidents—have delegated the signing of this measure not, as is customary, to Ministers to sign on their behalf but universally to members of COREPER. That is the COREPER of old. I expect that COREPER cooked it up and I expect that COREPER will ultimately be responsible for it. I hope that it will not be too much to the detriment of what remains of the European Community.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in his place this afternoon and to witness the fact that life has returned to normal with the healthy disagreement between him and his Front Bench on all matters European. It was pleasant to hear his straight contradiction to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is a nice, socialist-type agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, saw nothing pink in it whatever.
I was puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, thought it was some kind of socialist-type agreement. When the matter was discussed in another place it was voted on and the true socialists in the Labour Party came out in force to vote against it. People like Mr. Skinner and Mr. Cryer, not known for their Right-wing views, did not seem to believe that it was much of a socialist piece of initiative. It is true that the Government own part of the EIB capital and that, through their membership of the EIB and the Community, they will have a stake in EIF. But that is so for many international financial institutions. I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, considers the analogy with the IMF.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. I saw the relevant copy of the Commons Hansard. The matter was voted on but I do not see the name of the honourable gentleman Mr. Skinner as voting against it. Around three people voted

787
against it and they did not include Mr. Skinner, though I do not accept that he is the true embodiment of pure socialism—but that is another matter.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that Mr. Skinner was a Teller who voted no.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. A Teller counts as a vote.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not 100 per cent. conversant with procedures in another place. In this House Tellers certainly count and I assumed that they counted in another place. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, nodding and therefore assume that I am correct.
I was drawing the analogy with the Government's stake in IMF. The EIB and the EIF certainly cannot be regarded as interventionist. They are not engaged in telling industry how to run its affairs, but rather with enabling companies to raise finance which may not otherwise be available or available only at a higher price. Considering the potential benefit, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that that can only be good for business.
I do not believe that there is any deep significance in the question of taking an equity interest. It will be taken by intermediaries—the financial institutions—in relation to the small and medium sized enterprises. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, reminded the House, the EIF will never take more than 50 per cent. equity and therefore will not take a controlling interest in the enterprises.
I understand the dislike of bankers felt by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. One or two other people are perhaps not as keen on bankers as they were five years ago. But I am sure that the order will be all to the good and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Universities
5.33 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take to reduce bureaucratic burdens on universities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper because the Government have inflicted four bureaucratic burdens upon the universities during the past three years.
The Higher Education Funding Council requires universities to create mechanisms for ensuring the quality of teaching. The council next requires a quite separate assessment by another quango of the quality of each subject taught. Thirdly, it requires the quality of research in each department to be assessed. Finally, it requires the costs of such research to be calculated in what one can only call a grotesquely complicated way.
I shall not weary the House by examining each of those processes in detail; I shall take just one. In my hand hold the book for those who have to assess the teaching in another university. It runs to 63 pages. It begins by setting out 11 criteria which they will have to use. It then sets out another six criteria that universities
788
must satisfy in order to enable the outside assessors to judge whether such teaching is excellent, just satisfactory or unsatisfactory. That is called a template so as to impress universities that the Higher Education Funding Council is in the forefront of technology.
Three copies of the self-assessment must be sent to the Higher Education Funding Council. Universities must also provide five statistical indicators on entry profile, expenditure per student, progression and completion rates, student attainment and what employment or further study each student entered when completing his or her first degree.
Next comes course documentation under six headings. Samples of the written work of each student, including marking schemes and exam papers, must be produced. Details of intake and progression, welfare services, staffing and staff development, academic development plans, outline of management structure and quality control must be provided. Finally, the university is asked about the resources allocated to the subject being assessed; for instance, the number of books purchased by the library or the bench space per student in the laboratories.
Oh, I quite forgot—the university is also asked to provide subject information for each student and a monitoring report on teaching for the past three years. Oh yes, and it must provide timetables and the prospectus. Perhaps I should add that one of the statistical indicators is a demand to calculate what expenditure per student is incurred in central and administrative costs. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what light those figures will shed on the quality of the teaching.
And what of the wretched assessors? They are presented with five supplements telling them in minute detail how to do their job, how to make notes when examining a class, what questions to put to students, how to meet teachers, how to produce, first, the feedback report and then how to write the assessment report. They are told,
"Do not use descriptions such as good or very pax, as these words have no clear meaning on the HEFC three point scale.
After 11 supplements the document ends with three appendices. In one appendix it is stated that the specialist assessors must be acknowledged experts in one of the four subject areas to be assessed and have sufficient authority to command the respect of the institutions. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain why one of the assessors of law at the London School of Economics was a member of Bradford University's peace studies department.
Your Lordships will be wondering how such a torrent of bureaucracy came to drench the universities. Let me hazard a guess. Put Professor Graeme Davies, the chief HEFC executive, into a room with a dozen able and industrious colleagues, all skilled in examining, and present them with a draft. Thal draft will be amplified, refined, altered; it will grow in volume as more sagacious observations and more sapient proposals are made. From the first those adroit men and women will be on their guard. Have they satisfied the council that they have created a system of assessment that no body of critics in or outside the universities can fault? They

789
can guard their reputation only if their report is so thorough that no one will be able to accuse them of overlooking some item of information, however remote, that might be thought relevant.
Next, the HEFC itself will cover up in case the civil servants in the department give them a jab and a left hook. Those are the civil servants in the department who for years have been gloating in anticipation of getting their hands on the universities. In fact, the department itself is apprehensive that the Treasury will say that the audit is inadequate and therefore the case for the funds the department is asking for has not been made out.
Why has this inquiry and the three others been forced on the universities? I am sure the Government will reply that since student numbers have risen so dramatically universities need to develop new techniques for teaching. That is true. Universities have been forced financially to take far more students, with fewer staff to teach them and no money for extra buildings or ancillary resources. Meanwhile, the extra productivity of the dons—if I may use that word—has been rewarded by their income declining in real terms.
