Sitting of 7 December 1993

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Intensive Care Baby Cots
    Mr. David Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide resources for the immediate purchase of two additional intensive care baby cots in Bolton; and what account she takes of infant mortality levels in allocating funds.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The director of public health of Bolton health authority has recommended upgrading and extending the intensive care provision for very sick babies. The health authority is acting on the recommendations and is in discussion with
    126
    other local health service organisations to see how best to meet the need for access to two additional intensive care cots.
    Mr. Young: May I press the Minister further? He will be aware that Bolton has double the national infant mortality rate, and that that trend is increasing. He will also be aware that we in Bolton have 50 per cent. below the recommended number of intensive care beds, and have had for some considerable time. When will those two additional beds be in operation? Babies are currently being transported as far as Liverpool and Leeds, which has been a contributory factor in the death rate. I hope that, at Christmas time, the Government are not going to play Herod.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The figures I have for infant mortality in Bolton—as opposed to the figures for England and Wales—do not show a doubling, although I agree that the figures are higher than the national average. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have been encouraged by my initial reply. The discussions about identifying the two extra intensive care cots which the director of public health said were necessary are being conducted urgently, because everyone understands that those cots need to be provided.
    Mr. Thurnham: In view of the links between low birthweight babies and maternal smoking, will my hon. Friend look into the way in which cigarette advertisers have been targeting Bolton? Is that not in breach of the voluntary code?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns on those issues because he has related them before to me and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville). My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is right to point out that the director of public health identified low-weight babies, smoking and teenage pregnancies as three issues on which the concerns in Bolton were different from those in the rest of the country. Consideration of those and other points is proceeding.

    Dental Service
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the level of dental service provision within the NHS; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: We are committed to an effective and accessible national health service dental service. There are now more general dental practitioners and more registered patients in England than ever before.
    Mr. Wigley: None the less, is the Minister aware that in many areas the dental services provided by the NHS have collapsed as a direct result of the contract that the Government have mishandled so badly? In my constituency—I accept that it is not in England—not a single NHS dentist is taking on new cases in the Dwyfor district. People are having to travel up to 50 miles to find NHS treatment. Is not that a disgrace? When will the Government honour their pledge that the NHS is safe in their hands?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's initial statement was wrong. No family health services authority

    127
    in England is unable to find dental health on the NHS for those patients who want it. I am aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency because I have seen the correspondence that he has exchanged with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health.
    I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman's local health authority has now received permission to appoint four salaried dentists. I am also pleased that two extra community dentists have been appointed. In addition to the other measures taken locally, those appointments will go some way to meeting the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified.
    Mr. Hicks: Despite what my hon. Friend has said, is he aware that in rural areas, not least south-east Cornwall, there is certainly a fragility in the framework and structure of provision of our dental services? There is unease, which must be corrected so that the service can regain public confidence.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point, not least because he has made it to me several times, as have other hon. Friends from Cornwall. They will know that salaried dentists arrangements have been made in Cornwall. They will also know of the establishment of the peripatetic dental service. I put what my hon. Friend has said in the wider context of an increased number of dentists taking national health service patients—an all-time high—and of an increase of 1·6 million net in the number of patients registered for NHS treatment since 1 July last year, taking the amount now to almost 29 million.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is not the Minister being unbelievably complacent on this serious issue? Will he treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves—[Laughter.]—a seriousness with which it is obviously not addressed by Conservative Members? Will he tell us why there has been such a lengthy delay in the publication of the Government's oral health strategy, which we were promised a considerable time ago?
    What steps are being taken to deal with the health implications of the deregistration of more than half a million dental patients, including many children, in England? What steps is the Minister taking to deal with the concern expressed by both Conservative and Opposition Members about the fact that dental care is rapidly becoming a complete shambles, directly and entirely as a result of deliberate Government policy?
    Dr. Mawhinney: What nonsense. A net increase of 1·6 million patients registered for NHS treatment, an all-time high number of dentists delivering NHS treatment and more courses of adult treatment do not add up to a national health service that is coming apart at the seams. The service is being supplemented by 87 salaried dentists and an expansion of the community dental service.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we have consulted widely. We have consulted areas that have never before been asked for opinions, such as the local dental committees. We have also taken careful note of the Health Select Committee's report which came out in the summer. The consultation would have been made far easier if the dentists had had any concerted idea of the future that they would like. The Government will produce their report shortly.
    Mr. David Nicholson: May I reinforce the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall,
    128
    South-East (Mr. Hicks)? The matter to which he referred does not affect only rural areas; it is causing considerable problems to my constituents in Taunton itself. Is there not effectively an industrial dispute in the dental service which is causing inconvenience to my constituents? Will my hon. Friend therefore bring forward the Government's conclusions on the Bloomfield report as soon as possible? Numbers of dentists as well as patients are waiting to know what will happen to the dental service.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I assure my hon. Friend that we will bring forward the proposals as quickly as we can, precisely for the reasons that he has outlined. I know that my hon. Friend shares my desire that we should spend enough time on the proposals to make them as effective as possible when we bring them forward.

    Asthma
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures her Department is taking to improve the treatment for asthma.
    The Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): The chronic disease management programme was introduced in July this year. So far, 90 per cent. of general practitioners have been approved to run an organised programme of care of patients with asthma.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that the public feel that not enough urgency is given to the desperate condition of asthma, the incidence of which is growing at a terrific rate? Some 3 million people already suffer from asthma and admissions into children's hospitals have doubled during the past 10 years. It is now costing the nation almost £1 billion. The Government cannot expect to leave the voluntary organisations to care for those suffering from this complaint. The Government have to do far more about the problem of asthma.
    Mr. Bowis: That is precisely why we have introduced the programme for general practitioners. It is a tribute to them that 90 per cent. of general practitioners have already accepted the challenge. I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman's health authority, North Manchester, has added to this by having an open admissions policy for people with severe attacks. That can only be good for the programme as a whole. We are concerned about the subject, we have taken notice and we have taken action. It is up to everybody—health authorities, general practitioners, the voluntary sector and the Government—to take steps to ensure that the disease is kept under control.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: What plans does my hon. Friend have to respond to the call from the Asthma Training Centre, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently visited in my constituency, for a national standard of training for health professionals, with accredited courses leading to formal qualification? Will my hon. Friend also act jointly with the Department for Education to make sure that schools have a proper policy on asthma, including the training of designated teachers?
    Mr. Bowis: I will certainly talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education. My hon. Friend is right: we are looking at the whole question of training. He is aware that, in addition to the English

    129
    national board's course for nurses in respiratory diseases, we have a specific diploma course, run by the Asthma Training Centre, which brings people up to speed. My hon. Friend recognises that in the CDM—chronic disease management—programme one of the requirements is that doctors qualifying for that payment have trained staff who can fulfil their duties.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the price of prescription charges; and what were the comparable figures for 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The figures are £4·25 and 49p respectively.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that the Government have revelled in sadistically attacking the sick and disabled by increasing prescription charges by more than 2,000 per cent? In those same years, the Government have also lined the pockets of the rich with £30 billion. It is not the sick and disabled who have brought the country to its knees but this rotten, lousy, evil Government. They should be made to pay the price—not the sick.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am afraid that there was cant as well as rant in that question. When the Labour party was in power, three items out of five were charged for; now more are free. Under our stewardship, the NHS has gained an extra £1·6 billion. The Labour party has failed to say what it would do about charges. The proceeds from charges more than pay the health costs of the hon. Gentleman's constituents; they pay them twice over each year. It is a practical commitment to an ever-improving health service, backed by the necessary resources.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one out of five persons who pay for their prescriptions are still getting a very good bargain—paying £4·25 for a prescription when the average cost is between £10 and £11?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As she knows, one out of five now pay. When Labour was in power, two out of five paid. Pensioners, children and others on low incomes do not pay prescription charges, which are a contribution from those who can afford to pay towards a health service that provides for all.
    Mr. Blunkett: Apart from the fact that more than 50 per cent. of prescriptions now cost less than £4·25, perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm that, as part of the Budget settlement, prescription charges are likely to rise, probably to a staggering £5 in the early new year, and that pregnant women and nursing mothers will lose their exemption from those charges?
    Does the right hon. Lady agree that the amount of £53 million contrasts sharply with the £70 million which, it has been revealed, has been spent on cars for senior NHS management and staff? That expenditure has risen from £5 million to £24 million for those employed in trusts alone. Is that not a scandalous waste of vital resources that should be devoted to patient care?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that the House will note the predictions of the hon. Gentleman, because, once again,
    130
    they will be shown to be absolutely false. We will announce the prescription arrangements in due course, but the House should note what the hon. Gentleman has predicted. Only recently, he said that the health service needed an extra £435 million. We have announced an extra £1·6 billion for it. The hon. Gentleman's predictions are always wrong and always full of doom and gloom. The House, however, is still waiting for any policies on the NHS from the hon. Gentleman.
    With regard to cars for NHS staff, the hon. Gentleman has, once again, done some selective editing, because he did not take into account community nurses, doctors and all those who need transport to deliver health care in the community. No one expects a true reflection of the facts from the hon. Gentleman, but some of us are still awaiting a policy from him.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whereas 82 per cent. of prescriptions are exempt from charges in this country, the figures for Germany and France are 30 per cent. and just 4 per cent. respectively? Does she agree that, by any measure, our record in this area is extremely generous?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We have a health service which is the envy of the world. I have been able to establish that few countries impose fewer charges in their health service than we do.

    Winter Deaths
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the number of excess winter deaths for England and Wales in 1992.
    Mr. Bowis: The figure is 34,845.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given the inadequate 50p compensation package on fuel bills, and given that the imposition of VAT will mean that the fuel bill of the average household, particularly those of pensioners, will rise by 89p, does the Minister agree that many more people, including old-age pensioners and those below pensionable age, will find themselves pushing up the figures for winter deaths?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman should put the figure of 34,000 in its proper context, because it is out of a total of 558,000 deaths. All the research shows that there is no link between excess winter deaths and poverty, age or anything else. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was trying, in an oblique way, to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for his package, which will provide £1·5 billion for supportive fuel measures.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to reiterate his thanks, which i am sure he meant to give, for the achievements gained under the "keep warm, keep well" campaign, cold weather payments—I do not recall that the Labour party introduced such payments when it was in power—and home insulation grants. All that proves that it is possible to keep warmer under this Government than it was under the Labour Government.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is that estimate of winter deaths more or less than the number of those who were frightened to death by the propaganda of the Opposition?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is quite right to point that out. It is also worth noting that, of those winter deaths, hypothermia accounted for just 362. That information should be judged alongside the fact that, in the next 20 years, it is expected that 50 per cent. more people will live past the age of 85, and that, in the past 10 years, there has been a 20 per cent. fall in under-65 deaths. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, given those facts, life is not just better under the Conservatives—it is longer.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that there has been a considerable increase in winter deaths due to influenza over the past two to three months compared with the same time last year? The figures come from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. What action will the Government take to make up for the shortfall of influenza vaccine, to prevent any more deaths from influenza?
    Mr. Bowis: I can confirm the hon. Lady's point that influenza has been a factor in the excess deaths this year. That is always the case when there are bouts of influenza, as one might expect, in the winter months. I can also confirm that there is no shortage of influenza vaccine. As of today, the supplies are completely up to date, and the expectation is that all future demand this winter can be met.
    Mr. Elletson: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents, a pensioner, died last week from hypothermia? Does he agree that, although his death was tragic and avoidable, it was nothing whatever to do with the extension of VAT to fuel? [Interruption.] It has nothing whatever to do with the extension of VAT to fuel, because it has not yet been extended to fuel. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the Chancellor on the many measures in his Budget that will help to keep pensioners warm next winter?
    Mr. Bowis: I will pass on my hon. Friend's thanks. He is quite right. Nobody could conceivably have died as a result of VAT on fuel when it has not yet been imposed on fuel. When it is, individuals will be protected by the package of measures to which my hon. Friend and I have referred.
    It is also true that we have seen a steady falling in the level of people dying from hypothermia to the very small figures that we have today. That is in no small part a tribute to the Government and all those involved in the voluntary sector in the "keep warm, keep well" campaign, which has now been running for seven years, and which this year has a commitment of £500,000 towards giving that message, and that support and comfort, to the elderly.
    Ms Primarolo: Is the Minister aware of the research by Professor Khaw at Cambridge university, which has established a clear link between the increase in winter deaths, in winter, obviously, and fuel poverty? [Laughter.] Well, we are told that 34,845 additional deaths in the winter months are linked to fuel poverty. Is he further aware that Dr. Boardman at Oxford university has calculated that, even after the inadequate compensation of VAT on fuel, at least a further 2,500 people will die?
    Does the Minister not feel a responsibility for those deaths? What will he do to ensure that the necessary health prevention is undertaken, and proper compensation given for VAT on fuel to prevent those premature deaths?
    Mr. Bowis: The compensation has been given. "The Health of the Nation" and the health strategy of the
    132
    Government are ensuring that old people are regularly checked by their GPs. If the hon. Lady wants to trade research, I suggest that she reads all of it, because the research that I have seen shows that there is no connection between the points that she has made.
    There are all sorts of reasons for the excess winter rate of deaths. Some of them are to do with the fact that we have reduced the specific summer reasons for deaths. There are many other elements, such as the natural conditions of a particular country, including humidity, day and night temperatures, even wind speeds. If the hon. Lady wants to help the elderly best, she can join me in advising them to avoid having one room much hotter than another, because a change of temperature can affect circulation, and that is an avoidable factor.

    London Health Services
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the main criteria for her policy for the location of accident and emergency, neurosciences and oncology services in the Greater London region.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: No accident and emergency department will be closed in London, or anywhere else, unless and until it can be shown that proper alternative facilities exist which will secure patient safety and provide quality patient care. As for the specialist services to which my hon. Friend refers, the Government are seeking to reduce the current duplication and fragmentation in London and create a number of world-class centres for treatment, teaching and research.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Oldchurch hospital in my constituency, which is easily accessible to an area with an above-average incidence of illness and deprivation, has served the health needs of the people of Romford and around it to their satisfaction for generations? Is she further aware that there is massive public demand for that hospital to continue as a fully functional district general hospital, and that repeated attempts to remove vital services—the latest being accident and emergency services in respect of which four alarming cases within a month have revealed that patients can expect to wait up to four to six hours in casualty before treatment—are greatly resented and are being actively resisted?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware that my hon. Friend is a great champion not only of his local health service but of Oldchurch hospital in particular. Throughout the country, we must face change in the delivery of health care if we are to have cost-effective improvements that take forward the pioneering medicine that is so important to the citizens of the United Kingdom.
    I have looked at the figures for my hon. Friend's area. An extra 1,100 patients were treated last year. A £6·1 million building programme is in place, involving a new theatre, maternity and paediatric block at the local Harold Wood hospital. The area is also doing extremely well under the patients charter—a written constitution of what local people can expect from their health service. My hon. Friend's health authority will be bringing forward further plans. Above all, it must take forward quality improvements for local people.
    Ms Abbott: On the question of oncology services, the Secretary of State suggests that there is duplication and

    133
    excess provision. My constituent, Dr. Spitzer, wrote to me a few days ago about a patient of his whom he sent to the oncology department at Bart's. The consultant recommended that that patient be admitted immediately because his cancer was so far advanced. He was sent home because of a shortage of beds and he died that evening. When will the Secretary of State concede that people are dying because of her policies in London and that more people will die if those policies are pushed through?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Only yesterday, the chief executive of the NHS produced his annual report which showed that an extra 1·3 million patients had been treated since the introduction of the reforms. Clearly, when anything goes wrong, it is essential to investigate and learn any lessons. But the average cancer service in London, as the independent review of services in London showed, sees about half the number of patients seen elsewhere. The health service has to be cost effective in the delivery of care. I have explained to the House how we have produced an extra £1·6 billion, and there is an extra £70 million for the hon. Lady's region next year. At the same time, however, we have to find the most efficient way of delivering that care.
    Mr. Carrington: Has my right hon. Friend considered the need for a major trauma centre in west London? Does she agree that the ideal location for such a centre would be the Charing Cross hospital, which has magnificent specialty services and is ideally located, with easy access from Heathrow and central London?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand my hon. Friend's commitment to his own hospital, which serves his constituents so well. It is the case—independent experts and those in the medical profession are agreed—that the duplication and institutional costs in London are excessive. If we are to take forward the 100 projects in primary care and to have more balanced health provision in London, we must face change. I hope that we shall be able to bring the uncertainty to an end before long and I will certainly note the points that my hon. Friend makes.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State comment on the front page of the London Evening Standard, which has a headline about 5,000 fewer nurses and triple the number of men in grey suits? Will she bear in mind the Tomlinson report and the work of the London implementation group; the separate and contradictory proposals for closure and rationalisation under the specialty reviews; and the fact that the internal market is threatening a completely separate set of hospitals such as University College hospital? Given all that, is it not time that the Secretary of State came clean on her proposals for the future of London's health service and made a statement to the House to end the demoralisation and despair among staff and patients in our capital city?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be aware that a great number of former nurses have been redesignated as managers because they held senior positions of responsibility. The same applies to Project 2000 nurses. We have now been able to extend Project 2000 throughout the country so that all nurses training are designated as students rather than nurses. Only six weeks ago, I was announcing the abolition of the regions and the
    134
    substantial slimming down of the layers of authority, and what did the hon. Gentleman say? He complained about redundancies.
    The hon. Gentleman simply cannot have it both ways. We want a slim, lean, effective service that has the maximum number of people providing hands-on care. That is our whole commitment in London, where change is necessary. I believe that that should unite us and we shall bring the uncertainty to an end before long.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing pressure on the casualty department at Ealing hospital with much larger numbers coming in for treatment in recent weeks? Will she consider whether extra funding can be provided to meet the enormous pressure on Ealing compared with other hospitals in London?
    Mrs. Bottomley: In London in particular, the use of accident and emergency services and its relationship with primary care and GP services is a central factor. My hon. Friend will be aware that 100 primary care projects are under way within the London area in the year ahead. I shall look at the particular factors my hon. Friend describes, and I have some good news for him. The allocations to his region that I am announcing today will include an extra £61 million for next year. That will mean that his region has a total spending of £1·3 billion.

    Preventive Health
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next plans to meet her EC counterparts to discuss preventive health.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The next meeting of the EC Health Council takes place on 13 December. I have this week written to my EC counterparts to inform them of the health prevention measures which my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent Budget contains.
    Ms Quin: Does the Secretary of State agree with the findings in her own Department's report that a ban on tobacco advertising could reduce cigarette smoking by up to 9 per cent. and also save 10,000 lives a year in Britain? In view of this, will she be supporting a ban on tobacco advertising at the EC Council meeting on 13 December?
    Mrs. Bottomley: What I am saying clearly to my fellow Ministers, and what my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will be saying at the EC Health Council, is that Britain has had a more substantial fall in the amount of smoking than any other country in the EC except the Netherlands. It is not my view that a statutory ban on tobacco advertising is an appropriate way of achieving change. We know that for every 10 per cent. increase in price there is a 3 to 6 per cent. fall in consumption. When the Labour party was in power, the price of cigarettes went up by about 1 per cent. It has gone up by about 67 per cent. since we have been in power. We believe in achieving results, not pursuing gimmicks.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer both on increasing the price of a packet of cigarettes by a further 11p in the Budget last week and on committing the Government to a real-terms increase in tobacco taxation in each successive Budget? Will my right hon. Friend be encouraging her EC counterparts to press their Finance Ministers to take similar action?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I will most certainly be doing precisely that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It seems ironic that those who seem most keen to ban the advertising of cigarettes seem to be those who have their own nationalised industries. I would only ask my hon. Friends to compare the price of cigarettes here with that in Spain, for example, where they sell for 51p a packet. We have a tight package of measures, not only increasing the penalties on those selling cigarettes to under-16s, but having the largest warnings on cigarette packets of any country in the EC. We are meeting our targets for adults and pregnant women; it is the children of smoking parents who cause most concern and we will renew our activities to ensure that they also help us to meet the targets that we set out in "The Health of the Nation".

    Chemists, Leicestershire
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to help the small chemists in Leicestershire.
    Mr. Bowis: The Government have helped small pharmacies by extending the essential small pharmacy scheme and by protecting the income of small pharmacies during the transition to the new arrangements.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the great concern felt by small pharmacies in Leicestershire about the fact that they may be forced to close as a result of the Government's new remuneration policy? Does he accept that it is vital for sick people to have local chemists available to them and, if so, will he please review the remuneration policy, especially with regard to the provision of the more expensive drugs?
    Mr. Bowis: Well, I am surprised. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to say thank you. He wrote to us last July on behalf of small pharmacists in Leicestershire asking us to take account of the fact that the 2,000-prescription threshold for new payments for professional services was too high. We listened, we consulted and we reduced the figure to 1,500. We also recognised the need to safeguard low-volume pharmacies. We recognised their concern about the scheme's requirement of a distance of 2 km from the nearest pharmacy. Again, we listened, we consulted and reduced the distance to 1 km. After all that, I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman could say thank you twice.
    Mr. Duncan: In answering the concerns of the hon. and learned Member for Leicestershire, West (Mr. Janner), will my hon. Friend confirm that a substantial proportion of the extra money going to the NHS announced last week will go to the Trent region which includes Leicestershire? If my hon. Friend has the figures, perhaps he would enlighten the House by letting us know what they are.
    Mr. Bowis: I am advised that the figure is £4 million extra.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Why should small pharmacists in my constituency thank the Minister, in the light of the fact that the 1,500 threshold means that up to 13 per cent. of small pharmacies may close—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady please relate her question to Leicestershire?
    Ms Jackson: Does the Minister agree that the experience of small pharmacies in Leicestershire is reflected nationwide? Does he further agree that the service provided by small pharmacists, when, upon occasion, prescriptions are delivered to house-bound and elderly pensioners, is something for which they should be remunerated?
    Mr. Bowis: I am glad that the hon. Lady has realised that the distance between Leicestershire and London is a little more than 1 km. Nevertheless, she will recognise that the important point is that small pharmacists are being helped by these measures. The 1,500 prescriptions a month means an income of £30,000 and there is also the income from cosmetics and toiletries. However, we acknowledge the difficulty that some people might face, particularly in rural areas, of getting to more distant pharmacies and that is why we have introduced this very welcome scheme. I hope that small pharmacists, who may have a particular geographical reason for helping their local communities, may find it easier to survive and prosper.

    GP Fund Holders
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in Staffordshire have become fund holders; what was the figure in April 1991; and what analysis her Department has made of their performance in relation to patient care.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): From seven fund holders in 1991, there are now 20 fund-holding practices in Staffordshire. By next year, one third of all patients will be covered by a fund-holding practice.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very helpful answer. Is he aware that my GP, Dr. Barry Jones of the Minster practice in Lichfield, is a fund holder? My doctor tells me that, being a fund holder, he has found hospitals to be far more responsive to the benefit of patients, including myself. Precisely what additional funds will be made available to my doctor and other GPs in Staffordshire next year?
    Mr. Sackville: I can give my hon. Friend some very good news. The funding for general medical services in the west midlands will increase by 7·3 per cent. That is the sort of very satisfactory outcome that one would expect from this enlightened and responsible Government.
    Ms Walley: When will the Government face the facts of what is happening with our NHS? What does the Minister have to say about a constituent of mine in North Staffordshire who has had to wait more than 20 weeks for an out-patient orthopaedic clinic appointment? Will he look into rumours that I have heard, that in North Staffordshire, because of GP fund holding, we now have an orthopaedic clinic especially for the patients of fund-holding GPs? What kind of a two-tier NHS is that? When will we get back to the real basics of real care?
    Mr. Sackville: Waiting times are coming down, assisted by the negotiations that fund holders are having with hospitals. It should be quite clear to the Labour party that to take decisions about the services that are offered from bureaucrats and give them to doctors is exactly what

    137
    should happen. I can only conclude that the Labour party's opposition has nothing to do with patients, is political and, for that reason, is entirely disreputable.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him notice? Will he explain why only a quarter of the 4,000 refugees from the former Yugoslavia whom Britain agreed to take 12 months ago have arrived? As the British Government have always opposed military intervention to stop aggression and the means of self-defence for the people of Bosnia, does the Prime Minister agree that he and his Government have an overwhelming moral obligation to persuade the United Nations to take appropriate action to ensure that protected areas are protected, that humanitarian relief gets to the people who so desperately need it and, finally, that vulnerable people, including those who need medical aid, receive refuge and the urgent medical attention that they need?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the first part of his question.
    I understand the genuine concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses, and I know that he has expressed it on occasions in the past. He will be aware that, just over a year ago, we agreed to take up to 1,000 humanitarian cases from the former Yugoslavia. We agreed to do that when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross judged it to be necessary. It is not necessary at the moment to give a further undertaking because, to date, only 438 cases have been recommended to us for receipt in this country. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in addition to that commitment, we have given more than £150 million worth of assistance to the former Yugoslavia, and our service men, as at the end of last week, have now escorted more than 1,500 aid convoys delivering more than 70,000 tonnes of aid.
    Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the Budget, the forward interest rate has dropped? Is that not an indication that the markets have confidence in the Government's ability to deliver their promises on lower inflation and large reductions in the Budget deficit?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that the markets are indicating greater confidence about the future levels of inflation than we have seen for many years. Certainly, the forward market illustrates that. Inflationary pressures are very subdued at present. We intend to keep them subdued in the future.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister explain why the first Budget resolution to be voted on tonight is
    138
    designed to prevent any debate or vote on VAT on fuel? Why is the Prime Minister so desperate to avoid allowing the House of Commons to vote on that issue?
    The Prime Minister: The House of Commons has voted on that issue on more than one occasion in the past. Since we seem to have provided the compensation that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) thought was necessary, I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises the matter.
    Mr. John Smith: If the Prime Minister is confident about his so-called compensation package, why can we not debate it and vote on it in this House? Surely the reason why the motion has been tabled is to let Tory Back Benchers off the hook after they promised their constituents that they would vote against it.
    The Prime Minister: We shall be interested to see whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to bring that back in the future, in view of the fact that, from the beginning, his policy has been to have some sort of energy tax and he signed up to that as recently as a few days ago. I reiterate the fact that we have provided compensation which his colleague suggested was necessary.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister is not dealing with the question. Why, in the motion, is the House of Commons to be deprived of an opportunity to debate and vote on VAT? Why does not the Prime Minister have the honesty to admit that he wants to avoid an embarrassing debate and an embarrassing vote on a tax that will remain deeply unpopular with the British people and those Tory Members who vote for it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a faulty memory. We voted on the matter and approved it after the Budget in April. All that has changed since then is the generous compensation package, amounting, in the third year, to £1·2 billion to help 15 million people.
    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the American company, Southco, to locate a major manufacturing plant in my constituency of Worcester, creating some 200 new jobs in the next few years? Is that not further proof—if proof were needed—that the Government have the right policies to attract inward investment to this country and that the Opposition have the wrong ones?
    The Prime Minister: In recent years, this country has certainly received a disproportionate amount of inward investment coming into Europe and from one European country to another. That reflects this country's disinflationary tendency, the many supply-side reforms that we made to free up the market, and the fact that we are not prepared to add to employers' social costs, which would create unemployment. This is the place to invest, to be competitive and to grow, and investors around the world recognise that and are acting on it.
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eastham: A few months ago, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry undertook an inquiry into the aerospace engineering industry. That industry is one of our biggest exporters, contributing £2·7 billion to our balance of payments. The all-party Committee recommended to the House—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I really must have a question from the hon. Gentleman now.
    Mr. Eastham: Will the Prime Minister look at that report, in which the Committee recommended that special aid be given to the industry over the next 10 years? That would reinforce the industrial base which the Prime Minister is always talking about.
    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the aerospace industry. Equally, he will know that the Government have done more to assist the aerospace industry in recent years than either any party in the history of this House or other countries across Europe.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the collapse of the GATT round would be a disaster for world trade and that it would affect in particular the EC and third-world countries? Will he do all that he can to get it back on track?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the GATT round. There have been substantial discussions between the European Community negotiator and Mr. Kantor from the United States in the past 24 hours. They have not yet reached agreement on all the issues. Substantial progress has been made and I hope that they will soon be able to go to Geneva where any outstanding matters can then be solved. I must repeat a point that I have made to the House before: the advantages of a satisfactory agreement in the Uruguay round are profound, not just for the industrialised countries in the north but for countries in the south that need our markets open to them for their future. The consequences of a failure in the GATT round could be damaging, not just for the industrial countries but for everyone. I hope that each country that finds itself unable to agree to any minor part of that agreement will consider the implications for the whole world if the agreement is not signed.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Prime Minister accept that thousands and thousands of second marriages in this country may simply be blown apart by the additional financial pressure caused by Christmas unless the Government act immediately on the recommendations of the Social Security Select Committee on the operation of the Child Support Agency? Will the Prime Minister take personal charge of framing the Government's response to that report—(Interruption.]—so that the recommendations can be taken as a whole and acted upon before the House rises for the Christmas recess? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister must understand that the bipartisan Opposition support that the Child Support Agency has enjoyed to date will be put at risk, or may even be withdrawn, unless he does that before Christmas.
    The Prime Minister: I caught the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am afraid that, with the disruption immediately in front of him, I did not catch all of it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I welcome the Committee's unequivocal support for the basic principles that underpin the Child Support Act 1991. My right hon. Friend is examining the recommendations that were made by the Select Committee, together with comments and observations made by other people recently. He will reply as soon as he has completed that examination. We will ensure that there is no unnecessary delay.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see today's report of the new schools inspectorate which speaks of real improvements in many schools, but says that some primary schools should achieve higher standards and that joined-up writing should be taught to children before the age of eight? Is it not time for some joined-up thinking on education from the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: On the last point, my hon. Friend must not ask for too much. He certainly must not ask Opposition Members to run before they can walk. As Her Majesty's chief inspector said, the report published this morning shows that what he calls "significant dividends" are now flowing from the national curriculum and testing. The report also puts the spotlight on some continuing problems that we are determined to tackle. For example, it is unacceptable for some pupils, particularly those in inner-city schools, to be short changed by an inadequate education. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will make full use of his powers to ensure that those children receive an adequate education.
    Ms Corston: Is the Prime Minister aware that the miserly 50p a week announced by the Chancellor to assist pensioners with their fuel bills means that a pensioner with gas and electricity will spend 10 weeks' money in one year just paying the VAT on the standing charge? Is not that a further fraud on the British pensioner?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady has neglected to mention that £1·2 billion extra will be available to help 15 million people meet the costs of their fuel. She also neglected to acknowledge that that extra help is built into the base of the pension and is a permanent addition upon which future increases are paid. At the end of the three-year period, a number of pensioners will find full compensation and others will be very nearly to it. That is not a miserly contribution.
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the technical and cost-effective successes of Jetstream Prestwick in the production of turbo-prop aircraft? Is my

    141
    right hon. Friend further aware of the problems it faces from a highly subsidised and competitive marketplace which is currently restricted?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a formidable fighter for Prestwick and for Jetstream. I am aware, of course, of the tradition of success of the Jetstream turbo-prop aircraft. As my hon. Friend knows from his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office remain in close touch with Jetstream about the future. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: You must let the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) shout for a minute Madam Speaker—it clears all that is in his brain.
    DTI officials are today meeting Jetstream to consider how to pursue its representations on unfair support to manufacturers overseas. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will be meeting Jetstream later this month to discuss the up-to-date position.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. What is the procedure regarding a petition which is handed to an hon. Member which affects an hon. Member of another party? Yesterday, the Wyndham Hill action group from Yeovil handed me a petition that had been signed by 4,500 people regarding a Sainsbury's supermarket in Yeovil. Apparently, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) did not take the petition. Will you assist in this matter, Madam Speaker, by calling the right hon. Gentleman to present his petition on behalf of his constituents?
Madam Speaker: As always, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeks to be helpful to the House.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you heard the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the House was being denied the opportunity to vote on the issue of VAT on domestic fuel. I have just been to the Table Office, where it was confirmed to me that it would have been in order for the Opposition to table an amendment to the Budget resolution which is being tabled by the Government. That amendment could have specified that the issue of VAT on basic fuel should be debated.
I do not know whether that is due to incompetence on the Labour Front Bench or whether they do not want to debate the issue because of the generous compensation package. Will you confirm that it is in order, or would have been in order—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. It is hardly a matter which needs a point of order, and is more a matter of information. It is for the Opposition to use their opportunities and their time to take such action.
Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A report in today's Lloyd's List says that informal discussions have taken place with the Department of Transport regarding the setting up of an
144
alternative shipping register. Have you heard from the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to make sure that the proposals are discussed, or whether they have any force?
Madam Speaker: Order. I have had no indication from the Secretary of State that he is seeking to make a statement on that matter.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  DOUBLE TAXATION
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Indonesia) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uzbekistan) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Saudi Arabia) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matter relating exclusively to Scotland).
SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

  ECONOMY
  That the Matter of the economy in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.)
  Question agreed to.