Of course, there is no perfect correlation between money and academic quality, but there must be some connection between the two. If laboratories are so overcrowded that students cannot get into practicals, if libraries are so destitute of basic books for courses, what kind of education can students get? The point I am trying to make is this: it may well be that universities should now revise their teaching methods to take account of the fact that we are moving to mass higher education in this country. But are the Government and the HEFC going about it in the right way?
I have here a folder which simply vibrates with wails of woe. I shall select the most comprehensive statement to show how unbelievably cumbersome these inquiries are. The statement was drawn up by the University of Edinburgh, which was visited by three auditors. The university had to submit documents weighing well over a hundredweight. Two hundred people prepared them at a total cost of eight man years in staff time and the photocopies required cost £3,500.
Teaching in every department in every university is to be assessed every five years. That will mean 500 man hours spent in staff time within the universities and 400 man hours spent by staff assessing other universities. Edinburgh estimates that photocopying will cost £3,000 per year.
Research is no different. The research of every department in every university is to be assessed for quality every three years. To cope with that demand, 20,000 sheets of paper had to be submitted by the university—staff time, eight man years.
Finally, the funding of research has been transferred to the five research councils. Each separate individual item has to be accounted for in the several hundred different research grants which the university receives. The cost in time is five man years per year—and for this the departments get not one molecule of extra research or of better quality research. The university simply loses vast amounts of time in research output each year. I may add that a study of how a university should account for
790
its use of research funds was proposed by a firm of accountants and business consultants, not one of whom was in academic life. And what do these research councils get?—simply an illusion of greater precision.
Is this just propaganda from Scotland's most famous university? Ask Professor Charles Townsend at Keele. His department has just been assessed. He calculates that 200 man hours were spent and the assessors seemed to be distinguishing between teaching and learning analytically. That is quite a hard thing to do analytically. Ask the vice-chancellor of the new university of Plymouth. He says that his university is being turned into a mechanical production factory, dominated by ideology. But it is not the ideology of the class struggle. It is the ideology of consumerism and accountability. The truth is that, at the very moment when the universities have been screwed financially and need every penny to keep teachers in post and research on the boil, a vast new administrative burden has been put on their shoulders that removes what money they can cobble together for teaching and forces the teachers to become low grade administrators.
But there is a larger and more tragic reason why the Government have imposed these new burdens. During the past five years the Government have shown that they do not trust universities to teach or to research; and yet these were the institutions which throughout Europe and Asia, and even in North America where funds are vastly superior, were envied and praised for the dedication of their teachers and the overall quality of their research. They were not like some, at any rate, of the LEA maintained schools. The Government, rightly in my opinion, determined to tackle the low ambitions, the low level of attainment and the disgraceful lack of concern for the children by the interest groups in so many of our schools. But did the department ever receive bulging postbags of complaints from parents and students about neglect and skiving by university teachers? They know they did not. Of course there were cases of teachers who did not turn up at classes, who failed to comment on written work or who were drunk or offensive—but they were very few and when one unearthed a case of that kind, one dealt with it.
It would have been perfectly reasonable for government to have said to the universities, "We can't expand on the old lines. Mass higher education is going to give you a lot of problems and what is more we can't give you much money. In fact, owing to the needs of schools and further education, we're going to give you very much less money. But we can give you some advice. Will you have a look at these suggestions for monitoring your teaching and scrutinising your research? And would you bear in mind that we must get a lot of graduates who are employable in industry, commerce and the professions as well as graduates who will adorn the world of culture and the intellect? Please tell us how you are going to do this and help us to change the system. We trust you".
But no. No such message reached universities. The Secretary of State will not tell the universities what his policy is and how they can help him to achieve it. Instead, ever since the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, became Secretary of State, universities have been told that they

791
are backward, self-serving and responsible for the poor record in British trade and industry. They have been told that they are incapable of reforming themselves. The HEFC was set up, not like the UGC as a buffer between government and the universities, but as an arm of government under direction of the Department for Education.
Let me not mince words. The Government treat universities like so many piles of dung. The Government no longer trust universities to assess their own activities. They intend to reshape higher education, taking business as their model, giving universities a bottom line as low as possible and adding a few increments to some to take account of special excellence in teaching or research. The excellence is to be judged by quangos set up to push the universities around.
What is the result of the Government trying to manage the universities? Universities were first told that their grant depended on the excellence of their departments in research —although the polys, which have now been upgraded to universities, were never prepared or intended to do research. No one knows whether a department is graded on the performance of its stars in the department or the aggregate of research in the department. No one knows whether long-term research is put on a par with short-term research. Both are very important. Now that teaching is under review enormous energy is spent by the dons in manipulating the formulae to generate the highest possible grant. They call that creative accounting. That is what happens when government are perceived as an enemy.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness will have up her sleeve a list of the occasions when universities were slow to respond to government. The noble Baroness will recall that I am something of a blackleg among former vice-chancellors. I spent much of my time as an active vice-chancellor trying to persuade universities to bring down costs instead of howling for more money. I backed Sir Kenneth Berrill's proposals when he was chairman of the UGC to curb student unions—proposals not unlike those the Government are bringing forward—at a time when the then Master of Birkbeck, with whom I clashed, and other vice-chancellors and principals opposed them. I shall be interested to hear what the present Master of Birkbeck has to say on these proposals when we consider the matter in committee next year.
As regards overseas student fees, student loans, even on tenure and differential payments, I consider that the Government were right and the universities were wrong. I recollect how often universities missed opportunities to respond, but with the exception of the University College of Cardiff where a misguided and stubborn principal decided to run his institution into deficit rather than retrench to meet the cuts of 1981. With that one exception universities were not scandalous in wasting resources. They operated with a tiny administrative staff. Nearly every penny went into teaching and research with the result that they cannot, at the drop of a hat, provide the kind of documented reassurance that government are now demanding. I do not believe that they deserve to be bullied and kicked around with contempt as is happening today.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, because he mentioned one particular university. Perhaps I may point out that we did get rid of the person in question.
Lord Annan: My Lords, a little late perhaps, but nevertheless I take the point. The Government have announced a programme of massive de-regu]lation. Why not start with a little de-regulation of the universities? The Home Secretary has said that the police are hampered in fighting crime by excessive paperwork. The universities are hampered by exactly the same thing at the moment.
One of the paradoxes of Conservative Governments has been that they want to privatise services and reduce the number of civil servants, but they multiply bureaucrats. As the well-known journalist, Mr. Lunchtime O'Booze, used to say, "Surely, shorne mishstake".
So I appeal to the noble Baroness to put these matters to rights and I look with some hope of success for two reasons. She did so in the schools this summer. When her right honourable friend fell ill she sorted out what had become an administrative scandal and reduced the vast bureaucratic burden of testing performance in the schools. Could she do the same in the universities?
The second reason is this, and it is more serious: very few Ministers—and certainly not the present Secretary of State—have served in the Armed Forces. But the noble Baroness has. She was in the WAAF and she will know that the first duty of an officer is to gain the confidence of the men and women under him or her. If she can do that they will follow and face discomfort and dangers that they would never have believed that they would have been able to do. Trust is everything. Can she now (and I am sure she can) give us some leadership? Can she stop using the HEFC as a sewage disposal plant and treat the universities not as ordure but as the rich soil in which the generations to come will grow to maturity? She would restore trust if she could tell the universities that it is up to them to monitor their teaching and research. If she cannot, I fear that what will happen in the universities will be what happened in the schools—there will be a boycott. I await her answer with lively expectation.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I would share the "lively expectation" of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, were it not for the fact that I believe that the malady is even deeper than the one which he has diagnosed. What we have seen in relation to the universities is not merely the imposition of the absurd and nonsensical regulations, assessments, audits and all that rubbish which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, spoke about but, going back even earlier, a general unwillingness to accept what is accepted in other walks of life and in other aspects of government; namely, that there is a cost to bureaucracy; that it is possible to do the right thing and yet to do it in the wrong way. It is a curious thought that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—since he adopted his latest guise, he keeps telling us of the importance of not overspending on administration and doing everything in

793
the most economical way—seems to have thought nothing at all about this during his tenure of the secretaryship of state at the Department for Education.
Some of the examples are glaring. Perhaps I may give some which have been put to me by one of the newest universities. As noble Lords know, at the moment students have fees which are paid by the local authorities. Eventually they are reimbursed from central government. But while that goes on the individual student and the individual university has endless trouble dealing with the variety and large number of local authorities from which the students may be drawn, in chasing up payments which have gone astray or which have failed to arrive on time. No doubt at the end of it the local authorities have some communication with the department in order to recover the money which they have paid out. One would have thought that, as the local authority awards are simply an historical result of the fact that many years ago when there was very little public support for students such awards were given, that is hardly a reason for them to retain the function. They have no discretion in the matter as regards mandatory awards. They retain that function when it could be done more simply.
It has been suggested that the Government are now looking at ways for students themselves to pay fees. That is not a topic on which we need enlarge. But my impression is that, were that to happen, we shall have a situation where the students are required to pay their fees in drachmas and at a bank in Lapland. That is the normal procedure of the Department for Education.
We know that to be the situation because of the experience of student loans. Noble Lords may remember—at least some noble Lords will remember—that when the student loans scheme was presented to this House, several of us pointed out that if you wanted the students to pay a proportion of their educational costs—and this is not something with which I disagree—there are simple ways in which it can be done. There is the Australian way of a graduate tax or any other automatic recovery. Instead of that we have this business set-up at vast expense in Scotland and the students have to borrow from it in ways which again add enormously not only to calls on their time and their purses, but also to calls on the time of the university. The university has to interview for at least 15 minutes every student who asks for a student loan.
There are endless forms to fill in. We have heard a lot about forms and there will be a lot more. So whenever there is something that could or should be done, for some reason this particular department of state goes about it in the most clumsy and expensive way which increases the burden on university institutions. I shall give another example. As part of the business culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred, we now have performance-related pay increases whereby universities are asked to rate or to account for those who might be given a rise because of their performance. The universities create records of achievement for that purpose. They put it all on computer. That is the modern way. Then, at the last minute, they receive pages and pages of forms—I have some here—which they have to
794
fill in about each individual member of staff, the questions not being identical to those as regards their own records. Again, a huge administrative burden is thus placed on the universities.
I sometimes wonder whether there is any understanding at all in the department about what it means to take people away from their proper business of teaching and research to fill in forms and to carry out interviews that are not strictly necessary and whether, when we talk about expanding the budget for higher education, enough attention is paid to the fact that so much of that expenditure is wholly and necessarily unproductive.
Of course, there are even more grotesque things happening when it comes to universities the reputation of which, as the noble Lord said, might be thought to be impeccable. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, will give some examples of the unnecessary expenditure that is being imposed on the University of Oxford, so I should like to take one or two different points. Universities are now obliged to inform the higher education funding council of their strategic plans, including their aims and objectives. It has not so far been possible to discover from the council the difference between an "aim" and an "objective", but we can take it broadly that we know what is meant. But why do we need to ask this question at all? In the case of the University of Oxford, its aims or objectives have been set down for 600 years and are,
"that there might never be wanting a succession of persons duly qualified for the service of God in Church and State".
Do we need any other statement of a university's objectives? Is it necessary that they should be entered on forms, computerised and homogenised? And goodness knows what happens to that information when it gets to the department.
Then there is the question of assets, which is very much at the heart of the business culture. Universities are required to state their physical assets. They are to value them, at both market and replacement prices, and they are instructed, in the course of so doing, to consult the local valuation officer of the local planning office about what might be an alternative use for those buildings supposing that it was necessary to find one. There has been some reflection given—I cannot say that there has been serious study—in Oxford about an alternative use for the Radcliffe Camera. A swimming pool? What could be an alternative use for the Sheldonian Theatre? No one seems to have thought of one. What could be an alternative use for the Bodleian Library? Could it be an outpost for the bureaucrats of the Department for Education, who are bound to need more and more buildings if only to store the hundredweight of documents which they insist on receiving?