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 6 and 8 pm to 10 minutes.
  It may also be convenient if I announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the motion on public expenditure which is being debated together with the Budget resolutions.
  3.34 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for pointing out that the Opposition could tonight have voted on the compensation package that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has provided. Of course, that would have meant that they would have to surmount a hurdle that their own spokesman had placed in their way. The fact is that he had quantified the amount of compensation required as 50p a week, whereas my right hon. and learned Friend announced a substantially higher figure than that. So, once again, the Opposition would have had to end up voting against what one of their own spokesmen had said was necessary.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to be any more out of touch at this point than the rest of his speech will demonstrate. He is obviously unaware that the Sunday People printed a retraction on Sunday of the statement by the Opposition social security spokesman, and admitted that he never put forward such a figure. My hon. Friend's criticism stands—[Interruption.] The statement was not clarified; it was retracted. No such figure was ever given by my hon. Friend.
  The Opposition will continue to press the Government for a compensation package that measures up to the total cost of VAT on fuel, not just half the cost.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman should press his hon. Friend not to get himself quoted in the Sunday People in the first place as having given a figure that he did not believe in.
  The Prime Minister has already brought the House up to date on the position of the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations. Over the nine days that remain we shall continue to play an active part wherever possible and especially in the internal European debate. The case, in terms of world trade, growth and employment, for concluding the GATT round urgently remains as strong as ever; and I wholly endorse what the Chancellor said in his impressive speech on the Budget a few days ago.
  As discussion of the Budget has proceeded it has emerged that my right hon. and learned Friend had to face two challenges: the borrowing requirement, and the incipient risk of inflationary pressures as the recovery developed.
  Nothing would have been more calculated to throw away the competitive edge that we now enjoy than a failure to take the difficult decisions about the deficit—and to take them now. I remind the House of what we included in our manifesto. We said that our aims in the 1990s must be to achieve price stability and to keep firm control over public spending. We went on to say:
  "We will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector … We will see the Budget return towards balance as the economy recovers."
  Well, we are less than two years into this Parliament. Headline inflation, at below 2 per cent., is the best since 1959. Since October 1990, interest rate cuts have saved business nearly £12 billion a year. Productivity in the third quarter of 1993 was almost 5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Industrial production is rising in the United Kingdom but falling in Germany, Japan, France and Italy.
  Unemployment has fallen by 137,200 since January. Exports are 3·5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. We have reduced our spending plans by £10 billion compared with those of the March Budget. Public expenditure is expected to fall as a share of national income, with the Budget returning to balance in the second half of the decade.
  At the next election we shall defend our management of the economy against this clearly emerging background. We shall certainly honour our manifesto policies, which claimed that we would reduce taxes as fast as we prudently could.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security revealed our willingness to face some of the most testing decisions confronting all democratic Governments. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) took longer to ask his questions than my right hon. Friend took to make his statement. It was abundantly clear to all in the Chamber that my right hon. Friend had actually answered all the hon. Gentleman's questions before they were asked, and that the Labour party had no answer to any of the questions in the first place.
  It is worse and more cynical than that. The Labour party knows that there is a need to find answers to these questions. It knows that so clearly that it has set up a commission — the Commission on Social Justice. The question in the minds of the observers of that commission is whether it exists to find answers or merely to delay the need for any answers that would reveal what the Labour party would do. The Labour party knows that there is a problem. It knows, too, something of the nature of the only

  147
  answers that exist to the problems. It knows, also, what left-wing Governments in Europe are having to do when they face up to these particular answers.
  I remind the House that Holland has ended the link between social security benefits and the average wage. Spain has reduced unemployment benefit. Greece, Portugal and Spain are encouraging private pensions. As for the ultimate society in the minds of many Labour Members, the cradle-to-grave welfare state of Sweden, in facing up to the same sort of question that we in this Government have to face, it has frozen at 1992 levels the base amount used to calculate most social security benefits. The state old-age pension has been reduced by 2 per cent. The pension age for Swedish men and women is to be raised from 65 to 66 in just three years' time.
  The Labour party is up to its old tricks in trying to give the impression that there are alternative answers to these difficult issues. No one does that better than the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who argues the case, as he always does, with the exaggerations for which he has become well known. His arguments are so over the top that he has become the little boy who cried "wolf" once too often. He has lost all credibility. Indeed, one could say that he has converted the science of the terminological inexactitude into a near-terminal disease for the Labour party.
  Mr. David Winnick: What would the President of the Board of Trade say to someone in his age group who worked for 20 or 25 years in one firm and was made redundant through no fault of his own, but finds, from 1996 onwards, that as a result of the redundancy package that one hopes he gets he will receive unemployment benefit under its new name for only six months.? Thereafter, it is likely that he will not receive any income from the state because of the sums involved in his redundancy package. Despite the examples from abroad that the right hon. Gentleman has cited, does he not recognise how unjust that is, particularly bearing in mind the national insurance contributions that that person has made over the years? That person feels cheated, and with every possible justification.
  Mr. Heseltine: The key to that long intervention is the sub clause,
  "because of the sums involved".
  The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that the person concerned has a sufficiently large redundancy sum, paid for presumably by a scheme to which he subscribed, to make it reasonable that he should make some contribution to his personal position. One could go a great deal further than the hon. Gentleman did. Some redundancy packages are extremely generous. The sums involved enable people to provide for their circumstances. The fact is that it is reasonable and will become unavoidable in left-wing as well as right-wing societies to consider the means of the person who is receiving benefits of that sort.
  The underlying strength of our economy has helped our companies to win in the international market place. We are now predicting a current account deficit of £9·5 billion for the year, compared with £17·5 billion in March. Our cost competitiveness is now some 20 per cent. better than it was prior to our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism and is expected to remain close to that level throughout
  148
  1994. Consequently, export volumes are growing strongly and they are forecast to grow by a further 5 per cent. in 1994.
  Our non-EC export volumes rose by no less than 14 per cent. in the year to October and that figure includes some remarkable and spectacular performances in difficult markets. In 1993, our exports to China have more than doubled, those to Korea are up by nearly one third, and those to Japan are up by one fifth.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that one of the United Kingdom's most cost-competitive products is the Jetstream aircraft? Is he also aware that in the past week a number of hon. Members from Ayrshire met with the Minister of Industry, who is supposed to be responsible for the aerospace industry, and gave him a large number of examples of unfair competition in Brazil, France, Sweden and elsewhere where the aircraft that compete with Jetstream have been subsidised? Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister has done nothing about that, he has not raised it with the European Union, he has not raised it through GATT, he showed no interest in raising the matter and showed little knowledge about the Jetstream operation? That is why hon. Members from Ayrshire are frustrated, as you, Madam Speaker, saw earlier.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does his constituents no service by misrepresenting the situation. We are waiting for further details of the suggestions from Jetstream. The hon. Gentleman knows, as does the whole House, that the exports from the aerospace industry are one of our most successful sectors due in no small part to the role that the Government play across the world in helping British Aerospace and the other companies that sell in times of tough markets.
  On behalf of not only British Aerospace but of all our companies, the Government are determined to help them to win in the market. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor indicated that clearly when he announced £200 million in increased cover for the Export Credits Guarantee Department in addition to the £3 billion already being provided. It is interesting to note that that increase is higher than the anticipated growth in world trade, again reflecting the United Kingdom's improved export performance. In the programme of the ECGD, we have cut premiums generally, and, specifically in the Budget, we cut them in key markets such as Mexico, India and Turkey. ECGD credits will be exempt from the proposed insurance premium tax.
  Across the board, the Chancellor set out in a remarkable speech the scale and breadth of the Government's priorities. The Opposition amendment characteristically talks of cutting key public services. The Department of Health has received a real terms increase of 1·4 per cent. and the new total is a massive 64 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. In education, a crucial area for our future competitiveness, our plans allow for a 19·per cent. increase in the number of students in further education and sixth form colleges from 1993–94 to 1996–97.
  We intend to maintain the proportion of young people in higher education at its current record level of almost one in three. The House will remember that the figure was one

  149
  in eight in 1979. Spending on higher and further education is set to rise by 3 per cent. and 3·5 per cent. respectively in real terms over the period 1993–94 to 1996–97.
  The Chancellor announced a new apprenticeship scheme that will enable about 40,000 young people a year to achieve NVQ3, the vocational A-level. The £40 a week llowance for childcare expenses for families on a variety of benefits will enable many more people, especially women, to take advantage of numerous training and employment opportunities that are now available. The introduction of a job seeker's allowance, the reduction in employer's national insurance contributions and the introduction of help for low-paid families needing child care will all help people who are seeking jobs.
  The recent White Paper on science, engineering and technology produced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster placed great stress on wealth creation and on developing a strong partnership between industry, academia and Government. I can now make two further announcements that will build on that.
  First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have decided to introduce a new £16 million joint environmental technology best practice programme. The five-year programme will make the best environmental technology and techniques more widely known to potential users and suppliers. Within a strong emphasis on reducing and eliminating waste and pollution at source, it will show that improved environmental performance can go hand in hand with improved industrial competitiveness.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the money is new money and not simply an exchange for the closure of Warren Springs?
  Mr. Heseltine: The closure of Warren Springs saved a considerable amount, and I am glad to have been able to save that money because it has enabled us to build a stronger organisation out of the former Warren Springs and Atomic Energy Authority. The closure has saved us needing to construct a new building and it has enabled us to dispose of the site. That is a classic example of the prudent husbandry of taxpayers' resources.
  Secondly, I am glad to announce that my Department and the Science and Engineering Research Council are launching a new £10 million LINK programme on surface engineering, an important manufacturing technology which underpins virtually all industrial sectors.
  The Opposition's amendment suggests that the Government have betrayed their election pledges on transport. Here again, I am afraid, the breadth of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has eluded the Opposition. Spending on trunk roads and motorways in England will average more than £2 billion a year over the next three financial years. For Great Britain as a whole, we plan to invest £6·7 billion. That is an increase of almost £500 million over the figure included in our manifesto.
  British Rail investment will be more than £1 billion next year, which is 20 per cent. more than the 1980s average. In addition, almost £250 million will be invested by the private sector in the Heathrow Express and in preparing for the £500 million renewal of the west coast main line.
  Mr. David Ashby: Three pence was added to the cost of a litre of petrol. Can my
  150
  right hon. Friend tell us whether our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor expected fuel companies to raise the price of petrol by 5p or more a litre? Does my right hon. Friend believe that there may be a cartel in operation? Is there not a case for investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend should realise two things. First, the companies have moved the price of petrol one way or another in the light of market forces. That is a decision that must rest with them. Secondly, my hon. Friend cannot expect me, in view of my particular responsibilities, to comment on the prospect of an inquiry into those particular companies.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that when I went to Lille two years ago, I saw the beginning of the construction of Euro-Lille and that when I went back a few days ago, I saw that the £5 billion investment was almost completed. This year, when I went past Ashford where it was said, two years ago, we would have an international station, I saw nothing but a couple of dump trucks.
  Mr. Heseltine: I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman's journeys, wherever they may take him. All I know, in terms that I have made clear to the House, is that British Rail investment will be more than £1 billion next year, which is 20 per cent. more than the 1980s average. That sounds like a considerable increase, which the Opposition should welcome.
  The fact is that public sector capital spending is now 20 per cent. higher in real terms than the 1980s average. In addition, the privatised industries are investing more than £10 billion a year. The water industry is playing a key role with a forecast spend of £29 billion over the next 10 years. That is in marked contrast, as the House will remember, to the massive cut of 20 per cent. under the previous Labour Government.
  Nothing more clearly illustrates the difference between the Government's policies and those of the Opposition. The Government have set the nationalised industries free of the dead hand of the state and given them the confidence to undertake massive investment outside public sector constraints. The moment that that happens the Opposition lose interest in what is happening to those industries. If an industry is not in the public sector, to them it is of little consequence.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) visited Lille in France, he found that unemployment was rising there, whereas here it is falling? Perhaps that fact reflects the different levels of the respective Governments' attitudes towards public expenditure.
  Mr. Heseltine: It would have been too much to expect the hon. Member for Falkirk, East to have learned a lesson from what has happened under a Labour Government in France. It would have been inconvenient for him to come back here and see the problems that a Conservative Government have to sort out, just as the Conservative Government in France is having to sort out the problems as a result of what a Labour Government did there.
  No Conservative Member argues that the effects of public expenditure increases or programmes are conclusive in themselves. To the Labour party, public service tends to

  151
  equate only with spending money. To the Government, it is about providing a quality service and identifying responsibility. That is why the Prime Minister has given such attention to the new deal for British people enshrined in their rights under the citizens charter. The charter is increasingly recognised by the British public and business as a vehicle for real improvements.
  The sneer on the faces of Opposition Members is fascinating. Once again, they are out of touch. If the charter mark does not matter, why on earth was the Labour-controlled Leicester city council spending its local taxes to bring its employees to London in October to receive their charter mark award from the Prime Minister? Why did Labour-controlled Ipswich enter its homes department for an award? Why on earth was the London borough of Lewisham—not exactly a card-carrying member of the Centre for Policy Studies—proudly displaying its charter mark at the office of its refuse and cleaning services? Once again, our ideas, our formulation and our determination have Labour authorities queuing up to join the club.
  If there is a theme to link our agenda—in social services, education, the health service and capital investment—it is that it is an agenda for change. It is an agenda for change dominated by the political party elected in 1979. Let us be clear: there is a continuing debate about the way forward, new challenges and new opportunities. But whether one looks at this country or across the entire democratic world, the debate about the way forward for our societies is conducted within the right wing of politics. That is where the ideas of tomorrow are being found.
  We hear a great deal about the problem for the Tories of 14 years in government. That is not the problem. The problem is what 14 years in opposition have done to the Labour party.
  Mr. Peter Hain: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: I was about to say that we have to ask the old question about whether one would buy a second-hand motor car from such a lot. Then the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) rose to his feet and the answer came readily to mind.
  Mr. Hain: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: I will now.
  Mr. Hain: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a triumph for his presidency that his budget in three years' time will be a third of what it is this year?
  Mr. Heseltine: Absolutely. My budget has been going down because we have been cutting out the losses of the subsidised nationalised industries.
  I was tempted to ask the question whether one would buy a second-hand motor car from that lot. That is the wrong question. The right question is whether one would buy a brand-new motor car from the Labour party, even if it had a five-year warranty. We know the answer that the electorate always gives: not under any circumstances, especially if it had a five-year warranty.
  Another sector that is critical to the health of our economy is that of small businesses.
  152
  "Small businesses are not just important in terms of employment. A healthy and profitable small business sector will be investing, it will be exporting, it will be contributing revenue to the Exchequer. It will also be stimulating innovation and competition throughout the economy."
  Mr. Heseltine: I am waiting for the interruptions, because the House will have already recognised those words of the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] I am mildly surprised that the cheers of approval for those words came from the Conservative Benches.
  The Leader of the Opposition recently said those words at a Labour conference for small businesses. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, having devoted some three years to an attempt to soften up the City of London, without any sort of success, has now decided to turn his attention to pastures new.
  The conference was organised, in common with the great rally of the election, with all the flourish of the modern Labour party. All the apparatus of modern communications was brought to bear: a conference was organised, handouts were given and press releases were issued.
  The Leader of the Opposition was anxious to hear from small business people anywhere; so anxious was he that people were given a telephone number to ring. If any problems were encountered in getting through on the telephone, the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave people a fax number. In this modern telecommunications world one might call that belt-and-braces socialism.
  Hon. Members should picture the scene. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is slumped in his armchair at Walworth road surrounded by his shadow Cabinet, waiting for the telephone to ring. At last there is a phone call and the caller's inquiry is relayed by a secretary, who says, "There's a bloke on the phone who wants to know what we are going to do about the deficit." The Leader of the Opposition turns to the shadow Chancellor and says, "What's the answer to that, shadow Chancellor?" The hon. Gentleman says, "Tell him what I said in the House of Commons last week—we won't start from here."
  The next caller wants to know what the modern Labour party really thinks of business men. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been quoted with the answer, when he said that they are
  "stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum."
  I was tempted to believe that that was an exaggeration, but I read it in The Sun so it cannot be a lie.
  Then the next caller asks what the Labour party, following its leader's extensive exposure to the City of London, now thinks about those who work there. According to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), they are champagne drinkers living
  "at the expense of many people who can ill afford it."
  Nothing so reveals the gap between the Labour party's prejudices and today's reality.
  In 1991, nearly 4 million private-sector pensions were being paid for from investments managed in the City. Countless citizens insure their lives, homes, pensions and health through the City. There are now more than 9 million shareholders, three times the number in 1979, who are able to trade their investments through the City. The City produces £19 billion in invisible earnings, and yet all that the Labour party can do is to dismiss Europe's largest financial market as one made up of champagne drinkers living

  153
  "at the expense of many people who can ill afford it."—[Official Report, 2 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1201.]
  There are some facts about small businesses on which we can all agree.
  Mr. Connarty: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when he came to my constituency in December last year I wrote to ask him to meet small business men who had suffered badly from the collapse of Lilley and he refused to meet them. Those business men turned up to talk to him at the Inchyra Grange hotel at Grangemouth about the £200,000 loss that they had suffered. Why have the Government done nothing about bankruptcies and the fact that sub-contracting small businesses lose out every time when a large firm goes to the wall? I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to ask why the Government did nothing to protect people so vital to our economy.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that there are nearly 1 million more small businesses today than there were in 1979. There has been a tremendous explosion in small businesses, as the House knows. There are now some 2·7 million small firms, 96 per cent. of which employ fewer than 20 people. For those firms, the Budget contained an excellent package of measures.
  The enterprise investment scheme will allow eligible investors to take an active interest in the firms in which they invest, and to be paid for their time. The prospect of venture capital trusts and the extension of capital gains tax roll-over relief for gains invested in unquoted companies will help the search for equity.
  The relaxation of audit requirements will help to lift the administrative burden. The agreement to look at the recommendations of the pay-as-you-earn and national insurance working party promises to help reduce further the administrative complexities that bedevil smaller businesses.
  The increase in the threshold of VAT to £45,000 will enable about 75,000 more traders to choose whether they register for VAT. Smaller employers will be entitled to full reimbursement of statutory sick pay after four weeks instead of the current six. Thresholds will be raised to allow even more smaller employers to benefit. They will also benefit from the reductions announced in employers' national insurance contributions.
  The threshold for smaller companies' rates of corporation tax will be raised by 20 per cent. to £300,000 a year. Eighy five of the 118 winners of this year's Queen's award for exports were smaller firms. The changes to export credit guarantees will help small as well as larger exporters. The business rate poundage will rise next year by only 1·8 per cent. thanks to our success in the battle against inflation.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members very much approve of everything that is being done for small businesses? But will he also give as much encouragement, and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help as well, to improvements in research and development, because it is by new technologies that we will be able to compete effectively in the global markets and ensure that we manage to improve the balance of payments, which has come as a result of the recovery since, as my right hon. Friend has said, we left the exchange rate mechanism?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be well aware of the recent White Paper of our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which he made clear the Government's view that the £6 billion public sector research and development programme had to have a considerable pressure to look after the interests of the wealth-creating community. That is something that I very much welcome.
  All the changes that I have listed come on top of the increase announced in the March Budget to the loan guarantee scheme. The number of loans guaranteed was about 40 per cent. higher in the first six months of 1993 than was forecast before the changes were announced, and the value in lending in that period, at £55 million, was higher than for the whole of 1992–93.
  I can tell the House today that I have decided to increase my Department's budget for smaller businesses by £8 million. The House is familiar with our plans to bring together training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce, local authorities, enterprise agencies, central Government Departments and private sector organisations in the business link organisation.
  To enable the TECs to continue to play a key strategic role in organising the provision of business support services, I am pleased to announce that I have increased their budgets to nearly £33 million. The first business links have opened in Birmingham, Leicester and Congleton. My aim is a national network within two to three years. I am increasing start-up funding by £14 million.
  I intend to trial a new consultancy brokerage service from January for introduction nationwide early in 1995. That will open up to public access the considerable wealth of data and project management experience that has been accumulated on United Kingdom business consultants for the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme.
  Increased funding will ensure that consultancy support for small and medium-sized firms will continue beyond the life of the present consultancy scheme in the form of a flexible consultancy and diagnostic service. I shall be publishing a prospectus and guidelines for the service in January.
  My Department will provide extra funding to business links to support the appointment of innovation and technology counsellors who will work with firms and help them to identify local, national and international sources of technical help. We also intend to restructure the design services that we provide to industry to bring them closer to companies. That package of new services will further enhance the business link movement, providing businesses with high-quality support tailored to their individual requirements.
  The House will know of the warm welcome for the Chancellor's announcement that my Department is producing a consultative document setting out options to address the problem of late payment—including legislation and a national standard.
  We have heard the views of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has told us that this is not a Budget for business, not a Budget for industry and not a Budget for employment. A month ago the Labour party held a conference on
  "Helping Small Businesses to Succeed".
  The conference was further entitled "Into the Growth Corridor". Labour invited three organisations to set out their views—the CBI, the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses.

  155
  Having heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East give his view on the relevance of the Budget for industry, it seemed to me that it would not be unreasonable to examine those self-same organisations' views on the Budget. After all, if they were good enough in the eyes of the Labour party to advise it on its entire strategy for small businesses, they ought to be able to form a reasonable judgment about a Budget. The CBI had this to say:
  "The Budget should provide a sound basis for continued non-inflationary recovery".
  The Federation of Small Businesses said:
  "We could not have expected more".
  The Forum of Small Businesses said:
  "This Budget is a great encouragement to us all".
  It is, indeed, a great encouragement to us all. So far from entering the "growth corridor", the Labour party is once again in the slow lane, overtaken by events and overwhelmed by the arguments.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East set out his alternative approach in the Daily Mirror:
  "I'd scrap VAT on fuel, go for jobs, stop tax cheats and invest to rebuild Britain."
  That, he claims, is his economic strategy. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends will prefer the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn):
  "I do not think that members of Labour's Front Bench would have even two ideas about what to do with the economy if they came to power… a series of soundbites glued together and called an economic policy is not an economic policy."—[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 420.]
  I never thought to hear myself say it, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was right. He is welcome in our Lobby tonight.
  I commend the Budget to the House.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: Before turning to the Budget, let me echo the earlier satement of the President of the Board of Trade in relation to the importance of GATT. I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the importance of ensuring that, over the next seven days, everything possible is done to meet the deadline. There should be no illusion that on this occasion a fresh deadline can be set. GATT is an issue of importance not only to Europe and to America but to the third world which requires access to their markets. If there is something offensive about the spectacle of the past 48 days, it is 100 nations gathered in Geneva while the two big blocs slog it out in Brussels without the participation of the third world. I very much hope that, if the United States chooses to make a sticking point of airbus, there will be no concessions from Europe that will put in jeopardy any part of the production of that project or detract from its importance.
  The President of the Board of Trade has just opened the last day of the Budget debate. I must say that I preferred to today's reading of the brief the rather more lively speech that he made in our debate a fortnight ago, when he gave us one of his diverting impressions of a conference speech—half Winter Gardens, half old-time music hall; nothing at all to do with the running of Government. The high point of that act—because "act" is a more appropriate word than "speech"—was the tearing up of a socialist manifesto. I had hoped for a sequel today. He has disappointed me. After Tuesday's Budget, I should have thought the most
  156
  appropriate highlight to conclude the Budget debate would have been tearing up the Conservative manifesto, but the Chancellor did that last Tuesday.
  I heard the Chancellor being interviewed on Sunday. He was asked whether, by the end of the Parliament, income tax and other taxes would have gone up or down. He replied,
  "I do not have a clue".
  I congratulate the Chancellor on his candour and express my appreciation that he has served so long at the Treasury without allowing his forecast to be affected in any way by Treasury jargon. However, that is not what members of his party said at the last election when they were asked about tax.
  When the Prime Minister was asked whether national insurance would go up he did not say,
  "I do not have a clue."
  He did not say what the President of the Board of Trade has just said—that they would reduce taxes as rapidly as was prudent to do so. He said,
  "I have no plans to raise the level of national insurance".
  When he was asked whether he would extend the scope of VAT, he did not say,
  "I do not have a clue."
  He said,
  "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT.".
  When, only a few days before polling day, he was asked whether public spending would go down if they were elected, he did not say,
  "I do not have a clue. Ask me after polling day."
  He said,
  "You can rule out any prospect of that".
  I find it strange that the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry responsible for deregulation should have complained that sales of Tipp-Ex have been constrained by some local authorities cataloguing it as a dangerous fluid. Smith square must be ankle deep in Tipp-Ex by now, as the Conservatives blank out the promises that they made before the last election. The Red Book tries another tactic to blank out the DTI Budget; it is not so much Tipp-Ex as heavy overprint.
  At first glance, I was much impressed by the President's skills as a negotiator with his colleagues at the Treasury. The Budget of his Department over the previous Red Book shot up by £1 billion. Then I noticed footnote 4. Under the present Government, I have learnt that it always pays to read the footnotes. Footnote 4 tells me that the figures for his Department now include the nuclear levy collected by the electricity companies and paid direct to Nuclear Electric without passing through his bank account. Strip away that nuclear levy and we strip away the entire £1 billion increase.
  In real terms, the spending on industry of the Department of Trade and Industry will not increase, but will fall over the next three years by 12 per cent. in real terms. I have to say frankly and generously to the President that I have not had time to adjust the calculations for the extra £16 million over five years that he has just announced for energy conservation, but they will not materially alter the figures that I have just given the House. That does not include the total elimination of support for public sector industries for which the President is the nominal sponsor, such as the Post Office. The Red Book sets a new profit target for the Post Office for 1994–95. That profit target is now three times larger than when it was first announced in 1991. Let us not pretend that the new profit target set by the

  157
  Chancellor last Tuesday—it was not mentioned in the Budget speech, but it is in the Red Book—is the result of careful research on the business plan of the Post Office.
  We rang up the Post Office on the day of the Budget when we saw the Red Book and asked about the increase in the profit target. At the other end of the line there was á silence followed by the reply, "I have a brief on the impact of the Budget on the Post Office, but it says nothing about an increase in the profit targets. I shall have to get back to you." It was Thursday before they got back to us. There can be only one conclusion: nobody at the Post Office knew about the increase until Tuesday's Budget. That increase reflects not the ability of the Post Office to pay an increased profit, but the need of the Chancellor for the extra cash from that industry. In considering the Budget let us leave aside that increased profit from the Post Office. We might as well leave it aside, because, obviously, the President has agreed to the demand for an increase in the profit level; without an agreement he would not get a penny.
  If we compare the President's budget with that of the other Departments on the same page in the Red Book, we find that next year, out of 18 Whitehall Departments, the Department of Trade and Industry will come in at 17th in the spending league. It is saved from bottom place in the Government's spending priorities only by the Department of National Heritage. Given the Government's propensity to close factories and to reopen them as museums of industrial archaeology, not even that placing may be safe.
  There is a simple way to demonstrate the Government's relative priorities for industry. Fifteen years ago, for every £1 spent by the Government backing industry, 43p was spent supporting farmers. Next year, for every £1 spent backing industry, £2 will be spent to support farmers. That is a candid statement of the relative priorities of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman totally ignores the very large increases in export credit guarantees. He totally ignores the fact that British Steel is now profitable in the private sector while it was loss making in the public sector.
  Mr. Cook: I do not ignore the point about that industry in the private sector. The figures that I am quoting are about departmental ministerial spend and not about public corporations. Nor do I ignore the Export Credits Guarantee Department changes. If the President cares to consult the Red Book, he will discover that even after the changes in the ECGD, the Red Book sets a higher profit level for the whole of the ECGD. Even in the Budget, the Government propose to make more profit from export credit while Governments in the rest of Europe use export credit to support exports rather than to support their own finances.
  The President has helpfully brought us to the point that the real competition is not with other Whitehall Departments, but with other countries in Europe. In that respect, the President finds himself at the bottom of the league again. The President provides less support per head to industry than any other European country. Italy provides three times as much while France and Holland provide twice as much. Germany and Spain provide half as much again.
  Why do we provide the weakest support for industry? Is it because we have the strongest industry? Why is it that every one of the countries that I have mentioned runs a surplus in manufactured trade with us? Every one of them
  158
  has seen a large increase in manufacturing output during the lifetime of this Government. Every one of them has seen bigger growth in manufacturing investment over the same period.
  We have the weakest industrial base, but it receives less help from our Government. If it is not going to receive any help from the President, what help will it receive from the Chancellor? What industry wanted from the Chancellor was help with investment. That was the single major preoccupation of the submissions made by industry to the Chancellor before his Budget. Those submissions were made by the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Machine Tool Technologies Association. They all urged the Chancellor to extend capital allowances to encourage investment. They all got the problem right.
  The real reason why we should worry about the future of our industry is that we are not investing in that future. If we compare investment in Britain with the other advanced nations of the world, Britain comes in sixth out of the seven members of G7 and 23rd out of the 24 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We can forget Japan where investment is double our level. On the latest figures, Britain is investing less than Turkey, Portugal and Ireland.
  The Conservatives used to boast about an economic miracle. They are a little more coy about referring to it now. The illusion of that economic miracle was always very simple. Over the Conservatives' period in office, they have increased the proportion of the economy going into consumption by 5 per cent., mainly at the expense of investment which, over the same period, has decreased by 3 per cent. The objective of any economic strategy for Britain to recover must be to reverse the trend that the Conservatives have encouraged of people consuming now rather than investing for the future. That must be the test of a Budget.
  Mr. Rod Richards: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who said last Wednesday that he was proud of the economic achievements of the last Labour Government?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman merely underlines my point. Manufacturing investment under the previous Labour Government was 10 per cent. higher in absolute terms and it was actually 50 per cent. higher than the proportion of GDP, and that in circumstances of great economic difficulty. If the Government had maintained the level of investment in manufacturing under the previous Labour Government, manufacturing capacity would now be 30 per cent. greater. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman can find as the best intervention to make in defence of the Government.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
  On that test, reinforced by the hon. Gentleman's intervention, the Government get nil points for their Budget. There is nothing in the Budget to help industry to invest. Industry did not receive capital allowances to support spending investment. Instead it received a £700 million bill for sick pay. That is how the Budget went about helping industry.