Then there is the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, rightly drew our attention in relation to the whole apparatus of assessment and control, the so-called "assessment of quality". It is necessary that students and those who support them (perhaps their parents) should be assured that they are getting roughly what they or the

795
state is paying for. One cannot simply establish an institution, award a degree and say, "You have now got what you came for".
Unlike any other noble Lord I have had personal experience of that problem in setting up what is now the University of Buckingham. There were two possible models. There was the model of the Council for National Academic Awards—that late and unlamented body—which was to measure inputs, which are very like the kind of stuff, alas, that we are now getting from the department, but more modest in their demands. That proved to be a dead end. There was the other model, which proved to be the right course, which was that where degrees were in subjects which were to lead to a practical occupation—to some occupation in the real world —the people to judge them were the professional bodies concerned in the law and accountancy in the case of Buckingham, and in other areas. We decided that only courses which they approved should be offered. On the more academic side, the system of external examiners, which has become harder to deal with because of the enormous growth in the number of universities and departments, had always and rightly been held to be itself a guarantee of quality.
On the first of these, I agree that the Government have one or two reasons to worry. They have moved too rapidly—not in abolishing the binary line because I think that the former polytechnics are doing well enough—but in suddenly giving university status to a number of colleges with no real or first-hand experience in the area of higher education. One such case has come to my notice—as legal proceedings are not unlikely I cannot reveal more—in which a university, newly created from a college, advertised a course in a professional subject as having been approved by the professional body concerned when, as it turned out when some suspicious parent inquired, the course had not even been submitted to that professional body.
Therefore, I concede that some precautions are desirable when there is such breakneck expansion. However, it does not seem in the least necessary that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge or the former distinguished polytechnics which are now universities should suddenly need to be inquired into as to the quality of their teaching or research.
All of it means a diversion of resources. Some noble Lords may think that the humanities are not all that important and may ask why I do not talk about the sciences. I recently met a professor of chemistry at a major polytechnic, which is now a university, who said that he was quite desperate because the amount of information, assessment and bumf that he was required to furnish was costing a relatively small department money that it really could not afford because, in the noble Lord's phrase, it took away man hours from his proper job.
In Oxford, the member co-ordinating the chemistry assessment exercise was occupied on it for two full weeks. What happened to his students during that period? Are we not in fact cheating students out of what they have the right to expect?—concentration upon their progress and the welfare of the teaching staff, not concentration upon filling in unnecessary forms from a
796
department which seems, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, to have no confidence in universities and, I would add, also no understanding of them.
We have been accustomed—again, it is a phrase more usually used in the world of science—to peer review. People submitting papers to learned journals often have their papers submitted to other authorities in the field. What we are having, alas, in the assessment exercises is not peer review, but what I can only describe as "underling review"; that is to say, the persons reviewing are not as well qualified as the persons whom they are assessing. I have had, from an eminent Cambridge historian, a poignant set of remarks about people who knew nothing about the subject, who knew nothing about Cambridge's method of teaching, erupting into tutorials and asking questions which had no relevance to what was being done.
I am aware that I have taken some of your Lordships' time, but the subject is important, and it is important to get some things on the record, because I do not want Ministers to be able to say, "Oh dear, we did not know any of this". So I propose, and I rarely do this in the House—I hope that noble Lords will forgive me—to read extracts from a letter from a distinguished historian, who is not from Oxford or Cambridge, but is a fellow of the Academy, who has taken part in one of the history assessment exercises. He writes:
"I think the whole exercise is deeply flawed because it is, like so much in this audit-obsessed world, concerned overwhelmingly with presentation and process. As an academic I rather expected the academic content and credibility of what was taught to figure prominently; it does not. I was sent all sorts of material on, admission statements, staff development, student facilities etc.; but virtually nothing on what the students were actually taught. When I asked to see bibliographies, seminar lists and hand-outs on essay titles, I was told that the Funding Council' s check lists did not require these. Nor would the assessors be normally in a position to assess them. On this occasion I was the only historian on a visiting team for assessors … I remarked in my report that the university in question might well be teaching nonsense excellently, but that would not make nonsense arty less nonsensical".
On the fundamental point about resources, he said:
"The dry-run exercise in which I was involved entailed four persons in at least 2½ days' preparatory work, 2½ days on the visit and at least ½ a day on the report. The Department lin question must have spent several days in man-hours in preparing the massive dossiers—two huge folders, whose postage alone costs £14 each, let alone typing, duplicating etc.".
It is no good, as in The Times this morning, the Secretary of State setting out noble objectives for the future of the universities unless he, his colleagues, and his officials are prepared to tackle the problem of folly, and waste of money and of time.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I cannot match the flights of oratory of my noble friend Lord Annan or the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I shall not attempt to do so. There have been so many Education Acts since I became a Member of your Lordships' House that it has been difficult for me to keep track of them. However, I have the clearest recollection that, at the time of the passage of the Education Reform Bill, it was then the stated intention of the Government that institutions of higher education should be freed from excessive bureaucratic control.

797
At that time, my spirits rose a little, and should have risen more, at hearing such fine words, but life has not just taught me to be cautious, I am also a chemist, and chemists have a long tradition, dating forward from Robert Boyle, of being somewhat sceptical. In view of what has happened, that may be just as well.
Let me take a case. It is different from those already cited. It is a rather simple one compared with those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Annan. It relates to a small part of the federal universities of London which is limited in its subject range in that it has no science, no technology, no medicine, no agriculture and no veterinary studies—none of the complex units of a large civic university. Nevertheless, in common with other institutions, it continues to have many demands made upon it by the Government, the Department for Education and the funding councils.
This year alone, up until the beginning of November, Goldsmiths' College—that is the institution to which I am referring—had received nine consultation papers from the Higher Education Funding Council, each of which required formulation of an institutional view, and no fewer than 45 circulars. It had also to produce academic plans which take a great deal of time and effort to construct. It was also required to produce financial forecasts in great detail for similar five-year periods, although we all know that the funding of universities is not certain for more than one year ahead. All those responses take large amounts of time and effort to complete, and, in the light of funding uncertainties, can reflect only inspired guesses for future periods.
So we have a situation in which an increasing fraction of resources in each university is being devoted to such bureaucracy just at a time when the overall unit of resource —the amount of money provided by government per student year—is falling steadily, and the ratio of students to staff is rising. Those changes are called, bizarrely enough, "efficiency savings". The pace at which those savings are supposed to be achieved has been increasing over the past few years. That is not an isolated case. Every institution of higher education will tell a similar story. What, one may ask, are the beneficial results of all that frenetic bureaucratic activity?
One absolutely certain result is, of course, a depletion of the world's timber reserves as logs are fed into the paper mills, but of more immediate and significant importance is the erosion of the time for teaching, for preparation for teaching, and for research by academic staff; that is to say, erosion of the time to do the job that they were appointed to do. Others have spoken in strong terms of what that means. I entirely agree, as I am sure does every member of every university who has been subjected to this process.
So productivity is claimed to go up but merely in a numerical sense that more graduates are turned out per annum per full-time member of staff employed. But the arithmetic points to the fact that each graduate will have received less attention. In those circumstances quality can only diminish. If because of bureaucratic pressures of the kind that have been so evocatively described lectures are hastily prepared; if the lecturer is not master
798
of his own subject and, more importantly, enthusiastic about it; and if the lecturer is less able to devote time to individual students, then he will not be able to issue an attractive invitation to his students to learn for themselves. This desire to learn, and knowing how to learn, are the most important gifts that any university teacher can give to his students, for they will stand the student in good stead throughout his life. This is, I submit, a rather more significant criterion of quality than all those cited by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, or referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
The picture that I have painted is not exaggerated. I have used the cases simply to illustrate the fact that, far from being freed from excessive bureaucratic control, which one understands was the Government's intention, institutions of higher education in Britain today are beginning to sink under its burden. Something must be done to reverse this trend. Universities must be trusted as they once were and the burden of bureaucracy reduced so that the energies of able men and women can be directed to doing well those tasks for which they were appointed instead of having to provide answers to questions which in many cases seem to them to be ill-conceived, unrelated to the realities of the situation and likely to be negated by further inquiries or questionnaires, or a call for a new plan, or indeed for a new education Bill.
For years universities have been going through a period of crisis management necessitated by an incessant flow of government measures, orders, regulations, instructions and inquiries from funding councils and elsewhere. They show little sign of diminishing. Those who are responsible for that should remember the aphorism which relates to crisis management, the author of which I can never remember. It runs something like this:
"When we find the alligator snapping at our vital parts we don't have the time to contemplate how we are going to drain the swamp".
Will Her Majesty's Government at the very least call off some of these alligators so that the swamp can be drained and the others will then die, and, returning to the subject of the debate, so that universities and institutions of higher education can get on with the job which they are intended to do and want to do? They are now seriously inhibited by this wasteful use of time on profitless inquiries on instructions which contain much irrelevant information. If the trust can be restored—and it can be restored only by giving responsibility—the response of the academic staff will be one of enthusiastic collaboration even in the very demanding situation of increasing the size of the universities at the present rate. Every member of staff to whom I have talked believes that it is of the utmost importance to have more young people going through our universities. The academic staff are anxious to do their part but they are frustrated by this burden which they find has little to do with the the day-to-day issues with which they are faced when they are trying to do their job.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too cannot possibly match the splendid pyrotechnics of the first two speakers. In contributing to the debate I can do no better than to quote the words of the outgoing Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, which is my university. He recognised the need for public accountability by universities for public funds, but he said:
"in practice, more and more detail is being demanded, and this inevitably leads to more centralised control, increased bureaucracy, and additional costs, to the point where we are surely justified in asking, 'When do such operations become subject to the law of diminishing returns? When will the degree of dirigisme become not merely Napoleonic but Soviet in its intensity?'".
There is deep concern in Oxford about the additional burden imposed both by audit and quality assessment and the overlap between them and in certain subjects between quality assessment by the HEFCE on the one hand and on the other the reviews of these subjects by professional institutions and similar bodies.
Perhaps I may give some examples. Let us take the first round of quality assessment, the assessment of the quality of teaching. In Oxford that has been carried out for three subjects; modern history, chemistry and law. The cost of preparation for this exercise in terms of staff hours spent (both academic and administrative) is estimated at £30,500 —the salary of one university lecturer for one year. There are between 51 and 62 subjects in which the quality assessment will be required, so Oxford alone can expect to spend more than £500.000 on the exercise. I leave it to your Lordships to do the national sum. It is an exercise due to be repeated at intervals in future years.
The cost of preparation for the Higher Education Quality Council's audit in February 1993, designed to check whether proper procedures were in place to check quality in teaching, has been £45,000 including overheads. But this exercise covers all subjects and is a one-off exercise. Even so, the national sum cannot be small. And again, one-and-a-half university lectureships could have been funded for a year for that money. I am confining my remarks chiefly to money, but there are many more important intangibles to which I wish to refer in a moment.
Then there is the cost in terms of the time of both academics and the all too few administrators of the research assessment exercise. That exercise takes place every four years arid includes the listing of all publications. It must be done by Nobel Prize winners, members of the British Academy and members of the Royal Society. There is then the ranking by independent panels. In Oxford alone the cost of this research assessment exercise in 1992 was £150,000. That includes £30,000 simply for the printing of the extensive internal circulars, questionnaires and so forth and photocopying. It required the university, whose core administration is minute and permanently overworked, to take on staff especially for the six months that the exercise lasted. That exercise at least has the merit of determining the level of money received for research. As Oxford ranks high in virtually all subjects, it at least justifies the expense to some extent. But again, similar
800
expenditure has been incurred by all our universities all over the country. Of course we must be sure that good research is being done, but there have for years been equally effective and infinitely less bureaucratically cumbersome ways of establishing which are the institutions that most deserve support.