  159
  Not only do the Government offer no help to industry to invest; they do not even lead by example. How can they expect industry to take a long-term view and invest in the future when they see the Government taking the short-term view and cutting public investment in the short term? I know—the President of the Board of Trade reminded us —that the Chancellor announced some projects that will go ahead with private finance. We know them well—we have heard their go-ahead announced in every Budget over the past five years. The extension of the docklands light railway was first announced in 1989. I have no doubt that we will hear it announced again next year, when Tory Back-Bench Members will cheer. But the cheering on Tuesday masked the fact that, in the meantime, the investment programmes for which the Government are directly responsible were being cut.
  Spending on housing investment is down £500 million as a result of the Budget. As a public spending decision, it is spectacularly inept. We must consider its context. It is a cut in the context of a record number of construction workers who are unemployed. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, it just slipped out—a record number of construction workers who are job-seeking, and a record number of homeless families, no doubt shortly to be given a respray by the copywriters and be renamed "home seekers".
  On top of that, the Chancellor himself, in the very speech in which he goes ahead and cuts his construction contracts, tells us that construction prices have fallen by a quarter. In this context, one does not have to be a Keynesian to recognise that this is the time to boost recovery by putting people back into jobs building the homes that people need; one just needs to be mean. All that one needs to do is recognise that a housing programme at present would be at a bargain-basement price. Surely, whatever other failings the Government have, they are mean enough to see that that makes common sense when construction prices are cheap.
  It is not as though Government investment is running out of control. General Government investment has never been lower as a percentage of GDP. It is half the level it was when the Government came to office and it is a third of the level of the peak in the mid-1970s. For a decade and a half Britain has been saddled with a Government who have neglected the public assets of Britain. That is why tens of thousands of commuters had to get out of their tube trains last week and stumble along the tunnel, because of a fault in cabling that is so old that it should be in an industrial museum. That is why at the weekend we had the national humiliation of learning that modern and sophisticated French locomotives cannot run comfortably on British railways because the track has not been modernised for 70 years. Yet the Government cut the transport budget because they want to cut the deficit.
  The Chancellor and his colleagues are right to be preoccupied by the deficit. The Government have the best possible reason to be preoccupied by the deficit—the best possible reason being that they created the deficit. That is an impressive achievement: the biggest Government deficit in history. It is bigger than it was when the previous Labour Government had to call in the IMF and bigger even
  160
  than in 1941, when half the GDP was being channelled through the Government's war effort. That is the Government's achievement.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): As the hon. Gentleman is the first Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to mention the deficit during this Budget debate, I have tried to keep a running total of the spending claims that he has made in the past 10 minutes. How many billion pounds would he propose to add to the spending plans that I announced in the Budget?
  Mr. Cook: I should be interested to hear the Chancellor's estimate of my spending commitments because I am not aware that I have made a spending commitment in the past 20 minutes—(Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot evade the fact that he has cut the housing budget by pretending that it is opposed by a Labour commitment to increase spending. Why, when he could be getting those houses cheaper and putting people into houses, is he not prepared to put people back into work?
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. Let me finish responding to the Chancellor first, because the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary deserve some attention being paid to the deficit, now that they have commenced this exchange.
  The Government achieved the deficit. Indeed, we have it from the fascinating, interesting information of Mr. Bill Robinson, adviser to the Chancellor's predecessor, where the deficit came from. He sets out entertainingly in a pamphlet how the deficit mushroomed under the Government's policies: £22 billion from the extra costs of unemployment as a result of their economic strategy; £20 billion as a result of the tax cuts of 1988, which they now find that they cannot afford; and £4 billion as a result of the introduction of the poll tax, which has left us with a permanently lower level of income from taxation.
  The Government must explain how they have managed the nation's finances and policies so incompetently that they have given Britain a record deficit. Last week, they announced that they wanted to introduce an objective test of capacity to work. With such a record, they should be thankful that they are not subject to an objective test for capacity to work; otherwise, their Benches would be empty.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, however much some Conservative Members have criticised the Government for their economic policies on the exchange rate mechanism, we utterly condemn the manner in which he and all Opposition Members supported those policies and the move towards economic and monetary union? Should not he, too, accept some of the blame?
  Mr. Cook: The Opposition are sufficiently grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interventions over the past year to allow him that attempt to work his passage back to the Front Bench.
  Having given us the worst deficit on record in the past half a century, the Treasury's stroke of genius now is to propose the record reduction in demand in the past half a century: £8·5 billion taken out in tax; and £3·5 billion taken out in reduced spending. That is a total annual deflation of £12 billion, and more the year after.

  161
  The theory—or what passes for an economic theory on the part of the Government—is that the animal spirits of the business men will be so released when they are freed from the oppressive weight of public spending that they will bound forward eagerly and expand the output of spin dryers, video recorders and CD players to fill up the hole that the Chancellor has blown in the economy.
  However, one awkward fact does not fit that theory: who will buy all that extra output? It will not be those who work in the public sector, because they will receive no net increase in their purchasing power for three years. A fifth of the total work force who, for the rest of the Parliament, will not have an extra pound to add to demand in the economy, will not buy many spin dryers, video recorders or CD players. Nor will they be bought by people surviving on invalidity benefit. Having listened to Ministers in the past seven days, I have noticed a curious mental block in their speeches when they discuss invalidity benefit. For the past seven days, they have described cuts in invalidity benefit as cuts in Government spending. The end effect on the economy of the impact of a cut in invalidity benefit is not a cut in Government spending but a cut in the private spending of people who must subsist on invalidity benefit. They never did buy many CD players, but now they will be unable to replace the washing machine or renew the kettle if it has a dangerous flex.
  Taxpayers will not block up the hole in that purchasing power. I must warn Conservative Back Benchers that something has gone terribly wrong with their Government. Opposition Members are accustomed to seeing the people whom we represent being clobbered to give tax handouts to the very rich. What distinguishes this Budget from others is that the people whom Conservative Members represent have been clobbered just as much this time. For once, the married, mortgaged, motoring middle classes must face the biggest burden of this century's biggest tax bill. From next April they will need every penny they have to spare to pay the equivalent of 5p on the standard rate of income tax. Their problem is that there will not be enough pennies to go round. They will face a reduction in their net disposable income. Yet the Red Book predicts an increase in consumer expenditure of 2¼per cent.
  That is the economics of Paul Daniels. It beggars belief that a nation that has seen its income cut will respond by increasing its spending. After all, it need only look at the Government. The Government have just said that nothing is more important than eliminating the Government deficit and then they have the nerve to expect everybody else to expand their private deficit in order to keep the economy afloat. If they do not do that, where will British industry sell all that extra output?
  When the Chancellor was telling the Cabinet about the Budget arithmetic last Tuesday, did the President tell the Chancellor that if he went to any meeting of industrialists he would find that their main complaint about managing a company in Britain is that demand goes up and down far faster and farther than any manufacturing process can adjust to cope with it? Did he remind the Chancellor that the Confederation of British Industry industrial trends survey revealed that for three years uncertainty over demand has been the chief constraint on investment? Did he even ask the Chancellor whether engineering the biggest drop in demand for half a century was a smart move?
  Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that over the past year there have been
  162
  large reductions in interest rates and, consequently, large reductions in mortgage repayments? Will he accept that, therefore, a large section of the community have had large increases in their disposable income because the monthly outgoing on their mortgage has dropped dramatically?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give the hon. Gentleman three figures to take away and think about. The Red Book predicts that inflation next year will be about 3¼ per cent. It also predicts that the increase in earnings will be 4 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will see that there is less than 1 per cent. of disposable income left between income increases and inflation increases. If he looks at the Government's proposals for tax increases, he will see that from next April the people in middle-income groups who vote for him face an increased tax bill of 3 to 4 per cent. of their income. They face a serious drop in disposable income.
  The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has anticipated a point that I was coming to. I am hardly surprised that many commentators, peering down the hole that the Chancellor has just quarried in the economy, have concluded that there is another cut in interest rates coming. There had better be another cut in interest rates to boost demand. If the Chancellor cannot produce one, when the tax increases bite next April, there will be a serious danger of the economy tumbling down a black hole.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. It is apparent that he has taken no account of the point behind the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington that there have been substantial reductions in the costs of interest to ordinary home owners, which, of course, have an effect on the availability of their real disposable income. In industrial terms alone, interest rate cuts have reduced industrial costs by £12 billion in a year. Patently, none of that has had any effect on the mind of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cook: I am astonished that the President should refer to the benefits to the housing market in this week, which began only yesterday with a declaration in a new survey by building societies that the number of home owners stuck in the negative equity trap has increased by one fifth. If the President seriously imagines that those extra people caught in negative equity will rush out and increase their spending to make good the loss of demand, he is not living in the real world.
  I do not have the slightest doubt that, if we fail to obtain interest rate cuts and we find the economy tumbling down that black hole in April, we will hear the Chief Secretary congratulating the Government on having had the courage to take the painful decision to jump into that hole. The Government have shown courage and I remind my hon. Friends of the courage that they have shown.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has set out the first economic policy that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench. Plainly, he is in favour of increasing public spending. Plainly, he would make no increases in taxation. Plainly, he would agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that big reductions should be made in interest rates to boost demand.
  If the hon. Gentleman held my position, what would he say to the gentleman from the International Monetary Fund

  163
  when he turned up and berated the hon. Gentleman for following the type of economic policies which used to get Latin American banana republics into trouble?
  Mr. Cook: The Chancellor presides over a bigger Government deficit than there was when the IMF came in under Labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true"] It is true. The Government's financial deficit as a proportion of GDP is bigger than it was in 1975. Members of the Treasury team cannot distinguish between the Government's financial deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement. The financial deficit as a proportion of GDP is higher than it was in 1975. If hon. Gentlemen have not grasped that elementary distinction, they should go back to the Treasury and learn more of the job.
  I will now speak about the courage that the Government have shown.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I am not giving way again—I have given way repeatedly.
  The Government have shown courage to take the painful decision to take on the unemployed, who will be now given only half the time to seek a job before they lose benefit. That is at a time when in towns which are represented by Opposition Members there are 25, 30 or 40 people seeking a job for every vacancy.
  We all know of constituents who have applied over 100 times for a job. No Opposition Member would not have welcomed a Budget that gave those people hope of a job in place of benefit. None of us will not greet with anger a Budget that cuts their benefit without offering that job.
  The Government have shown courage to take on people who are on low wages. Some 180,000 will enter into taxation for the first time because the Government have failed to increase the tax threshold. By definition, people on the lowest incomes—incomes of £100 a week—will now be carried over the tax threshold because the Government would rather tax them than have the courage to impose higher taxes on the well-off.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Mr. Cook: The Government have also had the courage to take on the hospital porter and the school janitor.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) inclined to give way or not?
  Mr. Cook: I have given way a number of times, and I have made it clear that I am moving to the conclusion of my speech.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) must remain quiet.
  Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman is afraid of me.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I am afraid of him makes almost credible the statements which we have heard from the Chancellor during the debate.
  The Government have shown the courage to take on the hospital porter and the school janitor, whose pay will be frozen for three years. Of course, they tell us that the pay of some people in the public sector will go up. They say that not everyone will have their pay frozen, and that it is just the overall total which has been frozen.
  The problem is that we all know who will find a way round the freeze. People such as the chief executives of trust hospitals have seen their pay rise by 9 per cent. The problem with a pay freeze is that the powerful and the well paid will most likely get round it, while the powerless and the poor run up against it. That is the courage that the Chancellor showed on Tuesday.
  However, if one group of people last week showed more courage than the Chancellor, it was the Government Back Benchers who had the courage to cheer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman produced a fall in the disposable income next year, they cheered it. When he produced a public spending plan which would leave their local authorities with less to spend for every pupil at school, they cheered it. When he produced a tax bill which will take £10 a week from each of their constituents who are on an average income, they cheered it.
  When the right hon. and learned Gentleman graded the tax bill so that from next April anyone on a Member of Parliament's pay will lose over £70 a month, Conservative Members still cheered it. I warn them that their constituents will not cheer next April when the bills fail to be paid. They will want to know why their Member of Parliament cheered. Their constituents may remember that that was not what was promised at the general election, and they may not forget that at the next election. They may decide to borrow one of the stirring phrases used by the Chancellor, and say that "the time has come" to sort out the Conservative Government once and for all, and to do it by throwing out the Tory party which they can never trust again.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: The Budget must be regarded as one of the most difficult in recent years. The Chancellor was beset by suggestions and requests for more expenditure, lower taxes and to correct the deficit—none of which was reconcilable.
  However, the Budget produced by my right hon. and learned Friend has much to commend it to my constituents in Dover. Undoubtedly the most significant feature of the Budget was the relief for pensioners and others in relation to VAT on fuel. To help some 15 million people was beyond the wildest dreams of any hon. Member. No one went on radio or television, and no one suggested in the House that 15 million people would be helped by proposals which amount to £1,200 million. The most that anyone suggested was around £500 million to £700 million.
  That generosity caught out the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who suggested that 50p a week would do the business and would help pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, he did not."] Oh yes he did. Even Mr. Nelson's retraction, or half-retraction, in The People last Sunday admitted that the hon. Gentleman said that 50p a week would do the business. The hon. Gentleman was

  165
  caught by a question that suggested that the figure of 50p a week came from a leak. In fact, the whole basis of Mr. Nelson's article is incorrect.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman read the article?
  Mr. Shaw: I have read it, and it is quite clear that Mr. Nelson's article is based on an incorrect leak—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions.
  Mr. Shaw: The article was based on an incorrect leak which suggested that 50p a week was the Government's proposal, when 50p a week went only to one group. Other groups are receiving 70p a week, and even more in some cases. In total, the help amounts to over £1 for all groups eventually.
  Dr. Tony Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shaw: I am afraid that I am a bit short of time, and other hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Nelson tried to help the hon. Member for Garscadden, but sadly the hon. Gentleman is stuck with an article in The People which has him clearly listed as supporting 50p a week. The Government have taken that to task.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am glad that I have come in at this point. I will make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that at no time did I suggest that 50p was acceptable compensation for the VAT package. Mr. Nelson, while running past me a number of possibilities, suggested that 50p might be put on in the Budget. He has agreed with me that at no time did I suggest that that was adequate or acceptable.
  The hon. Gentleman may not want to believe me, and he may not want to believe the rather robust words of Mr. Nelson in the cutting that the hon. Gentleman has. I would suggest to him that that merely reflects on the hon. Gentleman's integrity if that is his position.
  Mr. Shaw: I respect the attempt of the hon. Gentleman, but nowhere do I find a suggestion that a range of alternatives was discussed or that the hon. Gentleman came up with a figure other than 50p. The hon. Gentleman stuck to 50p, and not even Mr. Nelson suggested last week that the hon. Gentleman talked of 70p or £1. Only the figure of 50p is admitted.
  Mr. Dewar: I will try to stay within parliamentary order. The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. The article makes clear that at no time did I suggest that 50p would be acceptable. We know that the Chancellor was told that by Mr. Nelson, and the hon. Gentleman has my word for it that no such suggestion was made. If the hon. Gentleman refuses to accept that, he is making some unpleasant assumptions about my honesty which I resent greatly.
  Mr. Shaw: The article by Mr. Nelson which sought to correct or amplify the previous week's article did not in any place suggest that the hon. Gentleman suggested that 70p a week should go on. Nowhere does the document
  166
  suggest that the hon. Gentleman advanced a figure higher than 50p a week. That confirms that the hon. Gentleman proposed a figure of 50p a week—
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shaw: No, I must move on because others want to speak. I have already given way twice to a Front-Bench spokesman, and Back Benchers cannot give way more than that. The fact is that the article clearly mentions only one figure: 50p a week.
  The Government have come through the recession and have restored economic growth. Our expenditure on welfare has come through intact as well. We have maintained social security expenditure—many would argue almost too generously, because it is alleged that some benefits go to those who are abusing the system. We have maintained health and education expenditure. Those are major achievements which are not mirrored in other countries.
  More importantly, to help the long-term unemployed we have introduced a job seeker's allowance to assist people back into work. We have produced proposals for child care to help lower-paid families get into work. We have also produced a number of small business measures which, I hope, will result in more job creation as economic growth returns.
  The Chancellor has also avoided a rate increase in income tax—again, a major achievement at a difficult time. The structure of the income tax system ensures that there is still a strong incentive to work under it.
  Capital gains tax has been tightened up in a number of ways, but I am saddened by the fact that this opportunity was not taken to look again at its rate with a view to reducing it. Many of us believe that the 40 per cent. rate acts as a disincentive to risk investment. I believe that when the economy has recovered to the extent it is likely to under this Government, future Budgets should reduce capital gains tax rates further. That will help more risk investment and risk taking in the economy.
  I am pleased that the Budget anticipates that public expenditure will fall from 45 per cent. of GDP to 42·5 per cent. in the years ahead. That is possible only because economic growth has returned to a considerable degree, and all the tough policies carried out by this Government in recent years are beginning to pay off. We are beginning to earn the dividend due to those who husband their resources carefully through difficult periods£and we have certainly gone through a difficult time, not just because of our recession but because of a serious and deep worldwide recession.
  Let us nail the myth of cuts in public expenditure. Our opponents love to make great play of alleged cuts; the reality is quite different. In cash terms, public expenditure is increasing, and even in real terms many Departments will enjoy an increase next year. That is a tribute to the way in which the Government have managed the economy, and it is not mirrored in other countries.
  An area of public expenditure that has been increasing in recent years is public sector pay. The public sector payroll now costs about £85 billion a year. This enormous amount has gone on increasing relentlessly because the terms and conditions of service of our public sector employees are among the best in the country. They have good pensions, good hours of work, and consequently public sector costs have been vast and rapidly increasing.

  167
  Average pay in the public sector, at £321 a week, is higher than average pay in the private sector, at £316 a week. This situation contradicts most people's impressions, and we cannot go on with it. We often read about company directors allegedly receiving large pay increases, but even taking them into account public sector pay is higher than private sector pay.
  We need restraint in the next few years, which is why it is only right to support the Government's policy of restraining the total public sector pay bill so that it exhibits no real growth.
  The social security uprating will mean that by the end of the century our social security expenditure will be close to, or at, £100 billion a year. That is an enormous bill: about one third of all public expenditure. This uprating has been one of the best ever for pensioners and others, but it could not be afforded if we did not tighten up on certain benefits and on fraud and abuse. It is only right that unemployment benefit should be replaced by a job seeker's allowance. It is only right, too, to make the new unemployment benefit more focused and more liable to encourage people back into work.
  It is also right that invalidity benefit—everyone accepts that it is misused by small or possibly larger numbers of people—should be replaced by a much more tightly focused benefit. I have been told about a man working on a building site in Spain who claims invalidity benefit in this country, for instance. Hence, the current system must be improved so that we can stop similar examples recurring in future.
  I commend the adoption of resource-based accounting for expenditure. All too often Members of Parliament complain that school buildings or health service buildings are not being properly maintained. That is because Governments of all political persuasions have failed to make proper provision in the accounts for depreciation and for the replacement of these assets. I am pleased that the Government have finally grasped the nettle and adopted a proper accounting system. As a chartered accountant, I find it all the more remarkable that it is a lawyer in the Treasury who has at long last adopted this system.
  I have been saddened not to hear any serious policies advanced by the Opposition during the Budget debate. Indeed, the Labour party seems short on ideas of a serious nature. We have heard plenty of ideas for new taxes, but none that would raise a sensible amount of money—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] To be sure, the Labour party has come out with lots of ideas in recent weeks, proposing numerous taxes in various documents—a transport tax, a green fuel tax, and so on. There was also a travel tax involving aircraft.
  I heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) interviewed on the "Today" programme the other day, when he came up with three ideas for raising more revenue. Even the BBC, without necessarily having the Treasury figures to hand, was able to put it to the hon. Gentleman that those three ideas would raise no more than £1 billion, and probably no more than a few hundred million pounds. Suddenly, the hon. Gentleman was lost for a sound bite.
  168
  The fact is that Labour has not come up with any proposals for dealing with a £50 billion deficit. We have, and the Red Book shows how to get rid of the deficit by the end of the decade.
  In conclusion, there is much in the Budget to commend it to my constituents. It will benefit not only my constituents in Dover and Deal, but the whole country and it will help us move successfully towards the new millennium.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) repeated the story about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). My hon. Friend has explained the matter several times during these debates, and his explanation has been believed by hon. Members. It is a reflection on the hon. Gentleman that he did not follow them, rather than anything else.
  The President of the Board of Trade spoke about new legislation to deal with late payments. We look forward to that with great interest, as this is a serious matter for many small and large businesses. However, when I think of late payments, I am reminded that the Public Accounts Committee took the Property Services Agency to task, not because the PSA was not paying promptly, but because it was not paying at all until it was paid itself, even if that meant a delay of 90 or 120 days, or even longer. That was outside Treasury rules for payment. I hope that the Treasury will ensure that Departments at least retain their respect for legislation when it is introduced, and that they will conform with Acts of Parliament.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement:
  "This Government will never take part in any attempt to dismantle the welfare state."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 927.]
  It all depends on what is meant by "the welfare state". Some provisions go back to the early years of this century.
  In the 1930s we had old-age pensions, the dole and children's tax allowances, but all were grossly inadequate. Some people wish to return to such levels of provision—I do not say that that is the Chancellor's view. Some people think of the welfare state as the 1930s provision, plus a watered-down version of the national health service.
  Beveridge realised that the basis of the welfare state was essentially low levels of unemployment. That is the foundation of a welfare state. Achieve that and we have a civilised nation. That was the kernel of his idea. Therefore, the major problem of our time is not the Budget deficit—that is just a symptom—but the idle 4 million people who are ready and willing to work. I am speaking not of the 2·8 million who qualify for benefit, but of the 4 million who are ready and willing to work.
  What work is available? There is work if we convince lenders that investment is worth while. When I talk about investment, I am thinking of investment that produces a return within a measurable period. We have a number of opportunities. Many businesses have serious cash flow difficulties but nevertheless can convince a bank manager or other lender that they present a sensible investment opportunity. We can borrow, if we consider such investments—for example, roads. Some roads are crumbling because they are not being repaired in time. When a road is allowed to crumble, it eventually reaches such a state that it must be remade. That costs many times

  169
  the cost of repairing it. The Government do not understand that our roads are reaching that state, so they fail to get investment to repair them.
  If our roads were surveyed and the investment sought, it could produce a saving against which we could borrow sensibly. A number of our hospitals are decaying. Roofs have fallen in, and from time to time other dilapidation occurs. Everybody knows about the condition of London Underground. All these provide possibilities for initiating work. Construction firms have workers available and the ability to undertake that sort of effort. A worthwhile return can be achieved.
  Industrial incentives are most important. Last year, the former Chancellor rightly introduced 40 per cent. investment allowances, for one year only. I praised that at the time. I hoped that the figure would be raised to 60 per cent. this year. Even 70 per cent. or 100 per cent. would not be out of the question. They merely defer the sum that the Chancellor will get in subsequent payments. Meanwhile, plant and machinery are put in place which enable production—the essential basis for an economy which has insufficient opportunities to produce the goods to reduce our balance of payments in the long term.
  Even if it means making a gift in order to get that investment, let it be reinvested in plant and machinery. I called for that then, and I call for it now. Unfortunately, far from moving in that direction, the Government are doing the opposite and moving from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent. investment allowances. That is no incentive. Please let us never use the term "investment allowance" to mean investment incentive. There is no investment incentive at the rate of 25 per cent., because plant and machinery are not worth 75 per cent. at the end of the year. They are worth rather less, so that rate is an investment disincentive.
  Several problems and opportunities face the Chancellor. The Government have been calling on the private sector to redress the balance of the public sector. Sometimes that has not worked out too well—for example, in the West Midlands health authority, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales.
  The private sector was brought in because of its understanding of certain techniques. I welcomed that. It is right to bring in such people, but most important of all is to give them the understanding that they are dealing with public money and are responsible for its expenditure. To employ model girls on a Sunday afternoon to investigate whether they will be suitable, as the WDA did, is no way to bring private sector expertise into public life.
  The Chancellor talked about joint ventures with public capital and private capital working happily together. He mentioned the docklands light railway. It has been mentioned in almost every one of the last half-dozen Budgets. It seems to be a constant theme. Bring in the private sector to redress the balance of the public sector. Bring in an air traffic control centre for Scotland. Bring in the west coast main line. Bring in six new prisons.
  This is just dreaming and hoping for something in future. Now we hear of electronic motorway charging to be introduced some time next century. That is not part of a Budget, even an expanded Budget that includes income and expenditure. We should remove these layers of dreams and deal with the practical realities facing us at all times. There has been a bit of a mockery of some spending proposals—dreamed up, I suggest, by some advertising agency.
  170
  All that fits in with the nonsense about the attempt to examine the Budget deficit to the end of this century. The Budget deficit at the end of the century will interest many of my constituents, but I have little confidence in the Budget judgments for the year ahead, let alone in talk about Budget judgments to 1998–99. I prefer a more realistic approach to what is happening here and now to the unemployed and to our production capacity, which is further decreasing because of our failure to invest properly and to bring about the necessary investment incentives.
  We have a public sector pay freeze. There is not to be a private sector pay freeze. The House must understand that. The public sector pay freeze will take place at the same time as the private sector increases pay year by year. Therefore, we shall see one of two things, or perhaps a mixture of both. Unemployment in the public sector and cuts in services will lead not only to especial dangers of unemployment in the public sector, to a fall in standards of provision of services in the way we are used to and cuts in those services, but to further demoralisation in the public sector.
  The public service used to describe just what it was: service to the public. When I was a little younger, some people were idealistic enough to devote their lives to serving the public and felt that they were doing something valuable. They were not out to make fortunes for themselves but looked on the public good as one of the main aims of their lives. That led to real advantages for us all, because of the consequent standards of public service, which in turn created advantages to the whole community.
  Plenty of overseas visitors ask how we are able to achieve high standards of public service apparently without fraud and corruption, which are their major problems. I tell them that that was achieved over 140 years, and that it is crucial that we do not accept any changes that may lead to a reduction in our standards in public service.
  Those who seek efficiency in the public service, as I do, must remember that the greatest cause of inefficiency is fraud and corruption. The morale of our public service employees is the cause of that efficiency and we must not underestimate that. We must have a high respect for the public service, as it is important.
  There are 180 countries in the world community, and 150 years ago we had our position roughly right—that standards in the public service were to be maintained, to which I owe my position. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a member of the Opposition. That could never have been done today. Nobody devising the constitution would dream of appointing a member of the Opposition as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee with a right to investigate the Government. Those standards have been maintained for 150 years, and I hope that they will be maintained for many centuries to come.
  It is important that we understand that such standards can be rapidly eroded. There are already signs of erosion, such as the Welsh Development Agency, the Wessex health authority in two days' time, and a number of other areas in which people have not taken the trouble to work out what is expected from the public services. There are 1,500 quangos of one kind or another to which people are appointed and not assessed for what they are.
  The Opposition have no say in who is appointed—a practice that I deeply deplore. Somebody should consider some of those appointments, drawing attention to the rights of the public to ensure that public service is understood and

  171
  recognised. One does not behave with public service money in the same way as one would deal with money in a private company. There are different standards that are vital to efficiency as well as morality on which the public service depends.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) began the idea of taxation in advance. The whole point of it is that it is limiting. Spending must be determined a long time in advance and devised, because plans must be made, contracts have to be put out and so on. The only way to control the economy is through taxation, because some parts can take effect as soon as the Chancellor sits down after his Budget speech. If one begins to pre-empt decisions on taxation, it limits the rights of the Chancellor.
  The Government used to boast in the 1980s about eliminating taxes and about reducing taxation. Now we are to have two new taxes at once—air passenger tax and insurance premium tax, and nobody doubts that those will be raised in due course. There was an opportunity to take into account what the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson, used to talk about—truth in taxation. He used to bore us stiff night after night, but he was really talking about the personal allowances that must always be increased in line with inflation. He was so convinced of that, that when the Rooker-Wise amendment was moved, he supported it, and it was enshrined in legislation. We accepted it, because at least it in assured the establishment of a sensible way in which to proceed. Nobody doubts that.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman opposed it at the time.
  Mr. Sheldon: I opposed it at the time for obvious Treasury reasons, as everyone knows. Nevertheless, it was a sensible way in which to proceed, and it was proven to be so, because it was continued.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out in his usual brilliant speech, the cheers came from the Tory Benches when the Rooker-Wise amendment was denied. Cheers at the Budget would never have happened previously. The lain Macleod dictum was that cheers for the Budget led to misery by the summer, but many others made that point long before him, as I did. I am happy to see it called the Macleod dictum because it gives it a greater respectability. He would have been a great Chancellor. He was a man for whom I had enormous respect, and I was honoured to be one of the three Opposition Members able to put my name on the plate that was presented to his widow.
  We are dependent on a sufficient number of people in the House who understand taxation policies and who are able to convince the Chancellor of them. It was the Chancellor's first Budget, from which I hope that he will learn and perhaps remedy some of its aspects that are wrong.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. John Townend: I was one of those hon. Members who cheered the Budget, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, and I shall explain why.
  172
  I think that the Budget will go down as the most important of this Parliament. I have spoken in every Budget debate since I was elected to the House, and the problems that the Chancellor faced in making this year's Budget judgment were the most difficult. On the one hand, it was imperative to take further action to deal with the debt, which was rising by about £1 billion a month and which, even after the former Chancellor's tax package, was to be £30 billion a year by 1997–98. That would have increased the total borrowing in that six-year period by no less than £233 billion. Even at the current low interest rates, that would cost about £16 billion a year in additional debt charges.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman welcomes the Budget, as he has said in the past week, but will he cast his mind back to the previous Parliament and remind the House whether he cheered the 1988 Budget?
  Mr. Townend: I certainly cheered during the 1981 Budget, and as I develop my argument I shall explain that the Budget is more comparable to that of 1981 than that of 1988.
  The other task that was facing the Chancellor was to be careful not to tighten the fiscal stance to such an extent as to weaken the recovery, which in many parts of the country and in many industries is still fragile.
  Apart from the effect of the recovery, there are only two ways to reduce a deficit—to cut spending or put up taxes. In the previous Budget, the Government introduced a package of tax increases and in that debate I criticised them for not cutting expenditure. As a result of that Budget, public spending will rise this year by 5·34 per cent. while inflation, excluding mortgage interest, is 3 per cent.
  In the previous Budget debate, on March 17, I suggested that the debt be dealt with by a balanced package of tax increases and spending cuts. As the summer progressed, reports from Downing street made it look as though the Government did not have the stomach to cut spending. All the indicators given then were that the best that we could expect was for the Government to stick to the control totals. I was therefore naturally delighted when my right hon. and learned Friend announced his plans progressively to eliminate the deficit by the end of the decade, and to balance that by a package.
  Under the Budget, there will be expenditure cuts over the next three years of £10·3 billion, and tax increases of £12·7 billion. If we add those sums to the package proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), we see that the tax increases are at least double the spending cuts. The taxpayer is still shouldering the major burden of reducing the deficit, although the Government have at least now made a start in cutting expenditure.
  Clearly the Government have listened to the Confederation of British Industry, to the Institute of Directors, to private industry and to Conservative Members; we have a balanced package.
  I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said last Wednesday that we were the party of low taxes. The Government's overriding priority should now be progressively to reverse the tax increases as and when we can. That would kill the accusations peddled