Reverting, however, to the demonstrably time-wasting bureaucratic procedures of, for instance, the assessment of the quality of teaching, it must never be forgotten that every hour spent on such exercises by academics who enjoy virtually no administrative infrastructure in their faculty means an hour less spent on research, and the whole sorry business is likely to prove completely self-defeating. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the spate of legislation and central regulation, with all the bureaucratic processes that are spawned, can lead only to a greater expansion of administration, at the expense of academic creative scholarship, simply to deal with the flood of consultative documents, usually with a deadline of three weeks for reply, which I well remember we were beginning to suffer when I sat on a Hebdomedal Council in the late 1980s.
While the academics involved would be the first to admit that there is always something to be learned from any new look at existing practices, that is a deeply wasteful way of doing it. It cannot be right that, for instance, the chairman of the board of one of the faculties involved in the first round of the quality assessment exercise and the chairman of that faculty did no academic work whatever other than basic lecturing and teaching for nearly four weeks, during which time they worked through all weekends and late every night. They had and have virtually no secretarial infrastructure other than some basic typing. In the past two years in particular there has been an enormous increase in the purely administrative work that the faculties are called upon to do, and that is all reactive—driven by the sheer pressure of central government bureaucracy.
The budget cuts in fees can only make it yet more impossible to take steps to increase administrative support, however minimal, and less and less time will be available for the academic work which the universities exist to do. I can only beg my noble friend the Minister, who is herself a mover and a shaker, to use all her influence on her colleagues, and not least the Secretary of State, to cut away the bureaucratic undergrowth which threatens both to stifle the exciting innovations which should be emerging from universities and to clog the steady mainstream of valuable and serious academic work.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing the debate. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him up the garden path of student unions on this occasion. My noble friend Lady Blackstone will demolish him on that subject when we deal with the Bill in due course.
I shall stick to the main theme. It is difficult not to take part in the debate and be an old fogey, but I shall risk that. In preparing for the debate, I thought back to the time when I started off as an assistant lecturer at this

801
country's greatest university—the University of London. I asked myself what we did then. We certainly did not have meetings. Occasionally we went to the academic board but as junior staff, we only went there to annoy the professors. It never occurred to us that that played any role. Papers were not circulated. One reason for that, for which I cannot blame the Government, was that "Xerography" had not yet been invented. In this case, technological advance has been the cause of a great deal of our trouble. Therefore, one could not do at all what happens now.
Essentially we thought that we were there to study our subject and to do either scholarship or research. And I believe that I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—and I shall indicate how much I agreed with everything that he said—when I say that we believed we were there to encourage learning rather than to teach. Indeed, there was a sense in which I would claim that we did not teach anything at all. If we had a lecture outline, it never occurred to us that we had to complete it or anything like that. I say that because I have discovered recently that I continue not to end the whole lecture course that I am allegedly giving. Therefore, I am told that I am in breach of contract and can be in serious trouble. If I do what I have always done—that is, to teach whatever I fancy under the rubric of the course that I am giving—that is "a betrayal of the students". I find it astounding that we have come to that pass.
In particular, we should not have been able to answer the question as to how many hours we worked for the simple reason that we thought we had a job at which we worked all the time. I have pointed this out occasionally to one or two noble Lords who have intervened ignorantly on the subject of higher education—happily, they are not with us today—that while our friends were out on the golf course during the week and on Saturdays and Sundays, we worked at our subject. Had we been given a questionnaire asking how many hours we worked, it would have been meaningless.
That was the nature of academic life then. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and others, that we did a rather good job. Whatever else we did, we did our job.
It has now all changed. In part I blame myself for that because over the years, I have written articles saying that universities should look at efficiency and costs and should find out what is required. However, I did not realise that I was in the process of creating a Frankenstein's monster; in other words, one puts forward what seems to be a sensible idea and it grows completely out of control.
At present, everything is structured. Students want to know exactly what they have to read. I gather that there are members of the academic community who tell students which page they must read which implies, "Please do not turn over the page as that is the not the page you have to read". Everything is structured. Students are told "Do these exercises", and so on.
Whatever are the consequences of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, it must be that the educational
802
experience for students diminishes. Whatever else happens, they do not receive an education in the sense in which I believe they used to and they should.
There is less research and less scholarship. I must say to noble Lords—and I believe that this is what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was saying but if he did not, then I shall say it—that I believe there has been a fall in standards. Typically, the vice-chancellors make remarks like, "If this goes on, there will be a fall in standards". They have been saying that for some time; but my view is that there has already been a fall in standards. I am asked how I can say that because the ratio of firsts and upper seconds is the same. My response is to say that that is precisely why I am saying that there has been a fall in standards. I am happy to be on record as saying that. I am not weaseling in any way. That is the consequence of the deteriorating staff to student ratios.
In other words, in pursuing something which seemed good, we have produced something bad. That is a puzzle; and to those of us who are students of government, it is a particular puzzle because I believe that this Government have said honestly that they favour freedom and deregulation. I do not believe that they have ever not meant what they said in that regard. The problem is the use of the word "trust", to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and others, referred. The Government provide freedom and deregulation, but then do not trust us to do anything with it so that they then add not merely the original bureaucratic control but a great deal of extra bureaucratic control to offset the deregulation.
I have heard from at least one head of what was a polytechnic who has told me that the reason that they wanted to be free was that they wanted to be free of the local authorities. Again, we are back to the Frankenstein's monster analogy. However, they did not realise that the new bodies would be infinitely more bureaucratic and stultifying than ever the local authorities were. I believe that one or two of them might be willing to go back to local authority control if they had the opportunity to do so.
I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about audit, and so on; and in particular his remark about the auditors being so much less qualified in every way than those whom they are auditing, assessing and judging. I heard of a case of a lawyer who has no published work in that field of law whatever but he is pronouncing on the activities of people who are major contributors to the subject.
I have seen a document on teaching. I am told that posture is of enormous importance, as is facial expression when judging teachers; and that stability at the lecture platform is fundamental. One must not show any sign of restlessness. In other words, Socrates would clearly be a totally unacceptable teacher because he walked up and down. I am told that one should be extremely careful about eye contact. Certainly one must never be dismissive of students. One must never be sarcastic and one must never put them down. In other words, Sam Johnson could never have been recruited as a member of staff. I am told that you must use every minute of the 55 minutes so that Wittgenstein, who we know would often stand there for a quarter of an hour

803
saying nothing, add a cryptic remark and then walk out of the room, would be fired on the spot or least get a D or an E grade. In other words, via the audit and assessment, we are moving towards a desire for teachers without character. That is my anxiety.
Equally, we are moving towards universities as businesses. Despite my economics hat, I must say that I just do not believe that the analogy is correct. I have heard of an example of a student on one course who asked specifically to do a foreign language in addition because he had more time available and thought it would be a good thing. He was told, "Foreign languages are not a part of your course. However, if you care to pay extra, you can do a foreign language". The fact that what is called a university in this country is coming to such a state of affairs and has to say such things because it has been set financial targets—or, so it would claim—is, in my view, appalling.
As regards mission statements, I have never found out what they are. Being an emeritus professor now and only on a part-time basis, when I receive such documents I always write down for a mission statement, "I propose to go on teaching economics and trying (albeit now rather pathetically) to do a bit of research". I gather that that is riot acceptable; but at my time of life no one can do anything about it.
My worry is precisely that which was expressed by other speakers; namely, that all of it is counterproductive. As an economist, I want our universities to be efficient and effective. I want staff to use their time properly. But the real point is that all the external interferences—and, indeed, I believe that all speakers mentioned the point —actually occupy time which might be more usefully spent.
In conclusion, the reason behind it all is precisely that the bureaucrats do not trust us; in other words, they are not willing to judge us, if you like, by results. They simply want to ensure that we are shackled in every possible way. That does enormous harm to the forests of this world, and it certainly harms the education of our country. I hope that the noble Baroness can find a way of at least guiding some of those interfering bureaucrats to do other things: if they did nothing, they would be achieving more than they currently achieve.
6.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating tonight's debate on a very important subject for our universities.
The Government are committed to maintaining and strengthening the autonomy of our universities and colleges, and to freeing them as far as possible—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, who reminded us of words that were used in 1988—from bureaucratic constraints. We have no interest in imposing unnecessary rules and regulations on institutions. Far from it: what we want is to free them to concentrate on what they do best—the teaching and research for which our universities and colleges are rightly world renowned.
The framework that has been established for higher education reflects that fact. The Further and Higher
804
Education Act 1992 enshrines an arm's length relationship between the Government and individual institutions—one which noble Lords have rightly defended. Under that framework, funding for individual universities and colleges is a matter for independent funding councils. The Government do not intervene in their day-to-day affairs. That is essential for the maintenance of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
But the principle of academic autonomy does not remove the need for accountability for the substantial public funds provided for higher education for both teaching and research. We owe it to the taxpayer to ensure that value for money is secured for the £5 billion of public money which will be invested in higher education over the coming year. We have a responsibility too for ensuring that public funds are used for the purposes for which they were granted. That inevitably means that there must be effective systems for monitoring the spending of public money.
It does not just mean financial controls. There must be effective quality assessment of both teaching and research if we are to achieve meaningful accountability for the use of public funds. Potential students, employers and research funders need information about the quality of what is provided. That is consistent with the principle of greater openness underpinning the charter for higher education which we launched last September.
Assessment is not new. The Universities Funding Council operated a research assessment exercise to assess the quality of research in 1986. It was repeated in 1989 and, again, in 1992. Both the need tor such an exercise and its results have been widely accepted by universities. There is no reason why the same principles should not apply to teaching.
I have no doubt that universities and colleges recognise the importance of those principles. Equally, all those involved in financial accountabihty, quality assurance and the assessment of teaching and research are well aware of the administrative burdens that can result and are seeking ways of minimising them.
The funding council's recent research assessment exercise has been an impressive example of quality assessment. For such a massive exercise, it is remarkable how widely accepted the results have been. I do not believe that a less comprehensive exercise would have been so readily accepted by the universities themselves.
The results have been linked directly to funding: 95 per cent. of the research grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England is related to assessments of quality. Better and more effective use will be made of taxpayers' money for research if more of it goes to the universities and colleges doing the best research. The assessment exercise is essential for that selective funding.
The funding council is presently consulting on the arrangements for the next research assessment exercise. It will seek to keep the administrative burdens on institutions to the lowest level possible consistent with the maintenance of a robust and credible system of assessment.

805
Universities have expressed particular concern about the arrangements for quality assurance for teaching. It is important to set that in context.
All students are entitled to a high quality education wherever they are and whatever course they are taking. If the high standards and reputation of British higher education are to be maintained, the allocation of public funds must take account of the quality of teaching and learning in universities. That will help ensure that excellence in teaching is valued as much as excellence in research. We also owe it to potential students and employers to do that in a way which informs their own choices within higher education—a message at the heart of the higher education charter.
But we do not want a quality assurance system which involves examination by an external agency of every course at every institution in every year. The assurances that we seek can be met in large part by ensuring that proper quality control arrangements are in place at all institutions. The costs of those procedures are relatively small. As with the research assessment exercise, the cost appears to be 0.5 per cent. or less of the average public funding for the activity. That compares with total annual spending on higher education of more than £5 billion.
The Higher Education Quality Council is responsible for auditing quality assurance arrangements in higher education. It has been established by the universities and colleges themselves. It is they who determine its mode of operation and the frequency of audit visits. Therefore, to a significant extent, the scale of the administrative demands placed upon institutions is indeed in their own hands.