  173
  rather unconvincingly by the Labour party that Labour is now the party of low taxation and that we are now the party of high taxes.
  To achieve that aim, the attack on public spending, which has now started relatively modestly, must be intensified. The Government should first concentrate on eliminating waste and inefficiency, and on cutting costs. There is enormous scope for that throughout the public sector, especially in local government. I strongly welcome the freezing at current cash levels of running costs, which now amount to no less than £20 billion a year, until 1996–97.
  The public sector has not benefited from the productivity explosion in manufacturing and financial services. The manpower savings from the information technology revolution have never been achieved as fully in the public sector as elsewhere. Manpower levels always seem to be more bloated in the public sector than they are in the private sector.
  If one needs an illustration of that, one need only look at the industries that we have privatised. British Telecom now has 37,000 fewer people, it is producing a more efficient service, and it has become one of the leading telecommunications companies in the world. Only last year, the British Airports Authority, another leading international player which has been asked to operate airports overseas, cut its work force by 19·5 per cent. Our energy industry is making equal advances. Last year, PowerGen cut its work force by almost 20 per cent. Compared with that, the Government's squeeze on running costs is modest.
  I suggest that, over the next few years, the Government should progressively increase the squeeze on overheads. Surely we do not need as many civil servants as soldiers. Just as private industry has successfully taken out whole layers of management, so should the public civil service. During the recession, every company, whether large, medium or small, has had to cut its overheads to survive. That has been painful but necessary, and I believe that the public sector must now accept the same pain. The Government should set manpower targets for reductions in every area.
  I often think that the whole culture of Government is against reducing expenditure. What civil servant would ever come forward with suggestions to reduce the size of his empire, the size of his budget or his manpower? Indeed, what Minister would ever come forward with such suggestions?
  One point that has always intrigued me as a mere Back Bencher concerns the many people elected to Parliament who come from local government and who are committed to reducing expenditure. When they are promoted to the Treasury, they do an absolutely first-class job as junior Ministers, and are convinced of the need to control spending. They are then promoted to large-spending Departments as Secretaries of State and we all say, "Jolly good. Harry will really squeeze spending." Within three months, those same people are back at the Treasury asking for more money.
  Market testing, if pursued with vigour, will undoubtedly save many millions of pounds, provided that we can overcome the resistance. There is enormous scope for savings in local government, as we all know. I strongly welcome the Government applying pressure by increasing the grant this year by only 1·5 per cent.
  174
  However, no Department—even Departments that are politically sensitive—is exempt from the need to be efficient and to avoid waste. There is scope for increasing efficiency in the Department of Health just as there is in the Ministry of Defence, and in the Home Office just as there is in the Department for Education.
  What is important is that, when we identify savings and then achieve those savings, the bulk of money saved should not stay within the Department to increase the service and thus push up expenditure again. It should go back to the Treasury, to help to reduce the deficit and enable us to return more quickly to our policy of reducing taxes.
  I strongly support the social security reforms and the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to reduce fraud, waste and abuse, and to bring the Department's ever—expanding budget under control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, it will be impossible to finance such growth year after year.
  There are a couple of other areas at which the Government have not looked, but at which they should look next year. One is overseas aid. In view of the problems with our deficit, I am surprised that we are again increasing our spending on overseas aid.
  There is nothing wrong with overseas aid in principle, but I believe that, when we have a large budget deficit and a large balance of payments problem, it is strange economics to borrow from the foreigner—whom we have to repay with interest—and then to give money to the foreigner. We spend £2·3 billion a year, and I believe that we could save about £500 million of that until the budget is balanced.
  For historical reasons, we spend far more per head on health, on education and on law and order in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland. I accept that there is a good argument for spending more on law and order in Northern Ireland, but I believe that it is an anachronism that we spend 30 per cent. more per person on health in Scotland than is the case in England. That is not only anachronistic, but illogical and unfair. We should progressively bring spending down to the level of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I have one small point in support of the Government's policy of deregulation. A cut of 10 per cent. in the total number of inspectors would show that we were at last beginning to accept that, if we are to survive in the European Union, we must develop a European attitude to implementing regulations.
  Having listened to several days of debate on the Budget, I am amazed by the Labour party's policy. Labour Members attacked us for increasing taxes and for reducing spending. If we do not reduce spending, and if we do not put up taxes, the budget deficit will inexorably rise year after year to such a level that our whole economy will be in a state of collapse.
  Is that what the Labour party wants? I know that Labour's answer is that it would not start from here, but we are here, and Labour's arguments will not wash with the general public. Labour is suggesting the economics of the illiterate.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his package to help people, especially old-age pensioners, with the VAT on domestic fuel. I find it incredible that Opposition Members can criticise the package for its size. At £1·25 billion, the Chancellor is repaying 44 per cent. of

  175
  what he expects the total income to be. Indeed, it could be argued that, if we are giving back such a high proportion, we should never have introduced the tax in the first place, but should have raised the money in another way.
  My right hon. and learned Friend cannot be criticised for not being generous. I am especially pleased that the help will not be restricted to pensioners on income support. I represent a constituency with a higher than average number of old people, who will very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals.
  Every Conservative Chancellor, if he wishes to get the cheers of his hon. Friends, should include a package to help industry and business. The Chancellor has not failed us this year. I am delighted that we have a wide package that encourages the flow of capital into small firms, reduces the burden of corporation tax on small firms, gives capital gains tax relief to retiring entrepreneurs, gives help with the uniform business rate, and gives help to exporters.
  I am glad that, at long last, the Government will look at the problem that has increasingly hit many small firms over recent years—the late payment of debt. I will be interested to hear his proposals. I hope that they will include some form of statutory interest. Like my colleague and fellow accountant, the hon. Member for Dover, I strongly support the move to resource accounting.
  If I may, I wish to give the Chancellor a little advice for the future. As the House knows, for many years I have been chairman of my family's company in the drinks industry. I am pleased that the Chancellor has accepted the problems facing the industry as a result of the enormous rise in cross-channel imports of alcoholic liquors since the implementation of the single market. Those liquors are purchased on the continent, where duty levels are much lower than in this country, particularly on wine. The duty on wine in France is practically non-existent.
  I welcome the Chancellor's decision not to increase the duty on spirits and beer. Having accepted that argument, it seems illogical to increase the duty on wine, however small the increase, because that will increase the differential. That cross-channel trade, both legal and, regrettably, increasingly illegal, is building up rapidly. There have been many incidents in my own town of people selling alcohol from vans outside factories. If nothing is done, thousands of jobs will be lost in retailing, wholesaling and distribution, and many businesses will close.
  We are in the European Union, and it is the Government's duty to ensure that British commerce and industry have a level playing field. In this case, we clearly do not have one. The problem will not go away; the Government must look seriously at the problem over the next year, and come up with a long-term policy to deal with it.
  To solve the problem will cost a lot of money. It is already a problem because of the very low rate of duties in France. If we take into account the loss of duty and the loss of corporation tax on the loss of profits—next year, we will also have to take into account the cost of the increase in unemployment—the present cost to the Treasury is estimated at £500 million. That figure will increase in the next year when we take into account the cost of the increase in unemployment.
  The solution will be expensive. We will have to move towards harmonisation of duties over the long term. The
  176
  money will have to be found elsewhere, perhaps by an increase in the general rate of value-added tax or a tax on cross-channel ferries similar to the new airport tax. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover will not support me on the latter suggestion. I was disappointed with the ending of indexation for losses on capital gains. I do not understand the rationale for ending indexation on losses while keeping indexation for profits. Indexation is fair, but it certainly complicates the filling in of tax returns. In a future Budget, the Chancellor might look at a way of simplifying capital gains tax—if he cannot find the money to abolish it—by doing away with all indexation, but reducing the rate to 15 or 20 per cent.
  I would chide my right hon. and learned Friend on one small point. He quite strongly made the point that the recovery started in 1992, before we were blown out of the exchange rate mechanism. I see the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) nodding his head. Those of us in the big wide world outside in business realised in the summer of 1992—whatever the situation at the beginning of 1992—that the excessively high interest rates and the uncompetitive pound were beginning to crucify British industry. If we had not come out of the ERM, I am sure not only that our fragile recovery would have ground to a halt but that we would have faced a serious slump.
  If proof is needed, we have only to look at what has happened in Europe, where the recession has got deeper—especially in France, which maintained relatively high interest rates in order to keep the franc in line with the deutschmark. I hope that the Chancellor is not trying to re-write history as a prelude to taking us back into the ERM.
  It is a tough and brave Budget, which has been welcomed by industry, small business and the market as the level of long-term interest rates has declined. The Chancellor has identified the most urgent problem—the deficit—and has set out a programme which will see us through to clear water if we stick to it. I congratulate and compliment him on his revenue raising. It is innovative, elegant and, at times, hardly able to be seen—particularly the airport tax, which is an absolute winner. I am amazed that it will raise so much money with so little pain.
  The Chancellor has given help to pensioners and single mothers. He has started to cut spending, and he has helped business. In future years, the Budget will be compared to the 1981 Budget brought in by the noble Lord Howe. That was also a tough Budget. It was highly criticised by the Opposition at the time, but it laid the foundation for our 1983 election victory. This Budget will have the same impact.
  Once the deficit is down, we can return to cutting taxes and fulfilling our election pledges and our Conservative philosophy. I congratulate the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary on their efforts and courage. I am sure that I speak for all my Back-Bench colleagues when I say that we will give 100 per cent. support to get the Budget and Finance Bill through the House. It will signal the start of our party's recovery.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has taken the gloss of the Chancellor's boast. He has told us that he is an enthusiast of the Budget because of its high taxes and its boost to

  177
  unemployment. That is not what the Chancellor hoped would be the overall comment on the Budget, but it may be the consequence of it.
  It was interesting that the Chancellor was praised for the introduction of new taxes. I have sat through Budget speeches during the past few years and heard his predecessors announcing with pride that they have abolished another tax. The Chancellor has not only stopped abolishing taxes but has introduced two at a time, which suggests a sharp U-turn in the Government's policy and approach to taxes.
  I do not often quote my own speeches, but in the Budget debate on 16 March I said:
  "The Budget is a tax-raising Budget designed to tax, tax and tax again—it will tax this year, tax next year and tax even more the year after."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 204.]
  That referred to the previous Budget, not this one, but it seems to me that the Chancellor has adopted the trend with enthusiasm. He says that he has not a clue whether he will follow it through in subsequent Budgets.
  With the two Budgets together, the Chancellor has completed the biggest tax increase in a single year in British history, and has introduced a raft of new taxes. That is astonishing for a Government re-elected on a pledge to cut taxes. I understand that the total package is the equivalent of 9p on the standard rate of income tax in a single year.
  The Chancellor has also sought to re-establish a classic Conservative economic policy that has led to disasters in the past. The intellectual base of that policy is highly suspect. We may have the beginning of a recovery—I hope we do and that it is sustainable—but I make no apology for being a Keynesian. I am not convinced that it makes good sense to cut spending and increase taxes when economic activity is depressed. I am sure that the Chancellor will acknowledge that the signs of recovery that we have do not suggest that we are out of the woods.
  Mr. John Townend: If the hon. Gentleman's party would not increase taxes and would not cut spending, it would not reduce the deficit. What would it do when the markets decided that £50 billion a year was too much to absorb? It would have to put up interest rates, and if it did that, it would reduce economic activity.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is premature. I will deal with that matter during my speech.
  The Chancellor specifically excused the tax increases in the Budget on the ground that lower interest rates increase consumer purchasing power. That may be true for some, although the tax changes will reduce that power. I suggest, however, that many will not spend the money released but will save it because they are so worried about negative equity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not address that problem.
  The Government and their Back Benchers also always ignore the fact that a cut in interest rates leads to a substantial cut in income for many millions of people, especially retired people who rely on the yield from their savings to live. The Chancellor acknowledged that with the introduction of the pensioners bond, but we know that it is limited to a sum of £5,000 and we are not yet aware of the interest rate to be set. It represents a modest contribution towards cushioning those people from the effects of lower and potentially even lower interest rates. I agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that the
  178
  Chancellor has gambled on the fact that he will be able to lower interest rates further as a condition for enabling the Budget not to be so deflationary as to knock recovery on the head.
  The Chancellor has not addressed the problem of investment or our trade deficit. With much of our industry working at capacity but without clear confidence, the economy is fragile and a time lag is operating against whatever consumer spending comes back into the economy to feed United Kingdom production. We know from the past that reduced capacity sucks in imports, which aggravates our trade deficit.
  I believe that there is a strong case for cutting taxes in a recession and directing investment into infrastructure projects, which would directly stimulate the economy, lower unemployment, and consequent social security spending, and improve competitiveness rather than reduce our balance of trade. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bridlington did not acknowledge the costs of unemployment and its contribution to the public deficit.
  The trouble is that the Government have restricted their options. We are still paying for the cost of sorting out the poll tax and for Nigel Lawson's unjustified tax cuts. I would be interested to know how many hon. Members have met people who spontaneously tell them that the country is suffering as a direct result of Nigel Lawson. That is said to me every day, mostly by people who voted for the Government. They appreciate that those tax cuts were unjustified and that now we are all having to pay for them.
  The Budget is designed to sort out the mess of the Government's own creation and it does nothing to meet the long-term needs of the British economy. I welcome the measures for small businesses, such as they are. I also hope that the Chancellor will address the problems caused by late payment. I am sorry that the Government have rejected out of hand the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to provide his slot for a private Member's Bill to introduce one to deal with that problem. Such a Bill must, ultimately, be introduced.
  Given that retail sales are weak—in November they increased by 0·1 per cent.—once consumers confront the full impact of the tax increases, it is likely that current spending expectations will be halted or even reversed. To what extent has the Chancellor taken that into account?
  The increase of 1 per cent. in national insurance contributions will take money from people at source as will the freezing of personal allowances and the reduction in mortgage relief. When people come to spend their money, however, the imposition of VAT on fuel will cut their spending power as will tax on petrol and insurance. All those measures are likely to dampen consumer activity and could lead to the recovery being snuffed out before it has got going.
  I want to set the record straight on the green taxes of the Liberal Democrats. We have advocated a shift from taxes on wealth creation to taxes on pollution. The essential importance of that shift is that the revenue from taxes on pollution would be simultaneously reinvested in tackling poverty, hardship and investing in anti-pollution and recycling technology. Any surplus would be given back in tax reductions. We have suggested that we could reduce the overall rate of VAT by 1 per cent.
  Were a carbon tax to be introduced, it should coincide with compensation for rural areas. The revenue gained should also be spent on measures designed to tackle fuel poverty, promote fuel efficiency and on developments to

  179
  reduce carbon dioxide ouputs. No such package has been offered by the Government. On the contrary, as a result of their VAT proposals, they have been forced to give back half of the yield to head off a political revolt. That money has been given back because of the political protest that followed the Budget in March. I suggest to the Chancellor that a penny on income tax would have been much more efficient in yield terms.
  Where are the Government's green initiatives, which they have tried to use as a justification for the imposition of VAT on fuel? Is the betrayal of Warren Spring Laboratory a green initiative? Is going ahead with THORP a green initiative? Is failing to invest anything like enough in public transport a green initiative? The Government cannot try to justify simply creaming off taxes for revenue purposes without a cultural shift. They have not achieved that and what they have done is neither politically justified nor honest.
  I represent a constituency in the north-east of Scotland and the extra tax on petrol represents an unavoidable cost for many people. Higher fuel bills will be avoidable only at the risk of ill health or hypothermia. If we were provided with assistance to increase fuel efficiency—I am not talking about the small details that the President of the Board of Trade has announced—and to improve public transport links at lower cost, the tax increases might be acceptable. Those increases are, however, already far greater than the total package of taxes that we proposed should be introduced over five years. The Government have ignored the balanced approach. They have offered no package of environmental measures and, therefore, we will not support that extra tax burden.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: Another part of Scotland that will suffer greatly is the highlands and islands, which is equivalent to the size of Belgium and is one of the most sparsely populated areas of Europe. The local people will now face huge increased costs as a result of the tax on petrol and the imposition of VAT. The Chancellor said that the take-off tax at airports would benefit the islands, but I believe that it will only benefit planes with fewer than 20 passengers. Out of 1 million passengers, only 20,000 will benefit.
  Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend has made a potent intervention on behalf of her community and others in the highlands and islands. What my hon. Friend has said is a reason not for not introducing certain measures, but for ensuring that proper account is taken of the needs of such communities. The Chancellor said that the airport tax would not cover inter-island services, but it will affect the much more vital link between the islands and the mainland. That tax will represent an extra cost for living on an island, which is expensive enough as it is. It demonstrates the Government's inability to adopt a balanced approach and to show some sensitivity and understanding for people in the highlands and islands.
  In March, I vigorously opposed the abolition of allowances for exploration wells, which was introduced by the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). I was part of a delegation that the Financial Secretary received which
  180
  argued against that and which suggested what the consequences might be, particularly because the transitional relief was inadequate.
  This time last year, the oil price was nearly $20 a barrel; recently it dropped below $14. That has put intense pressure on North sea production. The Government's timing could not have been worse, because, as we face the pressure that their decision has caused, the exploration side of the industry has taken a beating. I told the Financial Secretary that job losses would be widespread. In my own constituency Vetco-Gray has announced the redundancies, before the year end, of more than 100 long-serving engineers as a direct result of the downturn in exploration activity. The downturn in exploration threatens future investment and the overall production potential of the North sea. In the first three quarters of 1992, 63 exploration wells were started. In the first three quarters of this year, that number was down to 30. That is a direct consequence of the Government's policy. It is an extremely damaging development, which we warned that the Government would follow—
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House on what has been happening on ENA wells this year. Will he confirm that, although the figures that he has quoted for the total number of wells this year are broadly right, the pattern has been of a figure of roughly 10 per cent. in the first quarter, that it fell away sharply during the summer and that the most recent figures for September and October show that that level of activity has increased sharply?
  Mr. Bruce: I have no problem. I want to see activity in the North sea. But the reality is that at the moment the year-on-year total shows a sharp reduction. It is too early to say what the net effect is. One must never take one or two months as an indication of a long-term trend. I can tell the Financial Secretary what I am told by people in the industry: there is a real anxiety that the combined effect of the tax changes and the fall in the oil price has serious implications for the North sea.
  On behalf of my area and the city of Aberdeen, I have to say that there is some masking of that effect by an ironic twist of restructuring. Many of the oil companies faced with a squeeze on their costs are reducing their total number of employees but increasing the number of people located in Aberdeen, because it is cheaper for them to do so. I welcome that as a development, but am not led into a false sense of security that that does not conceal the underlying anxiety and weakening of confidence in North sea investment.
  Mr. Salmond: I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman has just said and draw attention to the fact that the only petroleum revenue tax concession announced in the Budget is a concession specifically designed for one pipeline system—the CATS system—which takes gas from the central North sea and deposits it in Tayside. Many of the other pipeline infrastructures such as the Forties system will not be entitled to the new taxation relief. Does not that quite remarkably illustrate that, in virtually everything that the Financial Secretary has done, he has shown a determination to be as anti-Scottish as possible?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has made his own point. My point of concern is that the Government have not

  181
  helped by creating a more unfriendly tax regime towards the industry at a time when the industry needs some recognition of the difficulties that it has to face. Many of us are worried at the implications of that. I know that there is a compensating benefit from exchange rates, but the net yield of oil production from the North sea is more than $4 billion a year down on the current year compared with last year.
  I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that the Budget lacks any indication of a long-term strategy that will achieve what Britain needs: an ability to pay our way in the world. I wholly accept and agree with the need to secure a GATT agreement. Because of the net effect of increased trade, the GATT agreement is absolutely vital for all sectors of the world. Although it has many complications, and not every side of it is wholly beneficial, I hope that I can at least reinforce the all-party agreement that we are wholly supporting the Government and Sir Leon Brittan in his efforts to ensure that we get an agreement in time.
  I believe that the Government have not addressed our long-term needs. Only if the country can pay its way in the world can we pay for what I describe as social justice in the broadest sense to ensure that all our citizens can participate in the benefits of being a successful economy. In my view, it is intolerable that the Government should widen social divisions by using their failure and the failure of their economic policy as an excuse to cut essential benefits.
  If the economy performs well but offers fewer well-paid jobs, we must find other ways of distributing wealth. The Government show no strategy for achieving that necessary economy performance. They simply believe in eliminating budget deficits by cutting benefits and hoping that reduced Government activity will automatically be replaced by private activity. That has not worked in the past and there is no evidence to suggest that it will in the future.
  Far from laying the foundations for success, there is a real danger that we are launched on a spiral of diminishing returns, punctuated, I regret to say, only by periodic tax cuts and spending sprees that we cannot afford, to kid people into re-electing a Tory Government. Britain needs vision, not blind ideology. I am afraid that we have blindness from the Government, and the Liberal Democrat party is determined to ensure that more imaginative policies are put before the electorate at the next election than either of the two other parties have yet come forward with.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: It is traditinal for Government Back-Benchers to shout "hooray" and for the Opposition to shout "yah-boo" when the Chancellor sits down having made his Budget speech. My right hon. and learned Friend received the traditional reception when he sat down last Tuesday.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) who is to my left—I use the sense geographically—is correct to say that I bow to no one in my support for tradition, and whether supported with "hoorahs" and "hoorays", or with words, I wish to add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
  I do not wish to commend only his performance last Tuesday, but those of our Front Bench colleagues who have led for the Government during the course of the
  182
  Budget debate. The way that they have addressed the economic issues contrasts markedly with that which we have seen presented by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. My right hon. and hon. Friends have tackled the matters before us with clarity and intellectual rigour. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in his winding-up speech last night, most aptly described the Opposition's sorry performances.
  I shall refer to a few parts of the Chancellor's Budget speech to demonstrate why I can support the Budget wholeheartedly and why my constituents in Harborough—and, I dare say, others in Leicestershire—find this Budget of assistance to them. I refer now to the section dealing with business taxation.
  First, I welcome the new benefits to be provided for export credit. It is to be noted that my right hon. and learned Friend is making an extra £200 million-worth of export credit cover available for 1996–97 and to cut export credit premiums for certain important developing markets. That is very welcome. Perhaps more important for my constituency are the measures that are being introduced to smooth the way for small businesses and their development. You, Madam Speaker, will have noticed that, at column 934 of Hansard for 30 November 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend sets out those measures designed to assist small businesses.
  One of the major complaints that I have received from business men and business women in my constituency is about the excessive regulation of their businesses. I am delighted to see that my right hon. and learned Friend is increasing the battle to deregulate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will encourage his Ministers, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who is his Under-Secretary, to get on and do that job as quickly as possible and introduce regulations for destruction, because over-regulation has been crushing the growth of small businesses, particularly those in my constituency.
  I am also pleased to see the introduction of simplified assessment proposals for personal tax. I am sure that that will be of great assistance to the small business men and business women in my constituency. I welcome the VAT threshold increase. It was raised to —45,000 with effect from last Wednesday and that will allow, we are told, up to 75,000 more traders to opt out of VAT altogether. I know that a fair proportion of those will be in my constituency.
  Another measure that I welcome is the relaxation of the statutory audit rules for my business constituents. It is proposed that there will be a relaxation for the smallest companies to present audited accounts. That, too, will greatly assist those in commerce and industry in my constituency.
  There are proposals, too, in connection with capital gains tax—a subject to which I shall return. In so far as we have a capital gains tax regime, what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has done in his proposals at column 935 is to be welcomed. Again, in so far as we have a capital gains tax regime, I welcome the proposals for the venture capital trust and for the enterprise investment scheme.
  Finally, I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about late payment at columns 933 to 936. Perhaps I am a late convert to the need for the statutory introduction of interest on late payments. I have always been a supporter of encouragement rather than statutory

  183
  regulation in these matters. I should therefore have hoped that the business community would use moral pressure and publicity to make it unacceptable for big purchasers from small suppliers to be late in paying their bills. I trust that the announcement that legislative measures are to be introduced will of itself encourage big businesses to pay their debts to small businesses that much more quickly.
  I hope, too, that we shall see a move away from another habit that seems to be developing whereby large businesses call for an order of particular goods—textiles, say—but invite, even require, the manufacturer to warehouse them, drawing on the order only when it suits them. Thus the small manufacturer has to act not only as the big customer's banker but as his warehouseman, storing goods free of charge. I hope that the late payment announcement in the Budget will go some way to encourage the larger businesses to behave more responsibly to their smaller brethren.
  All the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has introduced, together with the low interest rates and low inflation that we are enjoying, will do much to encourage business—especially small business—in Leicestershire and in my constituency. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade say just a few moments ago that one of the first business links offices is to be in Leicester. That, too, will be of great assistance to my constituents.
  I should not wish the House simply to accept my word as a loyal Back Bencher supporting the Government: the Budget has been accepted as good by people other than those who sit on the Conservative Benches. Let me refer the House to what was written by the leader writer of the Leicester Mercury on Wednesday 1 December, the day after the Budget:
  "Leicestershire, with its thousands of smaller businesses, stands to gain more than most counties from the Budget proposals. Raising the VAT threshold and allowing many companies to avoid the expense of a formal audit will help smaller firms stay alive. More help with export credits and an enterprise investment scheme is likely to boost external private investment in small companies.
  All that is good news for local firms and good news for the local economy. There is now even more reason to be optimistic about the way this area is pulling out of the recession."
  The Leicester Mercury is not noted for its slavish support of the Government and I find it especially encouraging that the leader writer of that august journal has found it in himself to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his Budget proposals as they affect our county—although I am sure that it is not to be inferred from the leader writer's remark that
  "Leicestershire, with its thousands of smaller businesses, stands to gain more than most counties"
  that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary played an undue part in the construction of the Budget speech simply because he represents a Leicestershire constituency.
  Let me refer to the Budget proposals which my right hon. and learned Friend did not make, and which I should have liked him to make, in connection with the reform of the capital gains tax system. In my view, the capital gains tax system should ideally be removed in its entirety. If that is too much to ask for, the rate of capital gains tax should be drastically reduced.
  I say that for three reasons. First, capital gains tax is a voluntary tax. It is easy to avoid. It is also easy to evade—although I must admit that I have never tried it myself.
  184
  It is also extremely difficult for the Treasury to manage flows from capital gains as they depend on the whim of the investor. I do not need to lecture the House about the lessons of the Laffer curve. We all know that, with a zero rate of tax, receivables will be nil—not surprisingly—and that, with a rate of tax of 100 per cent., receivables will also be nil—again, not surprisingly. The maximum tax received arises at a rate nearer to zero than to 100 per cent. That must be especially true of a voluntary tax. At 40 per cent., there is a major incentive to avoid paying tax, and also to evade. A cut to 25 per cent. or even lower would actually result in an increase in receipts for the Treasury.
  Secondly, the current system, whereby the capital gains tax rate is high but is compensated for by a whole lot of tax schemes such as personal equity plans and the business expansion scheme—I appreciate that the latter is to be phased out—creates many distortions in the economy. A 40 per cent. tax rate creates a major disincentive to investors to change their investment. They get locked in. That makes the economy less efficient and investments less mobile. After 10 years of comparatively low income tax rates, there is a much wider distribution of capital, and that lack of mobility is therefore an increasing problem for the economy as a whole.
  I suggest that tax reasons are seldom good reasons for making an investment but such schemes are driving investments. I am thinking particularly of the BES—although that is being phased out—but also of PEPs, because they, too, drive people towards the equity market. That may be good, but they should not be driven there simply for tax reasons.
  Another problem is the increasing amount of capital being tied up in PEPs, TESSAs and tax-free national savings. If a married couple had made the full investment allowed in all those schemes, they would now have in excess of £100,000. If they continued to make the full investment and there was reasonable performance—say, 10 per cent. a year—from the PEP, that household would have some £400,000 tied up in such schemes in five years' time. That is a large amount of capital, which will be free of both capital gains and income tax.
  Such schemes also create a major distortion in the economy. PEPs have to be managed by professional managers. The individual investor is severely limited in the way in which he can influence investment decisions. The investment managers may become rich as a result but the Government are denied tax receipts and that inhibits the efficiency of the economy. I appreciate that it is now politically difficult to get rid of PEPs, and I freely admit that I have benefited from the scheme myself. A decrease in the marginal rate of capital gains tax—to, say, 25 per cent.—would result in investors not bothering with PEPs in the future. It would also result in greater revenue receipts for the Treasury.
  Thirdly, proceeds from capital gains tax are at present very small. The figures on page 128 of the Red Book show that the outturn for 1992–93 was £1 billion—half what it was in 1989. If I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) correctly yesterday evening, he suggested that the figure was something over £2 billion not so long ago. Perhaps my right hon. Friend said 1979, in which case I stand corrected. The Government's capital gains tax receipts have gone down markedly in the past few years and they are not expected to increase at all in 1993–94—the forecast in the Red Book is £1 billion—and the forecast for 1994–95 is only £1·3 billion.

  185
  Those are three reasons for suggesting that the Government should look closely at capital gains tax in the near future. I am reinforced in my suggestions by the fact that some of my right hon. Friends have made similar remarks during the debate, and I trust that, in due course, the Government will review the matter. Having said that, am very pleased with the Budget that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor produced last Tuesday. The Budget is, as my right hon. and learned Friend said,
  "a no-nonsense Budget which deals directly and firmly with the main challenges facing the country today.—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 223, c. 938.]
  I trust that it is, and I shall be joining those of my hon. Friends who welcomed it with cheers in translating those cheers into action in the Lobby.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next Member to speak, may I remind the House that Madam Speaker has ordained that between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm there should be a limit of 10 minutes on speeches.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: The Chancellor came to the Budget with a number of advantages. He was not the previous Chancellor, who, as we all know, became discredited because he did not resign when Britain left the ERM. He was not, and is not, burdened with ideological fixations or with any great economic track record or expertise. Above all, he had a clear political strategy. The first element was to get the Tories elected, and the second was, if possible, to get himself made Prime Minister.
  It was a political Budget which was cleverly and skilfully presented. It temporarily united the Conservative party, although I never expected to see the Conservatives vote for tax increases on the scale that we had last Tuesday. It temporarily satisfied the markets. I suspect, however, that it will not play so well with the British people.
  The problem with the Budget was that it was a memory-free zone. The £50 billion PSBR deficit was mentioned as though it were an act of God, a problem from which all decent major countries are suffering, but in reality it is a consequence of economic mismanagement over a decade.
  The Lawson-Thatcher boom of 1986–88, with its monetary splurge and tax cuts, put the economy out of control.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Gentleman supported Lawson's boom.
  Mr. Radice: No, I did not. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, the Treasury Select Committee said that the 1988 Budget was a dangerous Budget. Both the hon. Gentleman and I signed that report.
  It was followed by the Major-Lamont squeeze of 1989–90 which pursued a one-club policy of high interest rates which clobbered business and the housing market. It was followed by a recession with 10 quarters of falling manufacturing output. Of course that had a direct impact on the PSBR because it increased unemployment and therefore produced an increased social security budget and a reduced tax take. Lastly, we had the fiscal irresponsibility of the Government in 1991–92 when they went in for tax bribes and spending promises in the run-up to the general
  186
  election. So the Government were responsible for the £50 billion PSBR which the country is now having to tackle.
  The second interesting feature of the Budget was that the Chancellor never mentioned the size of the tax increase. It is the biggest tax increase since the war. We have had two Budgets in 1993, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, and it has been estimated by Goldman Sachs that the tax increase over a three-year period will amount to something approaching £17 billion—that is based on the two Red Books. That figure was confirmed to me by Treasury officials this morning in our Treasury Select Committee hearing. It will have a major impact on the public.
  The Institute of Fiscal Studies has estimated that, on average, every household will pay —9 extra a week, or £460 a year, in taxation. That does not take into account local taxes which are likely to rise as a result of local authority spending cuts and the impact of some of the benefit changes and cuts in benefits.
  I turn now to the long-term prospects for the economy. The danger of the Budget is that, by hitting consumers with tax increases, it could choke off the fragile recovery. That is why most of the panel of independent forecasters were not in favour of further tax increases.
  One could argue that taxing consumption will switch output into investments and exports. That is the most respectable argument for the course that the Chancellor has taken, but the problem is that markets in Europe and elsewhere are depressed. If we clobber consumption with tax hikes, the danger is that consumer confidence will be undermined and therefore the recovery will be choked off.
  If we are to achieve a sustained growth, not only must we keep up demand, but we have to improve supply. That is not simply a question of deregulation, as the Government sometimes suggest. The real commanding heights of the economy are the application of new ideas and knowledge to production and products, the level of investment behind every employee, and the skills of employees through education and training. However, those are long-term issues which give the Government no short-term political advantages. We have a short-term Government with a short-term ideology and political judgment.
  Unfortunately for Britain, the 1980s are the years which the locusts ate. North sea oil revenues could have gone into manufacturing investment, research and development and education and training, but unfortunately they did not. There is little to suggest from the Budget or the Red Book that the Government are now giving priority to those areas.
  Treasury officials have confirmed to me the real cuts in the money going to training and to infrastructure projects. It is true that there is a short-term, one-year increase in the money to science, but there is a decline in subsequent years. I welcome, as everyone must, the increased money for higher education, but the increases in the education budget are devoted entirely to higher education; there are no increases for other aspects of education which are so vital to the economy.
  I should like to sum up my very short speech by saying that the Chancellor's Budget is socially repugnant for what it has done to benefits, particularly unemployment benefit. It ignores, or largely ignores, the long-term problems of the economy, and I believe and predict that it will prove politically disastrous for the Chancellor and his party as the British people come to understand that, contrary to the

  187
  Government's promises of the last election, they are being asked to pay through the nose for the appalling failure of the Administration over a number of years.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. George Walden: Heaping more praise on my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for his Budget at this stage in the proceedings is rather like throwing fivers on a bonfire to keep it alight. We do not have many fivers left after the Budget, so that my right hon. and learned Friend will have to take for granted my praise for what he has done.
  Many elderly people in my constituency will be grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend has done to relieve VAT on fuel. That leads me straight into the issue on which I would like to concentrate. I am sure that the Government are under no illusion that the Budget has done away with the problem of VAT.
  Let us take a quick survey of the idiosyncrasies of our national position on VAT over the past few years. First, for reasons best not discussed now, we have VAT on some things and not on others. As far as I can see, the reasons are broadly sentimental, but I shall leave that aside. I shall not go on too long about the poll tax but will simply say that with one stroke of the hand the rate of VAT has increased from 15 to 17·5 per cent.—a volatile tax.
  The other week we found ourselves in the Lobby late at night voting on VAT on orange juice. One begins to ask what sort of regime we have. Then we have the entirely spurious defence of VAT on printed matter under inflated slogans such as, "This is a tax on knowledge." That is absolute rubbish. Education dictates the quality of what people read, and the other argument is crude and materialistic. In countries such as France where there is VAT on printed matter, there is no noticeable difference in the quality and volume of reading. It is cultural rubbish and a distorted argument.
  Finally, there is the problem with heating. Let us not go over all that again. However, what has happened? As we do not have a rational system on VAT with a lower rate on everything, we end up with 17·5 per cent. which is too much for old people who are near the poverty line. That is partly due to the deviousness of such things as the poll tax.
  As we are in this ridiculous situation, we have to throw in massive sums. We throw massive sums into the system indiscriminately to rich and poor alike. Thereby we build yet another contradiction into a situation which Members on both sides of the House secretly accept is unsustainable. That situation relates to universal benefits. We have added to the universal benefit anomaly by trying to salvage the damaging impact of VAT on heating which has arisen from our ridiculous system of VAT. This problem will not go away. One of these days, this country will have to mature into a rational system of VAT on everything, but at a lower level.
  One of the difficulties lies in our political system. We have a rather simplistic adversarial system. At each election, we are forced up against a wall and the Government and the Opposition claim that they will not do certain things. I hope that the debate will continue in public because we must try to confront the public with the truth in respect not only of VAT, but of universal benefits. I suspect that, given a free hand and in a politically neutral
  188
  atmosphere—if such a thing could be said to exist—the Opposition and the Government would do all sorts of things to concentrate benefits where they were most needed.
  I hope that it is clear to most right hon. and hon. Members that our policy—by that I mean the policy of this House—on the NHS is unsustainable. That policy is the same in all parties, and it is that every person in this country, no matter what their income or wealth, will receive totally free of charge all the treatment that they require, no matter what the cost of that treatment. That is my understanding of the Government's and the Opposition's policy, and that policy is totally unsustainable in these demographic and technological times. We are all aware of that, but no one says it publicly.
  However, the public are beginning to understand. Doctors and consultants are also beginning to understand. The citizens charter states that doctors and consultants should carry out certain operations within certain time limits. Some of those people have told me that they understand what the Government are doing in their reforms which they believe are necessary but that they cannot deliver. They believe that no Government will ever be able to give them the money to deliver. Doctors and consultants are aware of the demographic problems.
  Such debates must be kept going because the public are aware of things about which no one in this House is prepared to speak. For example, it is ridiculous that my children receive free meals under the NHS. That is unsustainable and it cannot and will not continue. It is only a matter of time before it ends. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade referred to the Commission for Social Justice. That is a good thing, provided that it comes up with honest rather than tired political solutions.
  There has also been a de facto conspiracy of silence on mortgage tax relief. I am glad to say that that conspiracy of silence has now been broken. The Chancellor has done the right and obvious thing. Clearly, we cannot drop the whole thing tomorrow, although that should be done, as that would force the housing market down in this country which is far too over-dependent on the state of the housing market. As a result of that over-dependency, the situation becomes more fragile and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor cannot do what he, I and the Treasury would like to do, which is to scrap the whole thing tomorrow.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has done the sensible thing. However, I stress that the problem will not go away. We have a deformed culture and the press simply states, "Goody, goody. It looks as though house prices will go up." What an extraordinary thing to say. I am not sure whether there are such headlines in other countries. However, the respectable press in this country states that the trend in house prices is up once more. That means bigger mortgages and bigger commitments for everyone, involving a bigger slice of people's budgets. That is another deformation of national investment patterns.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Walden: I will give way in a moment.
  It is extraordinary that more than 90 per cent. of business expansion schemes were devoted to property. That illustrates beautifully the profound cultural deformations in our economy.
  Mr. Budgen: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to attack the hand that feeds him, but does not he agree that the newspapers reflect the view of a large section of the population in this country that nothing is better than rising house prices? It is politically fashionable now to be rather rude about Lord Lawson, but when he was booming up the housing market, the Conservatives and Lord Lawson were extremely popular.
  Mr. Walden: I will let my hon. Friend's remarks stand by themselves. I normally regard him as a highly responsible commentator on economic matters. His remarks owe more to his impish side than to his responsible side.
  Another problem to which I want to draw attention and which will not go away relates to hypothecation. That term arises among people who know more about economics than I do and it is arising in a positive sense when explaining where the money is going. I would like to see that term used in another sense. We should say, "Look folks, we're going to be hard up for many years to come and we all know the cuts that the Budget predicates. Therefore, we are going to have to make choices."
  Among those choices, we must confront the problem of universal benefits. However, it is so difficult, so sensitive and so raw simply to take away from people what they have been falsely promised for all these years that we must give them something in return. I hope that we shall reach the stage at which our politics will have so evolved that we can say to people, "Look, this cannot go on. We have to cut it, and probably for the middle and upper income brackets. This or that—perhaps child benefit—will have to go, but in return we are going to do something useful with the money."
  I was glad to hear that the Commission for Social Justice is talking about taxing child benefit and also setting up nurseries. I suggested that years ago. I am glad to see that the Labour party—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but there has been a slight technical hitch with the clock. However, I inform the hon. Gentleman that his time is up.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned the air passenger duty which is to be introduced towards the end of 1994. It may be a relatively small part of the Budget—just a detail—which we will be tackling at greater length in Standing Committee, but I refer to the point now because of its importance to my constituents, and because the Chancellor made special play of it in his Budget speech.
  When the Chancellor introduced the air passenger duty, he went out of his way to say:
  "most flights between the Scottish islands will not bear tax."—[Official Report. 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 932.]
  At the time, I thought that it was a thoughtful touch on the Chancellor's part to remember the special needs and circumstances of the Scottish islands. After all, air travel to the Scottish islands is not a luxury like holiday travel. It is not a business man's perk. Instead, it is an essential lifeline which connects remote communities on the far peripheries of the European land mass with the facilities and services which only urban centres can provide. Medical facilities are a good example, because, at some time, many islanders
  190
  will have to be flown to mainland hospitals to receive the acute medical care which island medical facilities cannot provide.
  Those air connections among the islands—and, more important, between the islands and the mainland—are not luxuries for tourists: they are a social and economic necessity, and a crucial communication link with the outside world. That is why it was welcome that the Chancellor mentioned the special case of the islands, and apparently went out of his way to adjust the tax to exclude the Scottish islands.
  But we know what the Chancellor has said about promises made on a rainy night in Dudley, so it is always worth checking the small print. That is when one finds that the exemption has nothing to do with the Scottish islands per se, but rather is to do with small passenger aircraft—coincidentally, I am sure, aircraft used for executive travel, and carrying fewer than 20 passengers. That means that most flights to and from the Scottish islands will not be exempt, and that the overwhelming majority of passengers who use aircraft within, and to and from, the Scottish islands will have to pay the £5 tax.
  Moreover, the structure of the exemption means that the permitted exemptions within Scottish island air travel are so anomalous or so absurd that it is hard to believe that the Treasury has really thought the matter through. For example, there are some flights between Shetland and Edinburgh, and between Orkney and Glasgow, for which different planes are used on different days. On some days, if one takes the flight that uses a Jetstream 31, which carries fewer than 20 passengers, one will not pay the tax. However, if one happens to be on the plane on the wrong day, when an ATP or a Shorts aircraft is used which carries more than 20 passengers, one will end up paying the tax. So much for fiscal neutrality, when one is encouraged by the tax system to take a certain flight on a certain day.
  There are more serious absurdities than that. For example, the Loganair flight from the island of Barra, in my constituency, to Glasgow will be changed from a twin-engined aircraft, which is presently employed, to a Shorts aircraft next year, not because the route has become more economically viable or because it is carrying more passengers but simply for technical reasons to do with the company. That means that that flight will be subject to the tax.
  It must be remembered that the island of Barra is five to six hours' ferry sailing time from the mainland. The population is only a couple of thousand. Barra does not even have an airfield or a landing strip. Planes actually land on the beach—on the sand. But passengers are going to have to pay the same £5 tax as holidaymakers going to Majorca or business men using the Manchester-to-London shuttle.
  The anomalies are endless. For example, a foreign millionaire flying on a chartered Jetstream to his Hebridean estate for a weekend's salmon fishing will be exempt, but an islander taking a regular scheduled flight to Glasgow to visit, say, an elderly parent in hospital will have to pay the tax.
  That tax and its effects upon the Scottish islands are not fair or logical. I urge the Chancellor, to whom I have already written on the matter, to review the exemption and amend it during proceedings on the Finance Bill, so that it exempts all regular scheduled flights going to, from and within the remote Scottish islands. It would cost him considerably less than £1 million to do that. That is a large

  191
  sum for island communities to have to give the Treasury, but it is surely not a difficult sum for a Government who are budgeting for expenditure of about £290 billion next year. I hope that, during proceedings on the Finance Bill, the Chancellor will be able to take that point on board and fulfil the spirit of the promise that he apparently made during his Budget speech.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Hartley Booth: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is some years since Finchley contributed on Treasury matters in the House.
  Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Budget, because it is good for business and good for pensioners, and looks to the future. What a contrast between the long-term policies for the future that we have been enunciating and the long-term decline of socialism.
  The Opposition have been trying to find major criticisms of our Budget throughout the past week. We heard from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) this afternoon that it is not a Budget for investment. The Opposition have even called it a Budget for non-investment. That is wrong. We have heard that it is a Budget for £22 billion of capital spending—for example, £1·25 billion on apprenticeships, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  The underlying point about investment that the Labour party never picks up is that, in these difficult times, we have been able to maintain the low corporate taxes that have made our country the mecca for international investment. Of course we will attract investment through the Budget. The Budget is as close to non-investment as my hon. Friend the much-loved Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to Weight Watchers.
  As for fair criticism, Opposition Members cynically say in front of the media that there is only 50p for the elderly. As a fair man, I waited and waited to hear the other points— about the extra pension, the fact that the 50p was on top of inflation this year and next year, how cold weather payments would rise above inflation, about energy saving and the guaranteed income proposal. Did I hear any of that? Not at all.
  Nothing comes from Opposition Members when they describe our taxation proposals and our help for the elderly. At Walworth road, a group of chiefs sit around during the day and lie awake at night worrying how they can next cause anxiety for the elderly. They say that we have not done enough in the Budget. Of course it is not enough. Have any Government in the world ever done enough? No Government at this stage of their life could have done enough. We have a duty to the public to go on doing enough for another three years. When we seek generosity from the Opposition, we have a mortuary of silence.
  The key to this excellent Budget is not just the way in which it looks ahead to 1999, when we balance the books, and to 2020, when some of the social security proposals will have an effect. It is not only a Budget for looking ahead but a Budget for initiatives. Post Office employees have been encouraged to spot fraud, employers have been
  192
  encouraged to look after their employees' health, and job seekers have been encouraged to use extra initiative in seeking jobs.
  There is scope for much more work, and I encourage the Government to do more under their name of initiative. They could take a leaf out of the book of Nissan, Unilever or some local authorities to motivate staff. We still employ 4 million people on the public payroll, and they should be motivated to spot fraud, abuse, good ideas and waste. I do not suggest that the Cabinet Office be taken over by works councils, nor that permanent secretaries should dress in boiler suits, but all public sector workers should come forward with ideas and be given an incentive to do so.
  To better use the nation's inheritance and reduce the cost of housing, we could use some of the 750,000 empty homes. Ministers have already heard my suggestions and may be tired of them, but we could use the unused stock of homes, particularly for the homeless. That idea would also assist the Budget deficit.
  The efficiency that has been the hallmark of much of the Budget should work through to savings in the Ministry of Defence, where civil servants now number 147,000 to run an Army only two thirds that size. I am assured that that matter is under review and will be dealt with, and the Budget has been the precursor.
  On health, I hope that we shall hear how regional bureaucracy will be cut dramatically. It will be no bad thing if some of the regions are removed.
  Although the Red Book says little about privatisation—the first page suggests that receipts from privatisation will be reduced dramatically—I hope that the Adam Smith Institute forecast that receipts from privatisation can total £5 billion a year will continue.
  I also hope that the Treasury will go forward in its fight in Europe against too much expenditure by the Goliath across the channel. The Chancellor should consider the £5 billion fraud by the European Community, to which we contribute, and use that fact as a lever against other waste.
  The European Community currently spends £4 billion on tobacco subsidy, much of which is for black tobacco that nobody wants to smoke. The European Community is supporting high-nicotine tobacco, much of which is stored and then wasted. I hope that the Government will use that fact as a tactic to reduce the amount that we spend on the European Community.
  The Law Society revenue committee has approached me about a technicality on capital allowance rules and, as the Minister knows, I am making representations on its behalf.
  Business men from Finchley came 50-strong to see me the other day. They said that the late payment of debt was one of their principal problems. They were glad that we were grappling with the problem, but they said that small businesses were weak and could not attack the big debtors. They said that it was no good simply putting up their hands and saying, "Please, we have the law on our side" against big debtors. But they need automatic assistance and arbitration after an agreed period of 90 days. I hope that that will result from the consultation paper.
  All that is for the future. The Budget lays a foundation for sustainable economic growth by harnessing the aspirations, initiatives and talents of the British people.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: In the week before the Budget two significant events happened. First, Mr. Roger Levitt, founder of the Levitt group that crashed in 1990, was found guilty of a fraud involving £20 million. Sentencing him, Mr. Justice Laws—a decent sort of chappie, so I am reliably informed—told Mr. Levitt to go home, have a good night's sleep and, when he woke up in the morning, to be nice to his wife and kind to animals. The judge said that the upsetting incident was best forgotten. After all, had not Mr. Levitt given some of the funds that he had misappropriated to charity?
  Mr. Levitt was a product of the insatiable greed of the 1980s—greed that was fostered by successive Tory Chancellors and eventually epitomised in the Gadarene swine Budget of 1988 presented by Lord Lawson. I shall show later that the 1993 Budget is the bitter price that the nation has had to pay for the obscene, hideous mistakes of the 1988 Budget. I merely observe here that the asinine economic ignoramuses on the Tory Benches cheered the fraudulent 1988 Budget to the echo.
  The second event to which I referred took place on the Wednesday before the Budget, when London's underground system collapsed, leaving 20,000 passengers crawling through tunnels wondering whether they would ever see the light of God or day again. That incident, too, arose out of the philosophy behind the 1988 Budget.
  Lord Lawson may have been—indeed, certainly was—a putrid Tory economist, but he understood only too well Bertrand Russell's philosophical theory of the "undistributed middle". That says that if one has £2 billion to give away and one devotes it all to tax cuts, the same £2 billion cannot be used at the same time for investment in London's underground system.
  The second Budget of 1993 was predicated on three simple economic fallacies. The first is the notion that there is merit in seeking to balance the budget although, to be fair, the concept of a balanced budget now takes into account what is termed
  "the golden rule of public finance",
  which means net public sector capital spending. Even so, that is not so much back to basics as back to the 19th century, with the Chancellor playing the unlikely role of Gladstone in Hush Puppies. However, perhaps one should not fret too much over that. A promise by the Chancellor to produce a balanced Budget in 1999 is clearly not a promise at all but rather an expression of the wish fulfilment economics of his Freudian dreams.
  The second fallacy for which the Chancellor has fallen is the idea, sedulously spread by the forces of Hades, that welfare spending in Britain is out of control. An examination of the facts by John Hills and his team from the London School of Economics shows that to be not so much a big idea as the latest big Tory lie. The study that the LSE team carried out for the Rowntree Trust concluded:
  "Over the medium term Britain's welfare spending has been a stable share of national income, below its equivalent in most European countries."
  The authors of the study added:
  "The 'demographic time bomb' has been exaggerated. Upward pressures on spending from the ageing population, SERPS, and higher basic pension entitlements will continue. But even if benefit levels become income-linked, the total net effects
  194
  on public finances over the next 50 years would add up to about 5 per cent. of GDP—no more than the increase mainly due to the recession over the past three years."
  The third fallacy lies in the Chancellor's naive belief that the fragile recovery of a deeply depressed economy will benefit from huge tax increases and public expenditure cuts.
  Until he presented this Budget the Chancellor seemed like a genial sort of bloke, who liked nothing better than to have a pint of beer and get as far away as he could from his dreadful colleagues who drank gin and tonics in the Smoking Room. However, I noticed that there was no smile and no mercy on his face as he stood at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday, hammering the British public with tax after tax.
  If we move through the forecast period from this year to year three, the total increase in tax announced in the two Budgets of 1993 amounts to £17 billion, or the equivalent of a staggering 11p in the pound on income tax. Such increases suggest that the Conservative manifesto at the previous election was written by that well-known firm of Westminster and City accountants, now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, called Levitt, Major, Nadir, Clarke and Co.
  If psychologists studying the species homo sapiens had been present in the Chamber when the Budget was presented, they would have witnessed an amazing spectacle. When the Chancellor announced that he had no intention of scrapping VAT on fuel, Tory Members smiled, and one of them is smiling now. When he said that everyone who insures his car will be taxed, they applauded. When he added that tomorrow anyone who insures their house will be taxed, they cheered. When he declared that every owner-occupier would pay more tax and that mortgage relief would be reduced, Tory Members, who hitherto had been property-owning democrats, jumped up from their seats and excitedly waved their Order Papers. Apparently, the tension was rising in the Chamber. When the Chancellor announced that everyone would pay more income tax as allowances were frozen and that 500,000 people who had not paid any income tax at all would now do so, Tory Members stamped and shouted, designating the Chancellor as the greatest tax collector since Napoleon. The imposition of taxes on holidays, wine, petrol and cigarettes had them on their feet, their faces wreathed in smiles with tears coursing down their cheeks as they chanted, "Tax, tax, tax. Tax the working class. Tax the middle class. Tax them all."
  On reflection, perhaps even the Chancellor and the smug, smiling hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), sitting behind the Minister, can see that the pain for the majority of people in this Budget is inversely proportionate to the pleasure for the privileged few who benefited from the Tory Budgets of the 1980s.
  From 1986 to 1989 we had tax reductions of £20 billion. That has now been offset by £20 billion increases in tax over the next three years. However, we have not gone back to square one. We have moved to more indirect taxation, a wider tax base and lower marginal rates. The overall tax burden has increased and, because of the lower marginal rates, since 1986 the tax burden has shifted from the rich to the poor—perhaps that is another reason for a smile from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley.
  Nevertheless, the two Budgets this year marked a significant change in policy. Data provided by Chris Giles and Steven Webb of the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows

  195
  that by far the biggest burden of the tax changes falls on the middle class. All the commentators and pundits seem to have missed the fact that the targeting of the middle class by the Chancellor, using his Armalite rifle, represents a fundamental shift in British politics. In the post-war years, government in Britain under all political parties has been a compact, an agreement between the establishment and the middle classes. While expressing sympathy for the poor, the middle classes, particularly if they were readers of The Guardian, have been content to see a redistribution of income from the working classes to themselves through mortgage tax relief, pension schemes, student grants and other aspects of the second welfare state.
  Now that the overpowering voice of the middle class has been silenced by a Tory Chancellor, there will have to be a new political settlement. The politics of the 1990s will be about the nature of that new settlement. In any other advanced western country an assault such as this on the middle classes by a Chancellor would produce a revolution. It will be interesting to see if there is more to the middle classes in Britain than chatter.
  Some of the cuts in public expenditure were real. Those affecting the unemployed and the sick can be described, fairly, as vicious, and of a type that could have come only from a Chancellor who is blue in tooth and claw. Overall, the public expenditure plans, like the balanced budget, are a figment of the Chancellor's imagination. In future years the cuts will be brought about simply by not topping up departmental expenditure from the reserve. They are misleading because of the scale of the reserve set aside to supplement departmental budgets in recent years.
  The plans have been presented in such a way as to make parliamentary scrutiny impossible. More than anything else, the public expenditure plans show that this was a Budget presented by a huckster who perhaps fits the mediocrity of our times and the paucity of thought among Conservative Members, who made fools of themselves by cheering what, in time, will be seen as a Budget to perdition.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: It was a perfectly legitimate, if somewhat exaggerated exercise, for the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to concentrate on the impact of the increased taxation. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in taxation, albeit that the pain is delayed and that the increases have taken place largely by the freezing of allowances and the reductions in various forms of tax relief to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The hon. Member made taxation the theme of his speech, but I wish to make interest rates the theme of my speech. In 10 minutes one can deal with only one subject.
  Much of the cause of our present state relates to interest rates. Sadly, at the end of 1985 the most important, most intelligent and most successful Tory economist and politician changed his mind. In 1985, Lord Lawson, as he now is, decided that the highly successful policy that had been worked out by the Tories between 1975 and 1985 was to be abandoned. He ceased to be a monetarist in any sense and he successfully used his reputation to engineer an
  196
  extremely popular boom. It was so popular that it was not politically correct at the time even to mention that it was happening.
  The money supply expanded substantially, as can be seen from page 11 of the Red Book from last March. It went up from about 11 per cent. to about 18 per cent. Interest rates have an important part to play in the catastrophically excessive squeeze that was imposed by those who wished to give our economic sovereignty to the Bundesbank between 1990 and 1992. Again, that can be seen clearly from the graph in the Red Book because broad money fell from about 17 per cent. to about 4 per cent. during that period.
  I suggest that interest rates provide much of the key to how the Chancellor hopes to revive Tory fortunes and the economy. It is true that the middle class, in the not so distant future, will find that taxation has gone up. How will that be balanced? The Chancellor hopes that he is in for a long period of low interest rates. He hopes that the savings ratio will fall and that growth rates will continue at a high level. On page 35 of the recent Red Book it says, significantly—and I agree with this—that a stronger housing market would help underpin consumer recovery. So it would. Those who were caught in the squeeze of the ERM now find themselves in the terrible difficulty of negative equity. Two million people are caught in negative equity. That is disturbing for them, but they are also less efficient economically because they cannot move from one house to another when they are caught in such a bind.
  It is plain that low interest rates will be important to the Chancellor's strategy during the next couple of years. Low interest rates are always popular. If low interest rates balance higher taxation, and cause a reduction in the savings ratio, if they are also useful in reducing the Government's debt burden, and if they stimulate greater activity, they will also stimulate house prices. The Chancellor would then become as popular as Lord Lawson was between 1986 and 1988.
  It would then be difficult, when it became necessary to increase interest rates, for the Chancellor to say that he is the man who will increase interest rates. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend should not be so dismissive of those—including Lord Lawson, with a voice of some repentance—who say that it is necessary now to give some further status and enhanced power to the Bank of England.
  Two things have been done in recent months. First, the Bank has taken to issuing its own inflation report. That is not very important, because it tells the country only what has been done in the past because of the time-lag in monetary policy.
  I commend the Chancellor on the second point. It is a long way from the arrogance of Lord Lawson, who told the country crudely that he was the man who put up interest rates and the man who takes them down, and that the Governor of the Bank of England was no more than a mechanic pulling his forelock to Lord Lawson. I commend the present Chancellor for allowing the Governor of the Bank of England to announce the last reduction in interest rates. I hope that that trend will continue, although probably it does not matter much whether it is done by greater transparency or by some change in the statute which governs the Bank of England.
  We have had three Tory booms, including those of Mr. Barber and Mr. Lawson. Each has been applauded by all persons who are politically correct. Each has been

  197
  supported by those who say that they are vehemently against inflation. It is plain that another boom would be equally applauded by large sections of the middle class.
  When the time comes for the next major increase in interest rates, it would be better if responsibility was seen not to devolve entirely upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We can never have a completely independent Bank of England. There is much to be said for making it plain that the Bank of England has a special status and is not merely the dogsbody of the Treasury. The Bank should have some independent status and perhaps even some right of independent action.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was applauded when he finished his speech, not only from the Government Back Benches but by the business world. I take the view that, when a Chancellor who presides over a budget deficit of £50 billion is applauded, there is something wrong. A little more thought convinced me rapidly that a lot of the applause was due to his presentation and that, since that was the case, the applause would not last long. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should take some comfort from that, because it would mean that at least he was doing something about the deficit.
  As the Chancellor knows, I dislike large public deficits and the happiest Budgets which I have experienced were those in which we were repaying public debt rather than borrowing a lot more. I am only sorry that it was not possible for that to be continued. The Chancellor set himself the target of a nil deficit by the end of the century. I do not believe that that can be done much quicker, and I presume that he is looking beyond that. We could return to the happy days when we were repaying the public sector debt. If we were to manage that, the interest which would be saved would leave rich benefits, not so much to the present generation of politicians, but to their successors and to their children and grandchildren.
  A departure from balanced budgets has occurred, with the excuse being that money is going into capital infrastructure which will pay rich dividends. That is not something that I favour. I take the sharper view that we should be trying always to balance one year with another, or certainly balance the budget over a small number of years.
  If the Chancellor does what he has said, he will be engaged in long-term thinking with a vengeance. He stated in the Budget that he was looking to restructure pensions, and to bring the retirement age of everyone up to 65 years. That serves the feminists right, because it is the inevitable result of trying to demand equality in all things.
  The alternative to bringing our high deficits under control is to have the horrifying spectacle of high interest rates and high inflation which would shackle industry and erode the savings of our people and the incentive of those people to work. I do not believe that the twin monsters of high interest rates and inflation will ever be slain. However, the Chancellor's vision, if fulfilled, may keep them on a very short chain and that is to be welcomed.
  The Chancellor has a difficult road from here to there because the demands of the public purse will not diminish, although they will increase at a slower rate than formerly. To finance those demands, we must increase revenue
  198
  which, at the same time, must be diminished as a percentage of GDP. It is very difficult to do that, for it can be done only if the economy expands rapidly.
  In common with much of the industrialised world, we have the ticking time-bomb of the aging population which will place heavy demands on our resources in the coming years. Anything that can be done to ensure a prosperous economy is to be welcomed. The effort to ensure the prompt payment of bills to small firms is particularly welcome. Small firms suffer grievously from slow payment, not only from equally small firms but from larger firms.
  We will have prosperity only if there is greater investment in this country—especially in manufacturing industry—and greater emphasis is placed on exports. Given the present malaise in Europe, we should build on our success in overseas markets rather than concentrating too much on the stagnant European market. The Chancellor highlighted the success of our exports outside Europe which he said have risen by 14 per cent. That is too good a chance to miss.
  The Chancellor did not extend the scope of VAT in the Budget. I presume that he will avoid a vote on the fuel tax in the Finance Bill, although there is no doubt that Opposition Members will do their best to ensure that a vote is forced. I am glad that the Chancellor did not extend VAT. I would far sooner see him increase the rate on the items to which VAT applies at present. Those rates could be reduced more easily when the situation permitted, rather than removing VAT from another class of expenditure completely.
  The Chancellor made clear his views on taxing spending rather than income. Taxing spending is only right up to a point. I believe that there comes a time when the total sums raised and the rates charged become so oppressive that they are seen as unjust and harsh, bearing too heavily on people with low incomes. Reaching that point means taking away with one hand and giving back with the other, not to mention losing out on the bureaucracy and the process of transferring the money. Clearly that should be avoided.
  I was also disappointed that the Chancellor did not restore the 40 per cent. capital allowance that we enjoyed for a short time earlier this year. It is necessary if we are to have increased investment, which is what we really need.
  One must admit that mortgage interest tax relief is likely to have distorted the economy to some extent, but its good effect was that it helped many people to buy their own homes instead of renting. The change will bring into the Exchequer £970 million in a full year. Moreover, the changes to the married couple's allowance, adding up to another £1 billion in a full year, will make life extremely difficult for young couples buying a house. They will find their pockets hit hard in future. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who pointed out that the middle classes were being hit hard by this Budget, was correct.
  Our party has made it clear on a number of occasions that we are disappointed by the failure to give the shipping industry, not least the shipbuilding industry, a boost. The latter has many spin-offs in many directions—especially engineering, and especially in our Province.
  Motor vehicle duties have been mentioned by many hon. Members and we are likely to hear more about them before this evening is over. They hit rural dwellers hard

  199
  because in such areas a motor car is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Some families have several motor vehicles because the whole working population of a rural area simply has to get to work, and the only way to do so is by car. The increases will be a heavy burden on the budgets of such households.
  It is nonsensical to claim that there have been no income tax rises. In three successive Budgets tax allowances have been frozen, costing people a great deal of money and representing a real increase in tax. But the increase is carefully concealed. I would be far happier if the Government were more honest and if the Chancellor bunged a few pence on income tax. Then at least folk would know where they were and they would be spared the annoyance. It is impossible to hide these things. Many people outside this place can count as well as those inside it can and they know perfectly well that they are being clobbered right across the board. If people knew how much they had to pay and the reasons for it, they might be more willing to swallow their bitter medicine.
  The whole Budget adds up to a massive increase in taxation. It may get the deficit down, but the Chancellor will become increasingly unpopular over the next few months. I only hope that he has left himself enough room to reduce interest rates when the recovery starts to flag in the spring or early summer.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I apologise to the House, because certain commitments elsewhere kept me from hearing much of today's debate and will take me away again after I finish speaking. I did, however, have the privilege—if that is the word—of sitting through yesterday's debate in its entirety. Perhaps I am naive, but it would be nice to hear something to the effect that the Labour party had some vague grasp of what is happening in the real world. The world of gloom and doom that its members inhabit is certainly not the same as mine.
  Unemployment, for instance, has fallen in most months this year. In my constituency it fell last month by 9·4 per cent.—the biggest fall in the west midlands. I know that my press release about that received unusually little attention in the local media, which may have contributed to the Opposition's ignorance, but then good news is always less welcome than bad.
  It would also be nice to see some sign of Labour's future economic policy and strategy. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but I did agree with what he said on 20 May in this House:
  "I do not think that members of Labour's Front Bench would have even two ideas of what to do with the economy if they came to power … a series of soundbites glued together and called an economic policy is not an economic policy."—[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 420.]
  Like all my colleagues who have spoken thus far, I have no hesitation in giving a warm welcome to the well-structured package that my right hon. and learned Friend announced last week. I derive particular pleasure from the many measures designed to help small businesses which, as Conservative Members well know, are vital to our strategy of reducing unemployment and for future economic prosperity. The long-term impact of many of these measures cannot be overestimated.
  200
  I would, however, like to raise certain issues with my right hon. and learned Friend. For example, I urge him to assure himself that the continued increase in VAT thresholds for small businesses is the universal benefit that it is often claimed to be. I know that many builders in my constituency are deeply worried about the ability of smaller builders—one-man bands—to undercut them on price because they are not registered for VAT. The Chancellor will need to look at that carefully. Are we confident that this recurring measure is bringing in the benefits that we believe it does?
  My right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear me say, speaking as one who has the privilege voluntarily to advise the Small Independent Brewers Association, that I am disappointed that he has not seen fit to introduce a sliding scale of duty for the products of the smaller brewers, who bring so much pleasure and delight to our palates and our social lives. I hope that he will look at that, too, in future Budgets. The Chancellor will also know that I have had the privilege for a number of years of advising the Chamber of Shipping, and I share the disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) at the lack of any treatment to assist the British shipping industry to achieve the parity that it deserves with its European competitors.
  We can unreservedly welcome many of the expenditure measures in this Budget. Many Conservative Members will know of my enthusiasm for the railways, so I particularly welcome the funding by the Department of National Heritage for the new motive power depot of the national railway museum at York. More seriously, I am delighted that it has proved possible to persuade the Treasury to look more favourably on private funding for the west coast main line upgrading, which is so essential to the economic prosperity of the west midlands.
  I must add a word of gratitude for the protection of the overseas aid budget. I hope that in years to come we will be able to move further towards our 0·7 per cent. commitment, but in a difficult year I am just grateful for what has been achieved.
  There is indeed a great deal of good news lurking in the Budget bundle, as it is called. The predicted horrors, maliciously nurtured by the Labour party, have been comprehensively disproved. We should recognise, though, the alarm, despair and despondency that the scare stories caused among many of my elderly and vulnerable constituents. For that reason alone we should deplore Labour's tactics in nurturing people's fears.
  I am pleased that the Budget compensated all pensioners for the VAT on fuel. I am also pleased about the childcare allowance for families and single parents on family credit. I am delighted that we have maintained our commitment to increase in real terms expenditure on the national health service. These are all the hallmarks of a Government who, contrary to Labour's jibes, understand that effective welfare is the litmus test of a decent society.
  This does not mean that we can avoid thinking about the future of the welfare state. Yearly increases of the order of 3 per cent. in the social security budget are clearly not affordable. But here I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore): I do not think that we need to panic. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation study to which the hon. Gentleman referred pointed out that there is a degree of exaggeration about demographic effects to come:

  201
  "Over the medium term, Britain's welfare spending has been a stable share of national income".
  It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman read only the summary of the report; there is often other interesting information in a report's main body. Had he turned to page 6, he would have seen the same report refer to making the welfare state capable of responding to challenges posed by
  "massive changes to labour markets and family structures"
  which are leading in turn to greatly raised demands on the welfare state. The hon. Gentleman would also have found on page 21 of the same report a warm endorsement of the welfare state's redistributive effect in our society. It states:
  "The welfare state does much more than redistribute between rich and poor in a single year, although it clearly does this relatively successfully once one takes into account the taxes which pay for it."
  We are all clear, or should be, of the need to address the future structure of the welfare state. My proposition is that we have time to consider how we can improve the system and make it work better. I suggest two vital considerations that my right hon. Friends should bear in mind as they consider what future structure the welfare state, or the welfare society as we should now call it, should have.
  First, it is essential that we pay full consideration to the impact on pensioners, particularly single pensioners with modest savings or private pensions. I know of the resentment felt by many pensioners in my constituency of Worcester about the impact those modest savings or private pension schemes can have on their eligibility for benefits. They ask me whether this is a reward for the thrift that the Government so often seem to encourage them to practise. They are concerned about lower interest rates which are good for business and mortgage holders, but not always good for them. They have been adversely affected by the move to the council tax. They have been concerned about the rumours spread by the Opposition about sub-post office closures and the removal of other benefits. They are unnerved.
  The Budget has made an excellent start on reassuring precisely that group of pensioners that they need have no such fears. I welcome the VAT compensation package, the extension of the home insulation scheme, the new investment vehicle for pensioners and the Chancellor's ringing declaration on the future of the basic pension that it
  "is, and will remain, a cornerstone of the welfare state. The Government are committed to it and to retaining its value."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 927.]
  Future Budgets must ensure that the excellent progress made in this Budget is continued.
  The second criterion that I should like to see applied to future Budgets is the continuing simplification of and improvement in the welfare state. This Budget has made a good start by merging four benefits into two. Simplification is always welcome. Apart from anything else, there is the reduction in running costs that that is likely to imply for the Departments concerned. On the question of incapacity benefit, speaking as patron of my local myalgic encephalomyelitis support group, I hope that the objective medical test will make full allowance for those whose illness takes a fluctuating pattern, so may be able to pass the test one day, but fail it the next. This is an important consideration in the future of that benefit.
  We have made progress with simplification, but we should go further. In our 1970 manifesto, "A Better Tomorrow", we pledged to investigate the possibility of negative income tax. We said that Governments had
  202
  overestimated the difficulty of this idea. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) made a strong plea for the Government again to consider this possibility, and I believe that he was right to do so.
  At present four agencies assess income and pay benefits: the Inland Revenue, the Contributions Agency, the Benefits Agency and local authorities. It is possible for a family to be on the books of all four at the same time. That does not seem to make much sense. There are several possible ways forward. Negative income tax, basic income schemes or partial basic income schemes would all bring three real benefits: administrative simplicity, an elimination of or a reduction in poverty traps, and a guarantee—I attach great importance to this point—that benefits to which people are often entitled but are too proud to claim will be paid to them without them having to apply for those benefits. I am convinced that such an approach would bring great relief to pensioners. I shall look at it in detail over the coming year. I hope that the Government, too, will give it serious consideration and possibly even consider setting up a royal commission on the subject.
  My judgment on the Budget is the same as that of a former adviser to the Labour party, Gavyn Davies. He described the Budget as "brave and sensible". I agree with that judgment.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I shall be brief as I know that many hon. Members, particularly on the Labour Benches, wish to speak.
  I start by reiterating the importance of the GATT round. As the House knows, I am chairman of a public company, TransTec, which is heavily engaged in exports around the world. I assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all those engaged in these negotiations that it is vital that they succeed if Britain is to continue to have the access that we need on the terms that we need to expanding world markets. That is all the more important given, regrettably, the bad prospects for the United Kingdom economy following this Budget.
  I welcome the Chancellor's presence tonight. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is vital to exporters. Although the increases were welcome—I imagine that it was not easy to get them and I congratulate the Chancellor on doing so—they are not enough. I know from direct experience of selling in export markets against Italy and other countries that are big exporters—the success of the Italians following their devaluation is even bigger than our own—that their terms and the amounts available to them are considerably greater. We have to do more.
  The President of the Board of Trade in his remarks today challenged us to say anything good about the City of London. As the chairman of a public limited company that is quoted on the stock exchange, I am delighted to do so. I shall shortly take the opportunity of quoting some City stockbrokers' interesting remarks on the Budget, with which I largely agree.
  When I attend meetings in the City I am struck by the huge investment to keep it the financial capital of Europe. I am pleased to see that. Offices are palatial and communications systems fantastic. It would knock Frankfurt and other centres into a cocked hat.
  The problem is the marked contradistinction in which that stands to our manufacturing industries, let us say, in

  203
  the midlands, which the Chancellor knows so well. That is why in our briefing before the Budget and after the Budget we have urged the Government to move on capital allowances. They have done nothing about it. Cash flow impacts much more importantly on industry than on the Government—the Government will get the money anyway. We are talking of a cash flow effect. That is an important consideration if one is serious about incentives to invest.
  I welcome in particular the joint ventures project and the appointment of Sir Alastair Morton to be the private sector representative. I welcome it, not least because I had the pleasure of working with Alastair Morton, as he then was, for a number of years in the late 1960s in what was then the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. If the Chancellor does not know already he will soon learn that Alastair Morton strongly believes in Government-industry co-operation. He does not believe that they have to be at each other's throats, as was encouraged unnecessarily through the 1980s. It will be necessary for the Chancellor to stump up some money, if the venture is to work and Sir Alastair is to have any chance at all. He is unquestionably the man for the job and an excellent choice. I commend him to the Chancellor. I am not clear whether this money is to be within the external financing limits or outside the normal Government guarantee that is implicit in any Government funding. Whichever it is, the money must be available on sensible terms. There is the old concept of public dividend capital and there is the possibility of longer-term loans. The size of the financial package is vital if the venture is to succeed.
  What does industry need? Above all, it needs lower interest rates—the Chancellor is still being too cautious on that—and a continuing competitive exchange rate. The two are closely linked. The Chancellor must keep those at the front of his mind as the overriding priorities for next year.
  The Kleinwort Benson research group—the City merchant bank to which I referred earlier—has produced an excellent note, which makes three points about the Budget with which I fully agree. It states that the Chancellor has
  "unveiled a far tougher unified Budget than the fiscal retrenchment of the early 1980s."
  If that does not send a shiver down the spine of all hon. Members present, it should do. The two further points concern public spending. The note states:
  "In real terms, underlying public spending is forecast to fall by 1·3 per cent. next fiscal year."
  More importantly, it states that
  "public sector capital expenditure is forecast to fall by 18·5 per cent. in real terms, in sharp contrast to what is happening in Japan."
  I shall take up that reference later.
  Those are enormous sums and, as the Treasury inflicts them on the country, it should be aware of what happened in the early 1980s. I know that it is all part of tawdry folklore that that Budget laid the foundation for success through the 1980s. That is rubbish. What gave us success was a cheap pound, the tremendous growth in world markets and some movement in commodity prices. All that that Budget did was to get us to such a low level we had nowhere else to go apart from disappear down a vortex of total despair. For those hon. Members who were not in the House during those years and for the Chancellor who was, I shall remind the House that in the west midlands we lost
  204
  one third of our manufacturing capacity and we have not got it back. That is what shows in the balance of trade in manufacturing goods now. Much of that capacity was perfectly viable, manufacturing capacity. It was not lost because of inefficient plants or management, trade union activity or other such nonsense. Every day that I woke up in Coventry a new factory had gone under and if that is where we are again heading, action must be taken to avoid it.
  Clearly, there are no signs of many important world markets recovering. It is well known that the upsurge of the American economy pulled the world economy with it during the 1980s, but there is no sign of that happening now. Europe is in deep depression and Japan is in recession, so the only way for the United Kingdom to come out of recession is through the manufacturing sector and the benefits, if we can secure them, from lower interest rates and a commensurately low and competitive sterling exchange rate.
  The other route out of recession concerns public spending, which, far from being boosted as is happening in Japan, is being cut dramatically by 18·5 per cent. I shall quote a paragraph of the Kleinwort Benson research headed "The madness of cutting public sector investment", which directly applies to the Chancellor. It states that the Chancellor
  "has clearly not learnt anything from the Japanese. In sharp contrast to what is happening here, public sector investment in Japan is forecast to grow by over 11 per cent. in real terms in calendar year 1994, after 11 per cent. this year. According to … our Japanese economist, public sector investment is being relied upon to be the engine for the recovery and next year could contribute 2 per cent. to overall growth in Japan."
  The Chancellor has ruled out that option. It brings me to my final point—the question of unemployment.
  The Chancellor has clobbered the middle classes, he has taken inadequate measures for industry and unfairly penalised—in an opportunist fashion—the unemployed when it is least required. Whatever aspirations he may have or however much he feels that he has to keep in with his own right wing, will he take it from me that the jobs are not there. Cutting the period in which one can claim benefit from one year to six months will not reduce unemployment, but merely increase the misery of those on the dole. Let the Chancellor come to the west midlands and see the low level in manufacturing. Where are the people who are looking for jobs going to find them in the present circumstances? That was the unkindest cut of all and not worthy of the Chancellor as a person.
  I hesitate to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), but it seems that we have a problem in the nation's finances. On present terms, I do not see how the present level of taxation, with the current and growing levels of social benefit payments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Michael Bates: Many have already referred to the recovery in Britain that forms the backdrop to the Budget. The Government have forecast growth at 1·75 per cent. this year and 2·5 per cent. next year. Inflation is well down and is at its lowest level for 30 years, industrial production is well up, retail sales are up and unemployment is down. Interest rates are at their lowest level since 1977 and the Organisation for Economic

  205
  Co-operation and Development, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have predicted that Britain will be the fastest-growing major economy in Europe this year and next. The shrewdest of all economic watchers, the markets, tend to agree. Not only has the market in London risen significantly over the past week, it has also risen consistently over the past year and now stands at some 20 per cent. higher than a year ago.
  Before anybody on the Opposition Benches casts a sneer in that direction, they should remember that we live in the 1990s when there are more shareholders in Britain than there are trade union members—10 million shareholders will benefit from that growth. Eleven million people who participate in occupational pension schemes will benefit because they have £200 billion invested on the United Kingdom stock market. The 1·5 million people who participate in share option schemes and the 6 million people who have private pension schemes will also benefit.
  In contrast to the positive way in which the Budget has been received by the markets because of the benefits that I have outlined is the response of the Opposition. During the debate on the Loyal Address, I had the temerity to ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), as he was castigating policy after policy of the Chancellor that was announced in the Queen's Speech, whether he still stood by his pledge made at the past election to abolish the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions. The hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Our policies are going before the Commission on Social Justice,"—[Official Report, 25 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 597.]
  What a staggering response. I wonder if the same applies to the other policies such as increasing child benefit to £9·95 a week, increasing the basic retirement pension by £5 a week, abolishing the 2 per cent. national insurance contribution for earnings under £54 per week or increasing the top rate of tax to 50 per cent.? Those so-called election winners last year are embarrassingly locked in the cupboard of the Commission on Social Justice this year.
  The Commission is comprised of members from a broad and average cross-section of the British public. I have a list of them. There are some six professors, the provost of Sheffield cathedral, the vice-chair of the Low Pay Unit, the national officer of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and, out of 16, there is one business man—the chairman of Northern Foods plc.
  What have that broad, cross-section of the British public made up of Mr, Mrs and Ms Average come up with after a year? The Commission has just published an important report on the vital issue of social security, which states:
  "Over the next six months we will publish a series of papers explaining some of the tough questions which we believe the country faces: setting out the advantages and disadvantages of the different options."
  It displays a degree of forthrightness that makes the Liberal Democrats look decisive. It is no wonder that in exasperation the Leader of the Opposition dashed off to Brussels to sign the socialist manifesto. It may be a bad policy, but at least it is a policy.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in his own press release on 3 July:
  "We"—
  the Labour party—
  "have nothing to say across a whole range of Macro economic policy, on exchange rates on interest rates, fiscal policy, demand management and public spending."
  The Opposition are so bereft of ideas, as to make their last manifesto seem original.
  206
  I shall now talk about a matter that may gain some cross-party support—late payment of debt.
  I brought the issue before the House when I presented the Commercial Debt Settlement Bill on 2 December 1992. It called for statutory payment terms of 30 days from the date of invoice on commercial debt in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, it takes 81 days for the average business debt to be settled; that is 51 days after normal payment terms. We have the worst record in Europe. The figure for Germany is 18 days and for France it is 28 days. Ireland is the only country to come anywhere near us with 34 days. When one considers that it is only the United Kingdom and Ireland that do not have any statutory protection for businesses in that area, the figures are not surprising.
  The choice is between a code of practice and legislation. I am normally against increasing the legislative burden at a time of deregulation, but I believe that the only opportunity to offer protection is through statutory requirements. The CBI introduced a prompt payers charter three years ago. Since then, it has managed to get only 600 firms, out of some 3 million in the United Kingdom, to sign up to the charter. That demonstrates the problems we face.
  The problem affects not only small business, but big business. Now that we are in the single market, people from countries that have protection against late payment look to the United Kingdom as an opportune market in which to get cheap credit. On 11 May 1993, the Financial Times reported the findings of a survey carried out by NCM, the credit insurance company. The article said:
  "One in five UK companies lost money as a result of late payment by an EC customer in the year ended March 1993 compared to one in eight in the year ended March 1989."
  In the year ended March 1993, delayed payments from Germany rose by 136 per cent. and from Italy by 115 per cent. It is vital that our exporters, who are the lifeblood of our economy and who are leading the country out of recession, are afforded the fullest protection possible when they trade with their European competitors. The only way to do that is through legislation and I shall feed that view into the current DTI consultation.
  In the north-east, Manufacturing Challenge, a private, self-help initiative, has been set up. It is run by business men and entrepreneurs for business men and entrepreneurs. They have set themselves a target of doubling output and tripling exports over the next 10 years. Already, almost 1,000 north-east manufacturing businesses have signed up to the challenge. We must do everything possible to ensure that the challenge is achieved.
  The export credit guarantee premiums reduction will be especially welcome. However, business will focus, as the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) rightly did, on an agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, especially at this important juncture. Some 116 countries are participating in the Uruguay round of GATT. The success of the negotiations in liberalising world trade in the past has been dramatic. The average tariff has fallen from almost 40 per cent. when GATT was established in 1947 to about 4·7 per cent. now. If the final negotiations are successful this week, the figure will be reduced still further to 3 per cent.
  The negotiations have been going on for seven years and they will have a dramatic effect on trade. Between 1959 and 1975, world trade expanded fivefold and the world economy doubled in size. The Prime Minister has rightly placed the settlement of the GATT round at the top

  207
  of his agenda. Its conclusion could do much to release the rest of Europe from the grip of recession. That, together with the Budget, will leave British business in an extremely good position to take full advantage of the recovery.
  The Budget is a courageous and strategic one. It has succeeded at a stroke in boosting recovery in the United Kingdom, in reforming the nation's finances for the next century and in exposing the paucity of ideas and alternatives among Opposition Members.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: A couple of hours ago, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) reminded us of the Macleod dictum—cheers for the Budget, but tears in the summer. With the change in the timetable, we should amend that to cheers for the Budget, but tears before Christmas. I suspect that given the tax rise of £10 a week for average families, it will not be long before the gloss is knocked off this particular Budget.
  I shall proceed on the basis that what the Chancellor did not say last Tuesday may be more important than what he did say. I was struck by the fact that only one sentence in the Budget statement was allocated to the balance of payments. Indeed, when the President of the Board of Trade spoke earlier today, he argued that the balance of payments was improving because the Treasury forecast for last year's deficit had been revised downwards. That is true. The Treasury forecast for the 1992 balance of payments deficit has been revised downwards in the Red Book from £12·5 billion to £8·5 billion. However, that is merely the revision of a forecast. The real underlying position is a deterioration from a £8·5 billion deficit last year to a £9·5 billion deficit being forecast this year. It strikes me that if the Treasury could not this year forecast last year's deficit correctly, it is hardly likely to be able to forecast the future correctly. The underlying position is deteriorating. Six out of seven of the Chancellor's wise men forecast a further deterioration in the balance of payments deficit over coming years, despite of and after the correction in the value of sterling.
  The basic constraint on the United Kingdom economy is not the Budget deficit, which we have been debating for the past week, but the balance of payments deficit. If it were not for a deficit of such magnitude, it would be possible to expand the economy out of recession and to recoup Budget revenues in that fashion. The basic problem is that the British balance of payments is already in deep water. If we had a recovery of any scale, the balance of payments would go right down the plughole. I also believe that the anticipated recovery will not be, in the Chancellor's jargon, "sustainable". It will be a recovery that is "poor, solitary and short".
  The recovery will also be "nasty" and "brutish" as a result of the taxation changes that the Budget entails. Whenever the Chancellor has made key taxation decisions, he has chosen the regressive route. There has been a reduction in benefits, a shift to indirect taxation, a freezing of allowances and the beginnings of the opt-out of the middle classes from welfare provision. All that suggests a regressive attitude towards basic welfare and taxation provision.
  208
  It is true that, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) suggested earlier, many people who are more comfortably off will feel the chill wind of taxation from this Budget. I suspect that it is part of the Government's political strategy that such people will be compensated in the short term by the reduction in mortgatge payments and that, as we near the election, the Government will reverse the sacrifices of the middle classes.
  Therefore, the Budget is anti-poor. It is also anti-Scottish in many of its components, and I shall examine three of those this evening. First, there is no recognition in the compensation scheme for VAT on domestic fuel of the fact that within colder areas, such as Scotland, it costs more for people to heat their homes. Even when the compensation package operates to its full extent, £150 million to £200 million will be taken out of the Scottish economy by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. That is £30 to £40 a head.
  That imposition comes on top of the real problem, which is widely recognised. Some 750,000 people in Scotland currently have trouble with their heating. There is no way in which the Chancellor's compensation package will fully compensate people who already have problems with their domestic heating in a cold climate. It is to the shame of the House that when the issue was put to the test on 28 October, only 33 hon. Members bothered to go into the Division Lobbies to vote for a cold climate allowance which would have tackled head on the question of fuel poverty.
  A second example of the anti-Scottish nature of the Budget is the imposition of increases in petrol duties. They will fall hardest in the rural areas and in areas where there are already high petrol prices. I have here the Automobile Association's current fuel price report. It shows that with an average price of £2·35 a gallon in Aberdeen, it is now 24p dearer to buy a gallon of unleaded petrol there than it is to buy a gallon in Portsmouth, where it costs £2·11. Clearly, an imposition of further duties, with the threat of much more to come, will hit hardest the areas where fuel prices are now highest.
  As has been mentioned, private cars are not a luxury but a necessity in many rural areas. The fuel tax increase of 3p a litre as the Chancellor described it—I was surprised because if there was ever a gallon man, it was the Chancellor—which is the equivalent of 14p or more per gallon, will increase the price of just about every item on shop and supermarket counters throughout Scotland. We have the irony of fuel tax increases that will hit hardest the energy-producing areas of the country.
  Thirdly, the Budget offered a rather strange petroleum revenue tax concession to pipeline networks in the North sea. I am in favour of PRT concessions because I believe that the PRT changes last year did a great deal of damage in the North sea. However, the one concession in the Budget has been drawn so specifically that the only pipeline consortium that can possibly benefit is the central area transmission system—the CATS consortium—which takes gas from the central North sea and lands it on Teesside. It is a concession that has been drawn in such a way that it can benefit only one consortium of oil and gas companies. It would be like having a concession on income tax that said in its subtext that the concession would be given only to someone named Clarke, whose first name is Kenneth, who happens to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who dresses in a dishevelled manner and wears Hush Puppies. The oil tax concession has been drawn in

  209
  such a way as to benefit British Gas and Amoco; those companies are suctioning gas out of the North sea and taking it to Teesside.
  In those three areas, the Budget ensures that the Scottish people will suffer the remarkable paradox of fuel poverty among energy plenty.
  I was struck not only by the foolish cheers of Conservative Members that greeted the Budget but by the lack of genuine outrage on the Labour Benches. Some hon. Members will be familiar with The Sunday Post, a remarkably successful Scottish newspaper that even its friends would not call a left-wing organ of the radical side of politics. On Sunday, its political commentary about the Budget said:
  "There was cold comfort for the poorest, oldest and weakest among us—the very people Labour claim to be protecting … a lean and hungry Opposition would have eaten the Tories for breakfast, but John Smith's toothless tigers let them off with barely a scratch.
  Nye Bevan must be spinning in his grave."
  If we have reached a situation when even The Sunday Post believes that the Labour party has lost its radical cutting edge, it suggests that it is not only the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer who has lost his way in politics.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a Budget that has struck an ingenious balance between fiscal probity on the one hand and political sensitivity on the other. The Government's borrowing requirement needed to be reduced for the simple reason—setting aside all the fancy economic arguments—that it is very expensive to borrow £50 billion a year. That means that taxpayers' money is used for interest payments when it should be use for better things.
  The Chancellor has managed to combine a reduction in the borrowing requirement with taking account of the sensitivities of important groups of the population. Pensioners will have the benefit of the very generous package of compensation for VAT on fuel. Small business men in my constituency will welcome the tightening up on the late payment of bills.
  The Chancellor has struck another balance, the one between fiscal policy and monetary policy. As well as cutting the Budget deficit, there was a very welcome reduction in interest rates announced the week before the Budget.
  We have heard the arguments about the conduct of monetary policy and the arguments for and against an independent central bank, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). There are arguments for giving the Bank of England greater independence. When I think back to my days as an official in the Treasury's monetary policy division 10 years ago, I am embarrassed about the way that articles appearing in the Bank of England's Quarterly Bulletin were sent to us for detailed textual scrutiny; every paragraph had to be checked and suggestions made so that it was identical to the Treasury view. The fact that the Bank of England now has its own independent role in commenting on the Government's performance in attaining its inflation objectives is clearly an improvement.
  One of the achievements of the Budget is that it has tightened fiscal policy and, at the same time, made some loosening of monetary policy possible. Have we reached the position where we have to be coy about a reduction in
  210
  interest rates? If the Chancellor has reached an overall macro-economic judgment, I do not see why we should feel that an announcement of a cut in interest rates should be made at a different time by a different body. It is acceptable that the announcements of tax increases and interest rate cuts should go together.
  Some people say that the problem of the credibility of financial policy requires an independent central bank. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West moved towards the conventional wisdom on this subject, which was unusual for him. We rarely associate him with the conventional wisdom.
  If 10-year gilt rates are down to 7 per cent., that suggests that the City has no doubt about the Government's ability to hold down the rate of inflation in the long term. Some of the more radical arguments for an independent central bank are not borne out by the evidence.
  My second point on the Budget concerns a subject that is rather shrouded in esoteric mystery—the announcement in the Budget about improved resource accounting in the public sector. One of my right hon. and learned Friend's great gifts is the ability to talk about the economy and controlling the public finances in language that is understood by the everyday citizen. I am sure that we will not hear much from the Chancellor about the esoteric mysteries of resource accounting. That is sensible and understandable.
  There is buried within the Treasury's proposals about improved accounting for the cost of capital and sensible recognition—and here I disagree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)—that within the public sector the assumption that capital is virtuous and that current spending is somehow evil does not make much sense. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West quoted figures from Kleinwort Benson's investment bulletin. I must reveal that I am a consultant to Kleinwort Benson. Even so, I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said using those quotations.
  In the public sector paying science teachers more may be a better long-term investment for the British economy than building new schools. One of the problems of the public sector is that we have too often engaged in funding new capital projects when it would have been more sensible better to maintain our current plant and equipment. More money should have been spent on refurbishment and proper maintenance.
  In a world where capital is free but rationed, there is a temptation for people in the public sector to bid for more of that free capital because they have never had to think about long-term depreciation costs and the real cost of capital. In the public sector, we are biased towards capital spending, which I hope the Treasury's new guidelines will correct.
  My third comment concerns the balance of the burden of taxation. The argument that has been debated in the media during the past few months is whether the way to deal with the Budget deficit is by increasing taxes or cutting expenditure. That either/or dilemma seems to me to be bogus. We can see from the Budget that tight public expenditure control and tax increases complement each other.
  The best way to achieving tight public expenditure control is for people to see that the taxpayers who can afford it are making their contribution to bringing the deficit down. Taxpayers will be prepared to pay higher taxes only if they are confident that the public sector is

  211
  subject to the same stringency and discipline that the private sector has been experiencing for the past few years. The tax increases and tight expenditure control announced in the Budget are stronger and more credible because they are set alongside each other.
  After the March Budget, there was an argument that because of VAT on fuel the Budget was regressive. But VAT on fuel was only approximately a third of the tax increases announced in the Budget. There was also an increase in national insurance contributions, from which pensioners are exempt. Moreover, most pensioners are not paying mortgages and are unaffected by the reduction in mortgage interest relief. The overall impact of the first Budget this year was, if anything, to shift the burden of taxation away from pensioners.
  This Budget is equally progressive. The Library provided me with some figures concerning the long-term trends in the proportion of taxpayers paying income tax. In 1978–79, the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers bore 11 per cent. of all income tax liabilities. In 1993–94 it is provisionally estimated that the top 1 per cent. of income taxpayers will bear 17 per cent. of all income tax liabilities. In 1978–79, the top 10 per cent. of income taxpayers were bearing 34 per cent. of all income tax liabilities; that is now up to 45 per cent. In other words, the more affluent taxpayers are paying a higher proportion of the total burden of income tax than at the beginning of the Government's term in office. That suggests that the picture of tax increases is very different from what we have been led to believe.
  The debate on the future of the welfare state has now begun. On Sunday, I read with great interest a story on the front page of The Sunday Times which said that we should now have a debate about the integration of taxes and benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) spoke on that subject.
  We need continuing reform of the welfare state because it cannot be allowed to remain unchanged, but, equally, some ideas about the integration of taxes and benefits are classic examples of yesterday's ideas for tomorrow. They are largely unworkable because people pay taxes on their annual income while benefits are paid to them according to weekly or fortnightly needs. People are also taxed on the basis of where they are employed, whereas benefits are paid on the basis of where they live.
  Moreover, as a Conservative, I believe that there is a crucial difference between paying into the system through taxes and national insurance contributions and taking out of the system through social security payments. We need continuing reform of the welfare state, but it needs to take the form of encouraging private insurance, wherever that is possible. We should also ensure that entitlement to benefit is targeted on greatest need, which means ensuring that the conditions for that entitlement are properly met.
  I hope that the Labour party's Social Justice Commission will address some of those questions, but as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already said, so far it seems to be more concerned with raising questions than delivering answers. My overall judgment of the Chancellor's Budget is that it strikes the right balance between fiscal probity and political sensitivity and I warmly welcome it.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is important that the Opposition should not be seen to be wholly negative, so may I begin by welcoming some parts of the Budget. For example, the assistance for child care, although underfunded, is a start. I also welcome the plans for apprenticeships and the proposals to close certain tax loopholes as well as the proposals to tackle late payments for small businesses. I understand, however, that the business community is not united on that issue, so caution must be exercised before any legislation is introduced.
  I also welcome the upgrading of the west coast main line, which will benefit the west midlands. I should remind the Chancellor, however, that the Minister for Public Transport said on the Monday before the Budget that failure to upgrade the west coast main line was not an option and that if private finance did not come forward, the public sector must invest.
  Budgets are judged on the economic future that they create for Britain. On that key issue the Chancellor delivered the Budget with all the style and panache of a second-hand car dealer selling a dodgy motor—the bigger the defects, the wider the grin and the faster the patter.
  The Chancellor originally got the franchise to sell his vehicle by advertising at the general election that the Conservative Government would cost less and deliver more. Instead, with the cheeky assurance that we had all got off lightly because he had not extended VAT, the Chancellor delivered one of the biggest tax hikes in British history at the same time as imposing some of the worst cuts in public provision.
  The Government say that their new policy is "back to basics", but we now know that a "back to basics" economic policy means that people pay more and get less. "Back to basics" does not just mean that the usual victims of Conservatism will be punished. Yes, the unemployed will be battered because their benefits will be reduced to six months and invalids may face six months of worry about whether they will qualify for the equivalent of invalidity benefit. This time, however, middle income families will also pay more and get less. They will lose because of the cuts in the married couple's allowance and mortgage interest relief. They will lose due to the burglary tax, because of VAT on home insurance, and they will lose due to the new car tax, because of VAT on car insurance. The new airport tax will hit any holidays taken by families from October 1994. Taken together, this year's Tory Budget will cost middle income families in my constituency £10 a week next year and £16 a week from April 1995. Half of the total collected will come from direct taxation.
  Tory broken promises will mean that 19 out of 20 households will be worse off and the total tax burden will rise to 38·5 per cent. in the next few years—it was 34 per cent. under Labour in 1979. People will receive less provision for the extra money that they must spend.
  The Chancellor told the House that the aim of his first Budget was to sustain economic recovery, but that is precisely the central flaw in his Budget. Taking so much out of the economy at a time of such tentative recovery is an extremely risky strategy. According to business men in the west midlands and north Warwickshire, the recovery is at best very weak and could easily stall. If so, we would be dependent upon the recovery of the European economies. That could take some years.

  213
  This is the wrong time to take risks with the recovery, but the Chancellor has decided to take them for short-term party political gains—three days of good headlines. He said that the recovery was the priority, but the real aim of the Budget was just to reduce the deficit. I do not deny that the two are interlinked, but effectively tackling the deficit depends on economic recovery. The Chancellor seems to think, however, that economic recovery depends on tackling the deficit.
  In my view, the Government have overplayed the dangers of the deficit at this stage in the economic cycle for two reasons. First, it is an excuse for cuts in social security payments and the welfare state. Secondly, because of the Government's current lack of economic direction, they are still dependent on the old nostrums of monetarism to act as some kind of guide even on the zig-zag economic course on which they have now embarked.