Much of the information required for audit will be readily available from responsible institutions concerned with the quality of provision. At least one vice-chancellor has said that no new information should be required for audit visits to his institution. When that becomes the norm, the burdens which are currently perceived will be very much reduced.
The assessment of the quality of education provided is the responsibility of the higher education funding councils. The assessment of teaching quality by the Higher Education Funding Council for England is designed to keep to a minimum the administrative burdens on institutions. A large role is accorded to self-assessment. External assessments of individual subjects are likely to take place on a four to five-year cycle. In many cases, there will be no visit from assessors, and nothing more onerous than self-assessment will be needed.
Both Ministers and the funding council recognise universities' concerns about the administrative burdens of audit and assessment, and about possible duplication between them. We have encouraged the funding council and the quality council to review the extent to which there is any duplication, and to co-operate in minimising the burdens of their procedures.
The two councils are drawing up a joint document on their procedures. That should help to minimise duplication and bureaucracy. Bureaucracy can also be reduced by combining professional accreditation and assessment; for example, discussions are under way
806
with the major engineering bodies and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors to examine whether accreditation and assessment can be completely combined.
Grant to the Higher Education Funding Council for England for recurrent and capital spending will amount to nearly £3.5 billion in 1994–95. Universities and colleges will receive another £1 billion in publicly funded tuition fees. That is a very large sum of money by any standards. It is only right that the funding council should be required to establish a management and financial framework which has sufficient rigour to account for and protect the use of public funds, without unduly tying the hands of higher education institutions in their day-to-day operation.
The council provides financial memoranda to each institution which specify the conditions on which its grant has been made. The council has taken steps to keep the volume of information it sends to and seeks from institutions to a minimum. Much of its framework for the operation of financial controls has been put together in consultation with the institutions. Those safeguards are no more than one would expect for any organisation managing a large budget, whether private or public. They are doubly important where large sums of public money are involved.
Finally, I am aware that the vice-chancellors have expressed some anxiety about the impact on them of health and safety and other statutory regulations. The new Deregulation Bill which the Government have brought forward will reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations throughout the economy. In addition, officials in my department are considering with the funding council the impact of specific regulations on higher education.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, raised the issue of the amount of documentation and information which is required of institutions. I take the point, and I hope that the Higher Education Funding Council itself and the Higher Education Quality Council are as interested in this debate as I am. The noble Lord failed to point out that much of the documentation for HEFCE assessment is required only when there is an assessment visit, and an assessment visit takes place only when there is a possibility of an excellent report on the one hand or an unsatisfactory report on the other. In other words, if in the self-assessment process an institution says that it is the best in the kingdom it is important that there is some validation of that claim. Equally, assessors are sent in to check when a worrying report is produced.
My noble friend Lord Beloff said that parents should be assured about the quality of what they and others are paying for. That is true. Public accountability for the spending of £5 billion is important. I hope that we are not divided on the principle of accountability. We are really talking about a means to an end. I have taken that point on board and shall make sure that it is properly reported.
My noble friend was also concerned about the administration of the student loans system. It is my understanding that from the next financial year—1994–95—the Student Loan Company is planning to introduce a simplified form for repeat applications

807
which should require only a couple of minutes of time on the part of the institutions. We shall make sure that that happens.
My noble friend Lord Beloff suggested that the qualifications of some of those undertaking the assessment and review are suspect. I regard that as a very serious statement. Again, the Higher Education Funding Council officers select the assessors and arrange training for them. They have included some extremely distinguished people, for example, on history, Professor Alderman, Pro Vice-Chancellor of London University. The Higher Education Funding Council for England seeks nominations for assessorship from the vice-chancellors themselves. Therefore it is the vice-chancellors who put forward names for consideration.
I have already made the point about funding. Some fairly discourteous comments have been made about the Government's view of the higher education sector. Having witnessed at first hand two years running the debates which take place prior to the public expenditure round, I can say that my department has fought the corner for higher education fairly vigorously. The results have been fruitful. It is true to say that this year higher education received more favourable treatment than other departments in Whitehall in what has generally been recognised as a difficult year economically.
It is for the Higher Education Quality Council and the higher education funding councils to decide what information they need to request for quality audits and assessments. The quality council requests existing documentation such as regulations, codes of practice and validation documents, together with a descriptive
808
overview of systems and how they work. The provision of documentation is therefore largely at the discretion of the institutions themselves, as I said. The assessment process adopted by the Higher Education Funding Council relies to a large extent on self assessment by institutions. The council's quality assessment division has issued guidance to institutions on the type of information required for an assessment visit.
This debate has dealt with an important subject. The Government are wholly committed to the principle of academic autonomy and to freeing universities from bureaucratic constraints as far as possible. The substantial funds provided for higher education in the latest plans are evidence of our commitment to invest in higher education. However, as I have said, academic autonomy does not remove the need for accountability. The framework which we have put in place is designed to secure the minimum effort and cost to universities.
The message I take from this debate is that there should be the minimum amount of bureaucracy at the least possible cost necessary to address the principle of accountability. I shall, as I hope noble Lords have come to depend on me to do, report the debate to my right honourable friend faithfully. I shall communicate all of this to the key agents responsible for the systems which have been criticised so eloquently this evening and which have caused such anxieties—namely, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Quality Council. No doubt the institutions themselves, which also have a part to play, will heed all that has been said tonight.
House adjourned at four minutes before seven o'clock.

  GIBRALTAR: ECONOMIC COORDINATION COUNCIL
  GIBRALTAR: ECONOMIC COORDINATION COUNCIL
  KASHMIR
  KASHMIR
  DIVORCE LAW REFORM PROPOSALS
  DIVORCE LAW REFORM PROPOSALS
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL 29th–30th NOVEMBER
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL 29th–30th NOVEMBER
  MOTORWAY CHARGING
  MOTORWAY CHARGING
  MARITIME TRANSPORT: EC COMPETITION RULES
  MARITIME TRANSPORT: EC COMPETITION RULES