  The deficit was the creation of economic mismanagement by the Government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, we entered the ERM at a rate that many of us—even those of us who favoured the ERM in principle—said at the time was unsustainable. By trying to sustain the unsustainable, through high interest rates, appalling damage was done to the British economy. That policy drove us into recession and unemployment, which created the deficit. It was the Government's bad judgment that created the deficit.
  It was only the failure of Government policy in September 1992 that allowed the recovery to start as the value of the pound fell and interest rates also began to fall. To take money out of the economy now through taxation and social security cuts will reduce demand and damage the many businesses that rely on spending power. That decision displays the same bad judgment that we have seen all too often from the Government.
  The Government's concern that the deficit would crowd out investment and damage recovery is not completely unfounded, but we do not live in a closed economy. The crowding out of investment is a theory that lacks resonance day by day as our economy becomes more international and investment is an international decision for capital.
  It is difficult to be sure how much of the deficit is structural, but the OECD has suggested that at least two thirds of the PSBR is cyclical—mainly unemployment related. If £27 billion goes on keeping people out of work, the Government have two choices: they could cut benefits or invest in putting the unemployed back to productive work. The Chancellor chose the first option. Labour would choose the second.
  The Chancellor risks a £12 billion deflationary Budget in the hope that it will not damage recovery. I hope that he is right, but I suspect that he is wrong. He has taken a risky course and a lot will depend on lowering interest rates soon to reduce the deflationary impact of the Budget.
  In an internationally competitive market, the central role of Government is to use their resources, their ability to plan and direct, to create the basis for effective competition for Britain. That means creating physical infrastructures such as good quality railways, roads and communications. It means creating an intellectual base for research and development opportunities and a skilled and educated work force. It means creating the basis for a high skill, high wage, productive, competitive economy.
  The Budget does not have that vision for Britain. It has all the hallmarks of the fag-end of the Thatcherite agenda. The old sweat shop mentality still drips from every pore of
  214
  the Budget. Thatcherism failed economically because it tried to build policy on an intellectual argument that did not recognise the realities of the modern international economies. This Budget will therefore fail. It does not create an effective economic base for Britain's future.
  The effects of the failure of the Chancellor's policies will be felt disproportionately by the unemployed and by the sick. In the Budget, the vulnerable pay the price of their vulnerability.
  Last weekend, several people who were seeking invalidity benefit were at my surgery. They expressed real concern about their future. There is little evidence of abuse of invalidity benefit. The DSS commissioned research by Ehrens and Gate and, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) pointed out in his speech last Wednesday, the DSS has not yet received the findings of that research, and there is little evidence that dishonest people are receiving invalidity benefit on a large scale. Eight out of 10 claims referred to the Benefits Agency medical service have seen the GP's decision upheld.
  Although the Government's proposals will not remove most of the present recipients from benefit, they will cause massive worry to a most vulnerable group. They will ensure that a number of current marginal cases do not get the benefit, and that a section who are now clearly within the present criteria are moved to a marginal position where they may or may not get the benefit.
  The Budget has been about punishing victims: the victims of invalidity, of unemployment and, beyond that, of all the taxpayers of Britain, who are the victims of a Tory Government whose incompetence over the past 14 years has been continued in the Budget.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was clearly not in the Chamber last Tuesday to hear the Budget that I heard. I wonder whether he has confused last Tuesday's Budget with the Labour party shadow Budget of last year, because the Budget that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor introduced last Tuesday has received a resounding welcome up and down the country.
  I want to speak in support of the Budget, particularly on behalf of the west country, which is the region that I am proud to represent. In the west country, we have a high proportion of retired people. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that, in anybody's language, the Budget can be described as a Budget for pensioners. I was delighted with the compensation package for VAT on fuel. It is an excellent package, and I am sure that it will alleviate—and already has alleviated—many of the anxieties of pensioners living in the west country.
  Of course, many of those anxieties have been whipped up by Opposition Members, who I am sure spend every night lying awake thinking up ways of getting up in the morning and frightening elderly people. Now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has delivered such an excellent compensation package, I wonder what the active minds of Opposition Members will be dreaming up tonight to frighten elderly people tomorrow.
  I welcome the support that we have given, not just to pensioners on income support and the most vulnerable, but to all pensioners. The reason why I welcome it so strongly is that I believe that we should encourage responsible behaviour. We should encourage those who have been

  215
  thrifty, and have put a little by for a rainy day. So often we exclude them from any benefit and compensation, but they can be just as elderly, as concerned and anxious as the next person.
  I would encourage us to go further down the line of setting up our tax and welfare systems to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage irresponsible behaviour. I particularly welcome the fact that the compensation is to be received by pensioners in advance of the higher bills. That will enable them to see that they no longer have to worry about turning on the gas and electricity for fear of not being able to afford to pay their bills, because the compensation will be there before their very eyes before those days arrive.
  I welcome also the fact that, on average, the compensation package will broadly cover all changes in fuel bills. I note that the Labour party must be happy about the compensation package, because it has not tabled any amendments to today's debate to amend it in any way.
  I welcome the guaranteed income bond, which is another initiative of my right hon. and learned Friend. Another anxiety that pensioners have is that, as interest rates decline, and while those of us with large mortgages —in my case, I mean large—welcome interest rate reductions, pensioners see their incomes shrink.
  We can argue until we are blue in the face that, with very low inflation, the real value of their capital and their monthly income is being preserved, but it does not feel that way to them. That is why I so warmly welcome the guaranteed income bond, which, when established, will give a guaranteed monthly return for a fixed period of five years. That is something for elderly people to plan on. If there is one thing that pensioners like to do more than anything else, it is to be able to look forward with a sense of certainty and comfort.
  Those new bonds, which I am sure will quickly be called granny bonds, are to be warmly welcomed; they are an excellent part of the Budget.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that something else for which pensioners have the Government to thank in planning their finances is the very low rate of inflation, which was not something that they enjoyed under the past Labour Government?
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. The bedrock of our policies is to help elderly people with savings. Low inflation is the key: that is something that Opposition Members could never achieve in the past, and of course will never have the opportunity to achieve in the future. I welcome the Budget as a Budget for pensioners, and therefore a Budget for the west country.
  The second aspect of the Budget which is a super boost for the west country is the help for small businesses. We know that the west country is full of many excellent small and medium-sized businesses. Until I was elected to this place, I spent my career advising small and medium-sized businesses on legal and other general commercial matters as a solicitor specialising in company and commercial law. I feel that I have a sense of what businesses require. When business people in Plymouth speak to me about what they want from the Government, they say that, first and foremost, they want a stable economic environment.
  216
  Secondly, they want a minimum of expensive bureaucracy. Thirdly, they want the ability to obtain working capital at a price they can afford. I shall examine the Budget against that benchmark: first, the right economic environment. With inflation at 1·4 per cent., with interest rates currently at 5·5 per cent.—we hope that they will go lower yet—and with a competitive pound, that is the right framework that our businesses are looking for.
  The managing director of the Barden Corporation, which is an excellent company in Plymouth, employs 250 people, makes high-precision ball bearings and exports them all over the world, told me only a week ago that it was now enjoying the best year that it had had for 10 years. He puts it down primarily to two things: first, the competitive pound, which makes his products competitive for overseas markets; secondly, the fact that our non-wage labour costs are lower than those of our European competitors.
  He drew my attention to the fact that his sister company in Germany has non-wage labour costs roughly 30 per cent. higher than the costs in the United Kingdom, because of the implications of German employment legislation reflecting the social chapter. The recipe that Opposition Members wish to prescribe for this country is non-competitive labour rates, which would price our goods out of the market.
  When I think about what Opposition Members want us to enter into—a minimum wage, the social chapter and the 35-hour working week—I can only describe it as a charter for job losses. It is to be rejected by all right-thinking people.
  We have the right framework for economic growth, and business people in the west country are grateful for that. The Budget has introduced a variety of excellent measures to help the small business man. Again, my right hon. and learned Friend has referred to deregulation, a boost that is to come in the months that lie ahead. In that deregulation, can we also deal with those over-zealous officials who, no matter what regulations we might have, seek to enforce them in a way that does not take into account the requirements of small businesses?
  Perhaps it should be made an absolute requirement for enforcement officers to have greater experience of small business, so that they know what it is like for business men to worry that they may not have enough money to pay the wages at the end of the week or to buy food for their families at the weekend unless they get their bills paid and can produce the goods that week. We need to look at the way in which we enforce our regulations.
  The deregulation move is important, as are the reform of the current regime for assessing personal tax, the lifting of the VAT threshold and the reduction of audit requirements. All those measures are welcome.
  I want to make one final point about small business before I sit down and allow others to have their say. I have been advising small and medium-sized companies for the past 12 years. In my experience, one of the pressing requirements is working capital, in particular the ability to attract equity investment. I welcome the venture capital trust and enterprise investment schemes warmly, because they will be an important factor in helping to bridge the gap in the market.
  Unlike some of their European competitors, our business people find it difficult to attract equity capital in relatively small amounts. When I was in private practice, I used to say to clients, "I can find you £3 million, but it will be a struggle to find £100,000." It is that sort of

  217
  amount that makes the difference between standing still or growth, enabling businesses to build a new extension, find extra markets or take on a new sales director. That is the sort of equity investment for which small and medium-sized businesses are looking.
  I welcome the change from the old BES rules, which will allow investors to take up a paid directorship with the company in which they are investing. Many people with money to invest are looking to become actively involved in small companies for interest's sake. They have not just cash but a wealth of experience and expertise to offer, and can be tremendously helpful to young growing companies. I believe that the measures to help small businesses are an enormous asset to it. They will be a boost for jobs, and will be warmly welcomed throughout the west country.
  In my opinion, the most important aspect of the Budget is the way in which it has been received. Its first goal was that it should not damage the recovery. That is why the reception of ordinary men and women up and down the country has been so important. I am one of many Conservative Members who—unlike Opposition Members, I suspect—are in touch with real people outside this place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Opposition Members, who spend their time with trade unionists and full-time officials, are not in touch with real people. Real people welcome the Budget. It will not be a brake on the recovery. It will keep tills ringing in Plymouth high street, and I look forward to retail sales in December and January significantly higher than in the same period last year. This has been a successful Budget, and it is an important milestone on the road towards our great goal of sustainable economic growth.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Last week, in one of the jolly radio interviews that have become the Chancellor's hallmark, the right hon. and learned Gentleman revealed that he was amazed at the positive reception that his Budget elicited. I am not surprised that he was amazed. No one knows better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman just how much of a gamble his Budget was; how deeply and possibly deadly deflationary it will turn out to be; and how savage will be its effect on living standards of people throughout the country, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the first to boast. That is why many of the economic judgments that have followed the Budget are rather more cautious than the enthusiastic response of political journalists—a more impressionable bunch, in my experience—not to mention the premature excitement shown by Tory Members as illustrated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter).
  What the hon. Gentleman and other Tory Members need to remember is that the people who have not yet spoken about the Budget are those most directly affected by it—the public. They have yet to give their verdict about the combined effect of tax increases and spending cuts equivalent to almost 8p on the basic rate of income tax. They have not yet said what they think about the implications for services of public sector wage increases having to be paid for out of patient care, school books and social services, or about the additional financial burden on families, as sick pay, invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit are cut. They have not said what they think about the fact that council tax will be pushed through the roof as
  218
  the inevitable consequence of the measures in the Budget. The public's reaction will be justifiable fear, then anger made all the fiercer because of the Government's duplicity and their betrayal of election promises.
  The longer-term economic judgment of the Budget—and of the Chancellor's claim that the Budget has delivered sound finance at last—depends on a number of assumptions that are by no means certain to be fulfilled: first, that recovery is not damaged by the deflationary effect of the measures; secondly, that the Chancellor's spending targets are met; thirdly, that the Chancellor is prepared to put up taxes even further if the totals do not hold; and, fourthly, that world economic developments promote growth rather than undermine it—a dangerous assumption given conditions in Europe, and particularly in Germany, as well as in Japan.
  A great risk is being taken with the recovery, which is very fragile, as Ministers acknowledge in their more candid—or their more cornered—moments. The recovery is being held back above all by the sheer scale and fear of unemployment, which is still depressing confidence and spending in the economy. That is why the recovery should have been nurtured much more actively, by greater rather than less public investment in housing, infrastructure and other supply side components to strengthen, the capacity and performance of the economy.
  The Red Book reveals that net capital public sector spending will fall from 2·25 per cent. of GDP in 1993–94 to just 1·5 per cent. by 1995–96 and in each successive year. That is exactly the opposite of what not just the Labour party but the CBI, and now Europe's top industrialists, led by Sir Denys Henderson, have urged. There is no evidence that that huge cut will be made up by the private sector, however much we might welcome that in principle and however hopeful the Government and their supporters might be as a result of the work of the task force led by Sir Alastair Morton.
  The issue is not only that fewer jobs will be created as a result of the loss of investment, causing unemployment to remain higher than it need, but that recovery is being directly endangered by the Budget, and that opportunities to stimulate growth and strengthen the economy in the long term are being sacrificed as a result of the Chancellor's shortsightedness. Moreover, to realise their admittedly modest and unambitious growth target of 2·5 per cent. in the next year, the Government will be relying heavily on cuts in interest rates by next spring and summer to stimulate growth in manufacturing output and employment. Desperation over interest rates in the next six months may add further interesting spice to the Chancellor's relationship with the Prime Minister, as they vie with each other over when and by how much to reduce interest rates and compete to catch and influence the ear of the Governor of the Bank of England.
  It can hardly be sensible for the Government to depend so exclusively on the uncertain weapon of interest rates, that one-club policy to secure growth, when it is also the only weapon open to the Chancellor to control inflation. If there is a conflict between the need to stimulate growth by reducing interest rates and to control inflation by having to increase them, it will be interesting to see which way the Chancellor jumps. It will be an invidious choice. That is why he is wrong to rely exclusively on rate cuts and to ignore other supply-side, investment and employment measures which all in industry and the Opposition have called for to ensure growth is strong and sustained.

  219
  On the Chancellor's public spending assumptions, I echo the views of the Institute of Fiscal Studies that were reflected in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). The Chancellor's plans are not just a squeeze, they are a huge contraction, and only remotely reasonable when contrasted with what the Chief Secretary would like to do if he were given half a chance.
  The plans are absolutely unprecedented in their severity; they are more draconian than anything achieved by Mrs. Thatcher and Nigel Lawson at the height of their power in office. We must question their desirability—they are certainly inconsistent with the pledges made in the Conservative manifesto at the last general election—but also their feasibility.
  The new spending total suggests a real-term, non-cyclical increase of 3·8 per cent. to 1999. That contrasts with the comparable rise of 12·5 per cent. in real terms between 1980–81 and 1986–87. To meet his spending total, I wonder how far the Chancellor is prepared to go in further decimating public services, driving down their standards, contracting out whatever the sense or benefit in doing so, and pushing up charges to individual users of the services, thereby putting them out of reach for so many. It means the wholesale abandonment of many Tory election promises and I believe that many Conservative Members have yet to wake up to that.
  The other assumption underlying the Budget is that the Chancellor would put up taxes even further if his spending plans are not met. Is the Chancellor prepared to own up to that? Certainly on television this weekend he simply said that he did not have a clue. I wonder about that. I suspect that the Chancellor knows now that his arithmetic will not add up and that further tax rises have been planned to pay for past mistakes and the cost of future low growth and continuing mass unemployment.
  He hinted as much in his Budget speech when he said:
  "I have never disguised my personal view that the coverage of VAT in this country is too narrow.".
  He went on:
  "The Government's clear policy has always been to shift the burden of taxation, over time from income to spending.".—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 932–6.]
  The Chancellor is putting that cover in place in order further to increase the tax burden in future years. The growth in VAT and indirect taxes is the uncompleted, glossed over, yet-to-explode part of the Budget story as the Chancellor's perilously balanced equations start to unravel, as Conservative Members will soon discover.
  The Budget managed to combine savage deflationary content with overly optimistic rose-tinted presentation. It does not begin to address Britain's core economic problems: our lack of industrial capacity and competitiveness, the waste of unemployment and our declining share of world trade.
  It begins—as it needs to—to deal with the unsustainable financial deficit but is less than honest both in its prescriptions and in its predictions about how the deficit will be conquered. The consequences of the Budget will be tax, tax and yet more tax, however thinly it may be disguised and camouflaged. That is why the Tories' election promises will never be trusted again.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to welcome the Budget, which is both clever and compassionate, and to follow a characteristically churlish contribution from the Labour Benches.
  In company with other hon. Members, I should like to take the opportunity to single out a particular aspect of the Budget—the package for dealing with VAT on fuel and its effect on the more vulnerable in our society.
  It is a strange issue in many ways because of the emotion it arouses in Opposition Members. The prime emotion it tends to arouse is hypocrisy in many quarters. We saw a classic example from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) when he had the audacity earlier today to claim that the Government were trying to avoid a vote on VAT on fuel.
  Even the newest hon. Member of the 1992 intake would know that that vote has already taken place and, as was pointed out earlier, it was perfectly open to the official Opposition to table an amendment on the package, but not on the principle of VAT on fuel, and they have signally and dismally failed to do so. The matter was dealt with following the March Budget and today we are talking about the package for dealing with the less well-off.
  It is particularly rewarding to know that, in advance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement, the Labour social security spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), said that he was looking for 50p extra on pensions. I know that the quotation will appear several times in the debate, but it certainly bears repetition. I know that Opposition Members do not like to hear it, so let them hear it again. I predict that they will hear it many more times in the coming months. The hon. Gentleman said
  "The Government has to add something on to take account of that"
  —the introduction of VAT on fuel—
  "and they could do it with an extra 50p on pensions."
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the publication in which that quote appeared subsequently admitted that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said no such thing and that he was misquoted? That has been made perfectly clear, not least by my hon. Friend today to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Waterson: I was unaware that had been the case. I seem to remember that, when the point was made on the first day of the Budget debate, the hon. Gentleman did not leap to his feet to make the point on his own behalf. That is a quotation from The People on 21 November 1993.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that quotation?
  Mr. Waterson: I will not withdraw it. I am quoting from The People newspaper of 21 November.
  Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waterson: No. I have a speech to make and I will make it. It is worth commenting that the Government are providing what the right hon. Gentleman was calling for even before VAT is imposed at its standard rate.
  Let us move on. I have already dealt with the hypocrisy of Labour Members; let me now deal with the hypocrisy of

  221
  the Liberal Democrats. I notice that they have not chosen to grace us with their presence in the Chamber this evening.
  I represent the constituency of Eastbourne, a place reasonably well known in recent political history because of the famous by-election. We have heard a great deal from the Liberal Democrats on the issue in Eastbourne. We have seen endless leaflets and statements in the papers. They have made a great deal of political mileage out of it. As we all know, the Liberal Democrats are political chameleons who change their colour depending on the background in a particular part of the country. In my part of the country, which is predominantly Conservative, they pretend to be just like the Conservatives. Elsewhere, they do the opposite and pretend that they are a more pleasant alternative to the Labour party. However, as we all know, in truth they are Labour's country cousins. If one needs evidence of that, one need only look at the alacrity with which they leapt into a pact with Labour to run East Sussex county council after the elections a little earlier this year.
  As I have quoted the Labour party's spokesman on the issue, it is only fair that I should quote the Liberal Democrats. As recently as the Liberal Democrats 1992 election manifesto, they said:
  "We will support a Community-wide Energy Tax on all energy sources."
  In a policy document entitled "Taxing Pollution, not People" which was endorsed by their 1993 party conference, the Liberal Democrats stated:
  "We support the European Community proposals for an energy/carbon tax, and would press for its immediate implementation at national level".
  Perhaps the most damning quotation, and the one which they can wriggle and squirm about, but from which the Liberal Democrats cannot get away, is set out in their 1990 policy document entitled "Costing the Earth" in which they say that they
  "advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy … The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward, but phase them in at lower levels than otherwise—for example, by ending the anomalous zero-rate of VAT on fuel".
  As that quotation rightly recognises, most other countries in the industrialised world, and certainly in the European Community, already have VAT or its equivalent on fuel. It is and always has been a political inevitability that one day, sooner or later, VAT would be imposed on domestic fuel. That must of course be admitted, if only behind closed doors, by Opposition parties.
  What matters, and what has always mattered, is the package to be introduced to look after those less able to pay the extra VAT. It is also important to address the feelings of other people in my constituency, the better-off pensioners who have, none the less, expressed their concern about the ability of the less well-off in my constituency to bear the tax.
  That is why, since the March Budget, many of us have made representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues about this subject. That is why I am so pleased today to welcome, with my colleagues, the extra help and the package which involves £2·5 billion over three years and will benefit 15 million people. All pensioners, widows, the long-term sick on invalidity benefit and those on low incomes will benefit.
  I need not spell out once more the details of the proposals. However, as if that package were not enough, in
  222
  addition we have an extra £35 million a year for the home energy efficiency scheme. We all know that the elderly and retired often live in large relatively uninsulated and not very energy-efficient properties. They will benefit more than any other group in society from that extra spending. In addition, there is a 25 per cent. increase in the cold weather payments over two years. There is no good reason for anyone who is vulnerable in our society to be worried about paying the extra VAT on fuel despite all the propaganda and worry caused by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members.
  Another issue that is particularly good news for my retired constituents is the guaranteed income bond, or "granny bond". The Chancellor has rightly recognised that whenever interest rates are cut, although that may be good news for those in business and those paying a mortgage, it has a significant effect on pensioners' incomes in places like Eastbourne and on their spending power. Potentially, that has a knock-on effect on the local economy. We should not underestimate the effect of such cuts on the standard of living of pensioners.
  Mr. Bates: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many pensioners are very fearful about inflation because many of them are living on fixed incomes from occupational pension schemes? The last thing that they can afford to suffer is high inflation. Therefore, low inflation is very much the pensioners' friend.
  Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. One of the Government's most tremendous achievements is that they have brought inflation down to such a very low level—and they are keeping it at that level. We all know that the most important thing that any Government in this country can do for the pensioner is to do precisely that. When I recall the raging inflation prior to 1979, I dread to think of what the effect would be on my constituents if we were still suffering under a Labour Government.
  The Budget has done three major things: it has restated the importance of sound public finances; it has done a great deal to protect and encourage the recovery; and, at the same time, it has protected the more vulnerable in our society. In that way, it has tackled an issue which was, until the Budget, being cynically exploited by our political opponents.
  I am delighted that the Budget has been welcomed so widely by pensioners' organisations, including Age Concern in my constituency. The Liberal Democrats will no longer be able to gain votes by issuing propaganda on that issue. The Chancellor has tackled the problem and has produced a package which no one could have foreseen in its generosity and its comprehensive nature. As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has shot their fox.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: As I listened to the Chancellor's first Budget last week, I was overcome by an overwhelming sense of deja vu. I had seen that devil-may-care self-confidence somewhere before. For a moment, I could not recall where, but the cheering from the Tory Back Benches and the waving of Order Papers reminded me that, precisely seven months before, the Budget of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr.

  223
  Lamont), was greeted in exactly the same way. He also managed to produce a flurry of Order Papers, and he too was hailed as a financial wizard and conjuror who had saved the Government's bacon. Alas, just a few weeks later, Norman's miracle had turned into a mirage. There he was, back on the Back Benches, sacked because his Budget had been recognised for what it was—a disaster for the country.
  A week on, and the new Chancellor's Budget is also beginning to unravel. All the representational panache in the world cannot disguise the reality of the Budget—the most deflationary in recent history. How on earth will taking £20 million from the pockets of Darlington families in tax rises next year and £32 million the year after be good for the local economy? That is more than £50 million less to spend on products and services in an area in which more than 5,000 people are out of work and where more, not less, investment is needed.
  The Budget, like the 1992 general election, will not produce the promised results because it is built on a series of confidence tricks. The con is that the welfare state is somehow safe in the Government's hands and that the Budget changes merely amount to prudent saving at a time of high public sector debt. The reality is rather different. Even people who are sick and who are disabled face a tax on their benefits. The jobless are to have salt rubbed into the wound of unemployment by slashing their entitlement to benefits.
  That is just the start. By the time the Prime Minister's B team—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Social Security—have their way, we really will be back to basics, back to the time when the disabled, the poor, the elderly and the ill simply had to fend for themselves. However, as the self-same Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledges, growth and jobs will actually bring down social security expenditure by the end of the century.
  Social security spending is high not because Ministers have suddenly discovered that there are too many elderly people or too many single mothers in our society but because Conservative economic policies have failed. That failure is now to claim yet another victim—the dismantling of the welfare state in favour of an inadequate privatised system of provision.
  The Budget is a con for another reason: it promises a new dawn but it represents business as usual. The old dicta remain firmly locked in place—public is bad, private is good, the best role for Government is to do as little as possible, and the market still rules okay. That means no place for Government incentives to encourage investment, no continuation of the capital allowance scheme for industry, no extra resources for skills training to ensure that Britain rises to the top of the international skills league instead of languishing at the bottom.
  The Budget offers no industrial strategy to take Britain into the next century because it is based on the false premise that the best role for the Government is to have no role at all. That promises no future for my constituents. Darlington is a place of vast economic potential. It has a range of high-quality greenfield industrial sites ready to attract the next Nissan or Fujitsu, it has a highly skilled and trained labour force, and it has a proud history of manufacturing production carried on by first-class
  224
  companies. But it is disadvantaged by virtue of its place on the periphery of the single European market. That means that it is crying out for more infrastructure investment and for more industrial incentives. It means, above all else, that it is crying out for measures that will instil confidence.
  We heard not a word—not a peep—from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he delivered his Budget last week about any prospects for economic growth in my constituency. Instead, the Budget perpetuates the con that public spending cuts will somehow encourage more private sector investment. Over the next two years, after allowing for depreciation, capital investment will fall by about £3 billion. The £500 million cuts in public housing finance will not mean a rush of new developments for the construction industry; it will mean more redundancies and more closures. It certainly will not mean more homes being built; it will mean fewer. It will not mean fewer people waiting for a home; it will mean more homeless people on our streets.
  The Budget seeks to con Britain by gambling on a self-initiating growth. That flies in the face of reality. Customers and consumers are so overcome with debt and uncertainty that prospects for an old-fashioned consumer-led boom simply do not exist. Such a view takes no account of reality. The housing market is in tatters, and the big boys in the British corporate sector are planning, not more investment to create jobs, but further redundancies and job losses.
  At best, as the Red Book acknowledges, the Budget will bring only low growth and high unemployment because it does nothing to tackle the lack of productive capacity in the British economy that is at the root of our present economic woes.
  The Chancellor managed to skip over our trade balance in his Budget presentation, and for good reason. Rising imports in the midst of a deep and damaging recession tell a story of fundamental economic weakness.
  The biggest con of all about the Budget is the Chancellor's claim that there is no other way and that the only way of tackling the mess into which the Government have plunged us all is by cutting and taxing. TINA is back in town with a vengeance. We are continually told by Conservative Members that there is no alternative—there is no other way. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Why did the Chancellor not close all the £10 billion of tax loopholes identified by Labour? Why did he not free local authority capital receipts to put backbone into Britain's building industry and to tackle the obscenity of homelessness? Above all, why did he not put talents to use by making it a Budget for recovery, a Budget that put people back to work, rather than lost to public finances £9,000 for each unemployed person each year? The answer is simple enough: it was a political Budget, designed in a desperate attempt to get the Government off a hook of their own making and to further the Chancellor's own desperate attempt to climb the political ladder. Now we are all to bear the price in higher taxes and savage public spending cuts.
  The Budget will do untold damage to the fabric of British society and to our prospects for a durable economic recovery into the next century. For those reasons, it deserves to be rejected by the House.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. John Denham: Given the time, instead of issuing a press release which summarises my speech, I have been forced to make a speech which summarises my press release.
  I wish to draw attention to one long-term aspect of the Budget which is of great concern. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor made it clear that the upgrading of pensions was a one-off event and that he expected to see the real value of the state pension relative to average earnings continue to decline as it has done over the past 10 to 15 years.
  It is widely accepted that that means that the basic state pension in the second decade of the next century will be worth less than perhaps 10 per cent. of average earnings. Given the inadequacies of the state earnings-related pension scheme, that means that those who are currently on low incomes and who by then will have retired, and even those on average incomes, will have retirement pensions which are well below the average earnings which are being enjoyed at that time in the next century. Therefore, the Budget and the Budget strategy build inadequate pensions into the next century for many of those who are about to retire and for many of those who are currently at work.
  But worse still is the fact that the Budget strategy implicitly emphasises that the Government will continue to encourage opting out of SERPS and into the private pension plan industry. Given the current state of that industry, that is an extraordinary and dangerous strategy which poses a great threat to the future security of far too many people. In the past few years, the Government have fostered a badly regulated personal pension plan industry, which has exposed millions of people to high charges and the risk of erratic market performance and has already wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of the public's hard-won savings.
  People who cancel their pension policies early are penalised by the high cost of early cancellation. They may have to cancel because of unemployment or because the policy turned out to be too expensive. The Securities and Investments Board estimates that just under a third of personal pension plans are cancelled within the first two years, leading to the loss of virtually all the premiums paid by people who have been encouraged to opt out of SERPS. A rough survey of the calculations available suggests that the total amount of hard-won taxpayers' money lost through early cancellation is some £200 million a year.
  That means that the failure of the personal pension plan industry repeats, every 18 months or so, a loss of public money on the scale of the Maxwell scandal because of bad regulation of the industry and poor protection available to the public. If the Government are to encourage people to rely on private pensions for all or part of their future retirement income, they have a general duty of stewardship over the use of those moneys. Their failure to monitor and regulate the industry effectively is a disgrace that threatens the pensions of millions of people in the next century.
  9 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: The Budget breaks election promises on spending as well as taxation. It will make British people pay more and get less. It makes those who can least afford it pay the price of Tory
  226
  mismanagement and it will deepen Britain's economic problems. Above all, the Budget fails three key tests: on jobs, investment, and fairness.
  According to the Government's own figures, the recovery is faltering. In the Budget, the growth forecast for the second half of the year and the forecast for manufacturing growth next year have both been downgraded. The Budget is testimony to 14 years of economic mismanagement. The United Kingdom's growth has been lower than in any period since the war. Manufacturing output has risen by just 5 per cent. in Britain in the past 10 years, whereas it has grown by 25 per cent. in America, 35 per cent. in Germany, and 50 per cent. in Japan.
  There is and continues to be mass unemployment. A third of the United Kingdom's manufacturing employment has been lost and, for the first time ever, Britain has a deficit in manufacturing trade. For the first time, we are importing more manufactured goods than we are exporting.
  Against that background, a sensible Budget would have taken immediate action to promote jobs and growth and medium-term measures to step up investment. It would have begun to release the £4 billion of capital receipts from council house sales to revive the ailing construction industry, as Labour called for before the Budget. It would have given incentives to firms to hire the long-term unemployed by rebating national insurance contributions for a year, as Labour called for before the Budget. It would have extended capital allowances to industry to stimulate much-needed investment, as Labour and the Confederation of British Industry called for. It would have ensured that all employers contributed towards vital training of the nation's work force, as we proposed before the Budget. It would have taken measures to modernise our infrastructure through both public and private sector investment working together.
  However, the Budget did none of that and the reasons go to the heart of the Government's approach. Stimulating recovery? It has nothing to do with the Government. Investing in the economy? That has nothing to do with them either. It can all be left to the market.
  We also needed a Budget for fairness. Instead, we got a Budget that made everyone pay tax on their gas and electricity but left tax relief on private health insurance. It put 1p on everyone's national insurance contributions but left completely untaxed the thousands of pounds received by top-paid executives in executive share option schemes. That is the Government's sense of priorities.
  Before the Budget, Labour called for tax reforms. First, the Chancellor said that the tax abuses that we had identified did not exist. He then closed some of them, but only £2 billion worth. In the Budget he has now opened up another one.
  The Budget breaks promises on public spending. The Conservative manifesto said:
  "Lower taxes and a prudent approach to borrowing do not mean public spending must fall; quite the reverse."
  The Prime Minister said:
  "If we were going to cut public expenditure we would have done it before and I don't believe it is economically right … so you can rule out any prospect of that."
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Lady referred to public spending. Does she believe that the national health service

  227
  is underfunded? If so, will she say by how much? If the Labour party was in office, how much would it spend in addition to the current budget?
  Ms Harman: We believe that there is a lack of investment, particularly capital investment, in the national health service. That has been charted by the all-party Select Committee. We think that since capital investment in the health service has fallen, now is not the time to cut it. The Government are cutting capital investment on health, education and transport because they have messed up the economy and they are now telling us that we cannot afford that expenditure.
  The Government said in their election manifesto that no cuts would be necessary. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that his vision was
  "of a society prosperous enough to provide for those in need and invest in public services."
  That was before the election. They were all clear promises which have now been broken. The Budget cuts public spending below present levels next year and the year after, despite those election promises. The Budget reduces public sector investment.
  The cuts in investment announced in the Budget last week will further undermine our economic infrastructure and further weaken the already weak economy. On transport, in the 1992 election manifesto, the Conservative party said:
  "Over the next three years we are committed to the biggest investment in Britain's transport infrastructure in our history."
  Those are bold words. They have now cut the transport budget by 8·3 per cent. in real terms. The Tories said:
  "We believe that the railways can play a bigger part in responding to Britian's growing transport needs and we are investing accordingly."
  In the Budget they have cut British Rail's external financing limit by 20 per cent. next year, 24 per cent. the year after and 25 per cent. the year after that.
  What about London Underground? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) reminded us, two weeks ago 20,000 people were trapped for hours in dark tunnels underground when ancient cabling failed. Millions of pounds worth of business in London was lost as a result. Two days earlier, the Secretary of State for the Environment had issued a questionnaire to all of us who live and work in London. He asked us what we most appreciate about London and he gave a list of suggestions. One of his suggestions for what we most appreciate about London was the London Underground. The Government's role is not to issue barmy questionnaires, but to modernise the London Underground.
  Before the election the Government promised that London Transport would be allowed to invest £1·2 billion. We are now told that the figure is to be cut to £900 million —a cut of a quarter. According to the chairman of London Underground, the Government are providing only half what it needs to create what he calls, "a decently modern metro."
  In its Budget submission to the Chancellor the CBI said that public investment must be maintained and that
  "a substantial increase in UK investment is needed to provide the basis for sustained growth."
  We agree with the CBI, yet the Budget makes the investment deficit worse. Public investment in housing has fallen dramatically during the past 10 years, yet it is to be
  228
  cut again next year by £500 million, with £300 million being cut from housing associations. That will mean more jobs lost in the ailing construction industry and fewer homes for the homeless.
  Capital spending on the health service is falling. In the Budget it is to be cut again by £144 million, at a time when the NHS faces an outstanding repairs and maintenance bill of £2·2 billion.
  The Government's support for local authorities has been cut by 1·8 per cent. in real terms. That will cut services, particularly schools. The Secretary of State for the Environment has confirmed that council tax bills are set to rise by 7 per cent. or more. The hallmark of the Budget and of the Government is that one pays more and one gets less.
  Mr. John Townend: The hon. Lady is giving us a great list of the items on which she objects to the Government trying to save money. Throughout the debate, the Opposition have opposed cuts in public spending and increases in taxation. How would the hon. Lady's party deal with the deficit?
  Ms Harman: We want the Government to cut spending on unemployment and on income support. We want a nation that is at work and is not on benefits.
  The story of the public sector borrowing requirement is one of low growth and of high unemployment. Despite that, the employment budget has been cut by 3 per cent. at a time when improved training for the whole work force is more necessary than ever. All those cuts will worsen public services and will undermine our economy.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Lady has made it clear many times that her policy is to reduce unemployment. Will she explain how she would do that, other than by higher public borrowing?
  Ms Harman: We have set out measures, many of which have been supported by the CBI and by other employers' organisations, which would deal with the fundamental problems of high unemployment and of low growth in the economy.
  The problem with the Government is not that they do not know what the solutions are. The problem is that they think that they have no role in the economy and that they can leave it to the markets. The tragedy is that that has flattened the economy. That is why we have high public spending on unemployment and why manufacturing industry has suffered.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman—I have given way to him once.
  The Government have once again signalled that their vision of Britain is limited to a low-investment, low-growth, low-wage and low-skilled economy. There is nothing in the Budget to improve the prospect of the public-private partnership, which could play a part in modernising our infrastructure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Sheldon) said that, at the previous autumn statement, the Government boasted about the public-private finance initiative, yet the record since then has been one of ignominious failure.

  229
  The CBI has said, politely, that progress has been painfully slow. Even the Chancellor had to admit that the flow of projects had been "disappointingly small". This is not some unfortunate accident, as the Government would have us believe. It is a direct result of the Government's prejudice against any kind of public sector investment, even when it involves private investment working together with it.
  The Chancellor gave the game away in his recent speech to the CBI, when he said that the public-private finance initiative was a way of privatising the process of capital investment in our key public services. It is clear that that initiative is not about partnership. It is about the Government abandoning their responsibility to modernise our economy and our infrastructure and it is about them passing the buck to the private sector.
  Mr. Bates: The Labour party manifesto of last year says on page 10:
  "We will allow British Rail to proceed with a leasing scheme of 188 new Networker trains on the North Kent line-the first step in securing private investment to help modernise Britain's railways".
  Is that still the hon. Lady's policy?
  Ms Harman: We believe that public and private capital working together can have a role to play in improving our infrastructure. The problem is that it will not work unless there is a partnership, and this Government will not be involved in a partnership. They just pass the buck to the private sector-that is why it will not work.
  In his Budget the Chancellor proudly told us that the Government were giving the go-ahead to three substantial new transport projects, under the private finance initiative. He cited the extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham—[Interruption.] It might have been the first time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned it, but the project was first proposed eight years ago. The legislation passed its Second Reading as long ago as 1991, but there is still no commitment of public or private sector investment. Tendering will begin only next year and there is still no firm start date for the project. So it is not new and it certainly does not have the go-ahead.
  The Chancellor's second announcement was the go-ahead for the modernisation of the west coast main line. BR has been calling for this investment for years, but the competition for the franchise will take place only late next year and there is no firm start date. Once again, it is not new and there is no go-ahead.
  The Chancellor's third announcement was the go-ahead for a new air traffic control centre for Scotland. There has been no public sector commitment to invest in it and the Treasury will not even hazard a guess at what the start date might be. This project, I concede, might be new, but it certainly does not have the go-ahead—
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Ms Harman: The truth is that the Government's private finance initiative is just an excuse for their refusal to invest in our infrastructure. We have heard announcements and reannouncements, but no action. The problem has been described very well by the Chief Secretary, whose philosophy is that if business wants something, business will pay for it; and if business does not want something, it will not pay for it, so it does not matter. That is why we have no channel tunnel rail link. It is why in France, where the French understand about investment in infrastructure,
  230
  their industry has the opportunity of a modern rail link taking goods to the rest of Europe. It is why, when the channel tunnel opens next year, British industry will find that it is serviced only by ageing Network SouthEast trains.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Ms Harman: This was not just a Budget that undermined our economy and made everyone pay the price of Conservative economic failure. No; the Tories are cynically using the crisis in our public finances as an excuse for their ideological mission to end the welfare state. Unemployment benefit is to be cut; so is invalidity benefit. Sick pay is to be pushed on to employers and we know only too well that that is just the start.
  The contrast between Labour and the Tories could not be clearer: we engage in an open debate about the future of the welfare state; Tory Ministers plot its destruction behind closed doors. We look at analysis and at facts; the Tories refer only to bigotry and prejudice. We look at how Government can enable people to help themselves; the Tories think that any action—in particular, the Chief Secretary thinks that any action—by Government can only diminish individual responsibility. We ask what is fairest, what is the best way of meeting the need. The Tories reply: public bad, private good. We want to modernise and improve the welfare state; the Tories want to end it. It is because the welfare state needs to change to meet changes in society that we need a Labour Government. The Tories cannot be trusted with the welfare state. They will not change it for the better; they will just destroy it. That is the real story of this unified Budget. It is designed to unify the Tory party, but to deepen divisions in the country.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I will give way because I have reached my points on taxation. I hope that the Government will give us answers on taxation.
  Mr. Riddick: My question is, indeed, about taxation. From the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time today it appears that the Labour party would like an opportunity to vote tonight on VAT on fuel. Can the hon. Lady tell the House why the Opposition did not table an amendment to the Budget resolution on the Order Paper, as the House would allow?
  Ms Harman: The first vote at the conclusion of tonight's debate will give us the chance to vote down VAT on gas and electricity.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Ms Harman: If the hon. Gentleman wants to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I expect the Front Bench to set an example. I am having great difficulty hearing the hon. Lady, as I am sure is the rest of the House. We will hear the rest of the debate in reasonable quietness.
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman's constituents will not be interested in his procedural nit-picking. They will want him to vote consistently with his promises to end VAT on gas and electricity.
  Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Riddick: You have just heard the hon. Lady say that the first vote tonight will be on VAT on domestic fuel, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time the Leader of the Opposition said that we were not being allowed an opportunity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Riddick: Surely—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Obviously, my appeal of a few seconds ago fell on deaf ears. I expect the debate to be heard in reasonable quietness, so that Members of all parties have a chance to be heard.
  Ms Harman: On taxation, too, the ground is littered with broken promises. The Conservative manifesto said that the Conservative party was
  "the only party that understands the need for low taxation."
  Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) pointed out, in this Budget we have the largest tax rise in history. Some £24 billion will be taken in tax over the next three years. From next year, the typical family will pay an extra £10 a week and from 1995 an extra £16 a week.
  On income tax, the Prime Minister told us:
  "we will make further reductions in the rate of taxation … we will be able to make reductions year on year."
  Yet this Budget imposes three separate increases in income tax this year and next. Personal allowances are to be frozen for two years running. The married couple's allowance will be reduced in 1994 and again in 1995. Mortgage interest tax relief will be reduced in 1994 and again in 1995.
  On national insurance, the Prime Minister said:
  "I have no plans to raise … the level of national insurance contributions."
  Yet from April next year, national insurance will be increased by 1 per cent.
  On VAT, the Prime Minister said:
  "I've made the pledge in the past … I have made it clear we have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT."
  We have not been able to believe any of those promises. We all know what happened to them. Despite the compensation scheme, everyone, even the poorest, will have to pay some of this tax. What nauseating hypocrisy we have heard from the Tories about helping people with their fuel bills. They are not helping people with their fuel bills; they are putting tax on people's fuel bills and for some people they are rebating some of it. Everyone is being taxed on their fuel bills.
  The Budget imposed three new taxes. For two of them, the Chancellor targeted the one area in which growth has been at record levels under the Conservatives. He has targeted the one area where the figures have risen constantly and the one area where the United Kingdom is near the very top of the league. What area is that? Crime. Crime has more than doubled since 1979 and now there is an attack on its victims. There is also a tax on holidays.
  Any group of villains know that when they are up to no good the most important thing to do is to get the story straight, use the same alibi, to spin the same yarn and perhaps they will get away with it. Treasury Ministers have failed to learn that lesson. When interviewed separately about broken promises, they have all given different alibis. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury—I hope that he is listening because he may wish to retract it—has protested his innocence about broken promises. On the BBC
  232
  programme "Question Time" on 11 November, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham North-West (Ms Armstrong):
  "Why did you say that you would not raise or have to extend VAT?"
  The Financial Secretary replied: "We didn't". My hon. Friend said:
  "Well the Prime Minister did",
  and the Financial Secretary replied:
  "The Prime Minister didn't either. Labour have been saying this since the March Budget, but have failed to produce any single piece of written evidence to support the assertion."
  The Financial Secretary knows that the Prime Minister's promises on VAT are a matter of record in the Official Report and also in the newspapers. He knows that there is written evidence of those promises. I will give way to the Financial Secretary so that he can retract his statement that there was never any policy to put VAT on gas and electricity. That particular villain is claiming the right to silence. He has nothing to say. The Financial Secretary is guilty and the British people know it.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury tells a different story. He is more artful and admits that the Government broke the promise on taxes, but he says that they were only little promises and that the really big promise was to deliver sound public finance. In his election address, the Chief Secretary mentioned that little promise on tax not once, not twice, but 10 times. However, the big promise of sound public finance was not mentioned once. He has only told us now.
  As for the Chancellor, he is the leader of the gang and the most hardened of all those offenders. He did not deny it. He admits that he did it, but said that it did not matter. Who cares? Promises do not count if they are made "on a wet night in Dudley".
  Those promises matter. The British people believed them. In the case of those offenders, it is time to understand a little less and to condemn a little more.
  We have a Budget for low investment. We have a Budget for low growth, which will make our economic problems worse. We have seen an unfair Budget which fails to end tax abuses by the richest and which makes ordinary families pay the price of the Government's economic mismanagement. Above all, we have seen a Budget that breaks election promises and demonstrates contempt for democracy.
  The promise on public spending has been broken. The promise on transport investment—broken. The promise on protecting those in need—broken. The promise on taxation —broken. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh. The people in the country do not think that it is funny to have a Government who have no integrity. The promise on income tax—broken. The promise on national insurance —broken. The promise on VAT—broken.
  The Budget marks the conclusive failure of the Conservative economic experiment. The Conservatives told us that their economics could deliver low taxation, sound finance, a competitive economy and good public services. They have destroyed our manufacturing base. They have created mass unemployment. They have run down our public services. They have created a record trade deficit and a record level of Government borrowing.
  The record of the total failure of the Conservatives' economic policy has now forced them to claw back all the tax cuts of the 1980s. The central Conservative claim has collapsed; the promise of low taxes now lies in tatters. All

  233
  the excuses have run out. All the promises are broken and the country will never trust the Conservatives again. We will vote against the Budget tonight.
  9.30 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I believe that if the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is really to be the left's answer to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, she will need something better than the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) trying to lead a clapping ovation for her at the end. The Labour party showed itself to be still so disunited that it could not clap or shout in unison at the right points in the hon. Lady's speech.
  The hon. Member for Peckham sat down on the one clear note of intention that I got from her speech. She said that she would vote against the Budget. I shall begin by exploring precisely why we are not having a vote against VAT on fuel after the scandalous campaign that was run throughout the summer.
  I have been puzzled, because I had expected a vote on VAT on fuel. I thought that the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats or others of our critics would raise the matter. At various times, I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip the position on that vote. I am glad to say that I satisfied myself that just as we won the vote in the previous Session, we would win it comfortably again.
  But no vote has been called. We have reached the end of the argument about VAT on fuel after an extremely irresponsible campaign, which has caused genuine fear and alarm for many poor and elderly people.
  I thought that we should have some explanation of why there would not be a vote. We had an explanation this afternoon from the Leader of the Opposition, who rather puzzled my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—he certainly puzzled me—by saying that we had so tabled the Budget resolutions that we had robbed the Labour party of an opportunity to vote. He obviously realised that his hon. Friends had chosen not to table the usual amendment to the Budget resolutions which would have paved the way for the discussion of the Finance Bill, which we all thought would happen.
  There can be no doubt about the matter. I cannot believe that a mistake has been made by the shadow Treasury team. I believe that there was a conscious decision that this issue, having been given a whirl in the autumn, should now be withdrawn, as it has in effect been withdrawn by the decision this evening.
  I wrote to the shadow Chancellor, so it is no good his looking embarrassed. He knows the position perfectly well. I wrote to him the usual explanatory note on the Ways and Means resolutions, which made the position quite clear. He had only to get to paragraph 2 to see that he had to table an amendment to the first resolution if he was to pave the way for the discussion of the Finance Bill which he wanted.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor, with his expertise in detail, tell us the effect of voting against the first resolution this evening, as we are pledged to do?
  Mr. Clarke: What exactly did the Leader of the Opposition have in mind when he said that we had
  234
  obscured the resolution? The amendment, as he knows, has no practical effect on the law. It is the paving amendment for the whole general debate on the Budget.
  The hon. Gentleman has taken part in many Budget debates, and he knows that whenever a resolution of this kind is tabled—which seeks to exclude further amendments on VAT—amendments have been tabled to pave the way for VAT discussions in the Finance Bill that the Opposition told us that we were not going to have. They have not tabled such a resolution this time—possibly because they know that we would win, as we did in the previous Parliament. They sought to pretend that there was some procedural reason why they could not do that, when the truth is that they are embarrassed by the public statements of their colleagues, not least the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way in a moment.
  Let us not exclude all discussion. The hon. Member for Garscadden comes forward with a tortured look. We have had a number of tortuous discussions about this throughout the debate. I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's honour—I have never known him to be untruthful in his dealings with me. I have received his letter, and I accept his explanation of what occurred.
  If the hon. Gentleman is also fair, there is absolutely no doubt that he found himself grossly misquoted, if his account is true—as I accept it is—by Mr. Nigel Nelson in The People. There is no doubt what the original cutting means. The colour put on it by Mr. Nelson a fortnight later does not bear the slightest examination. There is a picture of the hon. Member for Garscadden, with the heading "Cash Call" underneath. It refers to VAT on fuel, and says:
  "'The Government has to add something on to take account of that and they could do it with an extra 50p on pensions.'"
  The hon. Gentleman now comes forward with his explanation of how he came to say that, which he did not volunteer until after the Budget. He left that explanation as it was.
  There is no doubt what readers of The People believed, including several of my hon. Friends—I almost said, the more eclectic and eccentric of my hon. Friends. There is no doubt what any reader of The People would believe, because the term "cash call" is quoted alongside the article. Because the hon. Gentleman believed other newspaper reports, he did not believe that we would come forward with compensation on such a scale, and he has been trying to get out of it ever since.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden knows that the package that we have come forward with is worth far more than 50p a week to pensioners. In the first year, certainly, the package will be worth 50p a week to a single pensioner and 70p a week to a couple. The same again on top will be offered the year after that, and the year after that.
  The uprating, which includes the VAT on fuel, will be almost £2 a week for a pensioner by 1996, by which time large numbers of pensioners will be fully compensated for any change in their fuel bills, including VAT. That is why Labour's great campaign is fizzling out in such ignominious confusion.
  Mr. Dewar: The essence of the charge that the Conservative party has made against me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] No. The charge against me is that I

  235
  indicated to The People that 50p for pensioners would be adequate compensation for the imposition of VAT on fuel. I am grateful to the Chancellor for what I think I detect, among all the verbiage, is an acceptance that I never said that.
  The Chancellor knows that, since the matter was brought to my attention, I have maintained that position, as has the journalist concerned. The journalist has told the Chancellor that, and has said in his copy that the Prime Minister's and Chancellor's attempts to put their interpretation on my words was a load of cobblers. I recognise that many people are used to hearing a load of cobblers from the Government. I am grateful to the Chancellor for accepting my word. I have been totally and maliciously misinterpreted during the past few days.
  Mr. Clarke: If one puts the explanation of the journalist, Mr. Nigel Nelson—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] No. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter, which seems to be important to him. He has intervened, but it seems to be of importance to those on the Opposition Front Bench not to dwell on the matter.
  If one puts the two columns together, the explanation offered by the journalist Mr. Nigel Nelson does not bear a moment's examination. The fact that Mr. Nelson suggests that the way in which the Government read his column must be the work of "snakes and vipers" merely shows that he is somewhat partisan on this issue. If the hon. Member for Garscadden has been scandalously misrepresented, he has been misrepresented by seeing his picture above the headline "Cash call", alongside the quotation I gave.
  Mr. Dewar: What I find objectionable is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having been offered an explanation not only from me but backed up by the journalist concerned, is not gentleman enough to accept it. He says in one sentence that he accepts my word, but then tries to wriggle out of that acceptance. Does he confirm that he now accepts that at no time did I say that 50p was enough compensation for VAT on domestic fuel? All that happened was that it was put to me that there might be a 50p increase, and I said that that was a possibility.
  Mr. Clarke: I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's word when he speaks of his honour, and I am therefore prepared to accept that he was scandalously misquoted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am not expecting the hon. Gentleman to bounce up again, but I could not stop him if he chose to do so. I want to know why he did nothing to withdraw the misquotation, until he discovered we offered a lot more.
  I should also like to know why, at the election, the Labour party declined to commit itself to the zero rate on domestic fuel when it committed itself to the zero rate on every other commodity then zero-rated. I should also like to know how much the Labour party would pay in compensation or what taxation it would impose instead.
  I should like to know, on one of the great issues of principle that the Labour party has raised, whether a figure is attached to anything. I believe that the Labour party's campaign has been without substance. It has been answered, as the Government said, with generous help to pensioners and the poor. That is why the Labour party will not vote with us tonight.
  236
  That is also why we will have no vote from the Liberal party-the party that first canvassed the idea of VAT on fuel in its thesis on environmental policy. The Liberals felt themselves free to campaign just as ruthlessly as the Labour party by telling people that they would have to pay large amounts on their fuel bills. They are committed to a European Community carbon energy tax, which they say is preferable—
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce indicated assent.
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
  The Liberals have not explained the consequences of the EC carbon tax for the pensioners, the poor and, and most important, British industry. The country does not require the EC carbon energy tax, because we are the only member of the European Union that already meets the Rio targets through the taxes we have imposed.
  The EC carbon energy tax, as proposed by the Commission, would—
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a second, once I have confronted the hon. Gentleman with a policy to which I shall try to nail the Liberal party.
  The Commission's proposal is for a $10 rate on the price of fuels, both domestic and industrial. The effect of the Liberal proposal on domestic bills would lead to an increase in the price of gas by 17 per cent., domestic coal by 27 per cent.—[HON., MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—electricity by 14 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—fuel oils by 27 per cent and petrol by 8 per cent. In his speech a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was eloquent against taxes on petrol.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way later. There is more to come.
  What will be the effect on industry of the Liberal Democrats' policy on Rio targets—the EC carbon energy tax—and on industrial fuels? The figures are: industrial gas, up 41 per cent.; coal—a subject on which the Liberal Democrats are eloquent whenever they are near a coal seam—up 71 per cent.; electricity, up 28 per cent.; fuel oils, up 64 per cent.; and petrol, up 9 per cent.
  That is why the Liberal Democrats are not pursuing their heroic battle against VAT on domestic fuel in the House this evening. They have been escaping from the position that they once took on the argument by solemnly supporting a tax which they believe no one understands but which, when one looks at it, will put up most domestic and industrial fuel prices vastly beyond the needs of the country and vastly beyond the capacity of either domestic or industrial users to pay.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way. The figures that he has expressed are a load of rubbish, as the European Commission will testify.
  However, specifically on the issue of petrol tax, is he prepared to explain to the House why in the Budget the Government are putting more on petrol—by twice as much as an energy tax, or carbon tax, would achieve over five years? How can he accuse us of increasing prices when he is doing five times more than any carbon tax?
  Mr. Clarke: I was quite open in the Budget about the increase in petrol taxation required to meet our Rio targets. The Liberal Democrats are committed to the Rio targets but are not committed to any figure. They are not committed to any structure of the tax—or they are, but they will not face up to the consequences of what they propose. They campaign against the tax that we impose here, and then support something far more damaging to British industry and the poor outside.
  Let me move on to the Budget.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I have given way quite a lot.
  The fact is that, from the beginning of the Budget debate, the only clarity about intentions on tax, on spending or borrowing—and, above all, on the recovery of our economy—have come from the Budget speech and from my right hon. Friends.
  The Liberal Democrats produced a shadow Budget outside, but we have heard precious little of it in the House. I have never heard a Front-Bench Treasury team go through an entire Budget debate with nobody producing any views at all on the great issues facing the country. In almost every speech, without exception, the word "inflation" was never mentioned, no spending figure was ever totalled, no tax proposal was ever put forward—vacuous emptiness, as typified by the speeches from the Opposition.
  I must admit that the reception for the Budget took me by surprise—a favourable surprise. I have always in the past believed the maxim that a Budget well received on the day is by no means likely to be believed some months later. The fact that there is no answer to any of it—or no alternative to any of it from the Opposition—persuades me that there is a first time for everything.
  What has been clear is that not just the business community but ordinary, sensible men and women have responded favourably to a Budget set forward frankly and candidly, explaining how we are going to tackle the country's problems.
  There has been a suggestion—I do not find it too worrying, as I have been accused of many things in my time—that I had been some sort of magician in concealing what I had presented. I think that that was because a well-known pundit outside, who normally does better, did not understand how the public spending reductions had been arrived at. We had a red herring for a couple of days, until the press sorted out that indeed we had made a balanced contribution to cutting the deficit from taxation to spending.
  There is absolutely no doubt in the minds of those who recall the Budget speech that I explained the strategy to get sustained growth based on low inflation and healthy public finances. I was quite clear about the taxation that we were raising on top of the March taxation, and quite clear about the reductions in public spending that we were making.
  I believe that the public accepted that. Mr. and Mrs. Average accepted that it was incredible that the Labour party could proceed without addressing any of those subjects, and that the necessary action now would make our recovery stronger and sustained, would create jobs and would make us one of the stronger economies in Europe in the years to come.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way to Scotland.
  Mr. Salmond: If the Chancellor feels that the fuel tax issue is dead, he is wrong. There are 750,000 households in Scotland that already have problems with their heating bills. How many of those households will be fully compensated by the package that the Chancellor announced in the Budget?
  Mr. Clarke: What we have announced is that, by 1996, the great bulk of people will find that increases in their fuel bills have been met by a lasting increase in the real value of their retirement pensions. What we cannot do is compensate exactly people living in a whole variety of households of different sizes all over the country. But what we can do is to show that £1·2 billion helping 15 million people will mean that all those pensioners—all those poor people who have been alarmed by the Labour party's campaigns—will find that their bills have almost been met in full.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not persist in rising. It is clear that the Chancellor does not propose to give way at this stage.
  Mr. Clarke: I have given way generously, even to an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman whose colleagues would wish that I did not keep allowing him to intervene.
  Our spending proposals have shown for the first time that we are capable of getting a firm grip on spending—above all, by reducing the cost of government—and reflect spending priorities that we believe the bulk of the public will support.
  With 1·5 per cent. growth in real terms, it is absurd for the hon. Member for Peckham to suggest that the health service has not been protected, and that we have not lived up to our manifesto commitment. We have increased spending on supply side measures—in higher education; in training, with the new apprentice scheme; and by protecting our spending on law and order.
  It is nonsense for Labour Members to try to detract even from those parts of the spending package that they should welcome. The child allowance for those claiming family credit is an extremely valuable measure, but as the debate went on, several Labour Members tried to knock even that. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for example, tried to suggest that it would not help those at the maximum level of family credit. Of course it will not: they have all the family credit they require already.
  The point of the measure, clearly explained in the Budget, was to pave the way to work and family credit for those who are at home, unable to go to work and qualify for the benefit, and for part-time workers who cannot increase the hours they work because of difficulties with looking after the children. Anything up to 150,000 working mothers are capable of benefiting from help with child care and returning to work. Those measures have been better received by organisations such as Gingerbread than by the Labour party.
  Labour then attempts to claim that we are damaging investment. The hon. Member for Peckham has done that, and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laboured the point. Those claims do not stand up to examination, either. The hon. Member for Peckham continued to insist that we had made cuts in investment in London Transport, despite the plain retraction by London

  239
  Transport's leaders of the remarks mistakenly made by people in that organisation when the Budget was first announced.
  Investment in London Transport next year will be running 50 per cent. higher than the level of investment in London Transport in the 1980s. Before that, there was a Labour Government in power. Investment in London Transport will now be 80 per cent. higher in real terms than it was when Labour were in power in the 1970s.
  If there is a huge backlog in the work in the London Transport underground system to be caught up on by the levels of investment the Government are now bringing forward, that is because, in the days of the Labour-controlled GLC, London Transport was neglected, year in year out.
  British Rail investment is also sustained at much higher levels than in recent years. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Peckham discounted the fact that some of the international investment will fall out of the picture in future years. Investment in core business is being sustained at much higher levels than in recent years.
  I was astonished by the reaction of the hon. Member for Peckham to the private finance initiative. When pressed, the hon. Lady will concede that she agrees that private finance should combine with public sector finance in the public services. That really is a sinner come to repentance, because the hon. Lady would never have agreed to that five years ago, when she was dealing with health matters and health capital.
  The hon. Lady was saying that things have not come to fruition, so let us look at London. The Jubilee line is being built with private sector participation—the first underground line built in London since the Victoria line. Heathrow Express is being constructed. She says that the other projects that I have announced, including the critically important west coast main line—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chancellor may have just said something that could have inadvertently misled the House. I am sure that he believes what he has said to be correct. He said that the Jubilee line is proceeding with the assistance of private finance, when he is referring to the European Investment Bank, which is public sector finance and Government-guaranteed.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a point of argument.
  Mr. Clarke: The European Investment Bank raises its money on the private market. [Interruption.] It is only one participant in the banks that are investing in the Jubilee line. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will be less excited when I reveal to him the shocking news that the European Investment Bank contribution contains not a penny of public money.
  The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would no doubt cancel the project if they thought that the money going into it was not public money raised from the taxpayer. Like the hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the management of large infrastructure projects. He has nothing except an idée fixe that public investment is preferable to private investment. We are making progress with a combination.
  We are making progress in the Budget towards getting on top of the public sector borrowing requirement, which,
  240
  if it were not tackled, would lead first to increased taxation for later generations as the interest piled up and, more importantly, short-term pressure on interest rates if people felt we were not tackling it.
  We will build on the success of British industry, which is already increasing its output, increasing employment in Britain and leading the way to recovery in Europe.
  Throughout the debate, the Labour Opposition have advocated increased public spending. They have opposed any increase in taxation. They have talked of the expansion of demand, but they have not explained how on earth that would avoid returning to the 1976 position into which they took the country. They are devoid of policies. They are abandoning their opposition to specific measures. They know that this Budget has set Britain on the road to recovery and them on the road to many more years of much-deserved opposition.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 291.

  Division No. 9]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ashby, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cormack, Patrick

  Atkins, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Day, Stephen

  Bates, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Batiste, Spencer

  Devlin, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dicks, Terry

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dover, Den

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan, Alan

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Boswell, Tim

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowls, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evennett, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Burns, Simon

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butcher, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butler, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Cash, William

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  French, Douglas

  Churchill, Mr

  Fry, Peter

  241

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Garnier, Edward

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Madel, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorst, John

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, William

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawkins, Nick

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawksley, Warren

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hendry, Charles

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Norris, Steve

  Horam, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

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

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pickles, Eric

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  RifKind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knox, Sir David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  242

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Trend, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sproat, Iain

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stern, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whitney, Ray

  Sykes, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Alton, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Cox, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dafis, Cynog

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

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

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, John

  Blair, Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bradley, Keith

  Dowd, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Eastham, Kan

  Burden, Richard

  Enright, Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Caborn, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fisher, Mark

  Cann, Jamie

  Flynn, Paul

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fraser, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Fyfe, Maria

  243

  Galbraith, Sam

  Litherland, Robert

  Galloway, George

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gapes, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Garrett, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  George, Bruce

  Loyden, Eddie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  McAllion, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCrea, Rev William

  Gordon, Mildred

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gould, Bryan

  McFall, John

  Graham, Thomas

  McGrady, Eddie

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  McKelvey, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McLeish, Henry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gunnell, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  McNamara, Kelvin

  Hall, Mike

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Madden, Max

  Hardy, Peter

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Alice

  Harvey, Nick

  Mallon, Seamus

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mandelson, Peter

  Henderson, Doug

  Marek, Dr John

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Maxton, John

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Meacher, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Milburn, Alan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Morley, Rhodri

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hume, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hutton, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'Ham Yardley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Ingram, Adam

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Janner, Greville

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Olner, William

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Jowell, Tessa

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Parry, Robert

  Keen, Alan

  Patchett, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Pendry, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pickthall, Collin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Pope, Greg

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Leighton, Ron

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Terry

  Prescott, John

  "TABLE OF RATES OF DUTY ON WINE AND MADE-WINE

  PART I

  WINE OR MADE-WINE OF A STRENGTH NOT EXCEEDING 22 PER CENT.

  Description of wine or made-wine

  Rates of duty per hectolitre

  £

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

  13·48

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

  22·46

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

  31·45

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

  MADAM SPEAKER then, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means Motions), put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    2. WINE AND MADE-WINE (RATES)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 there shall be substituted the following Table—

    Description of wine or made-wine

    Rates of duty per hectolitre

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

    40·44

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

    49·42

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

    134·77

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

    222·55

    Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent. but not exceeding 22 per cent. but not exceeding 22 per cent.

    207·33

    PART II

    WINE OR MADE-WINE OF A STRENGTH EXCEEDING 22 PER CENT.

    Description of wine or made-wine

    Rates of duty per litre of alcohol in the wine or made-wine

    £

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

    19·81"

    (2) This Resolution shall come into force on 1st January 1994.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    3. CIDER (RATE)
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That—

    (1) In section 62(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 for "£22·39" there shall be substituted "£22·82".

    (2) This Resolution shall come into force on 1st January 1994.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 55.

    Division No. 9]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Clappison, James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Alexander, Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Amess, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Ancram, Michael

    Congdon, David

    Arbuthnot, James

    Conway, Derek

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Ashby, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Cormack, Patrick

    Atkins, Robert

    Couchman, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Day, Stephen

    Bates, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Batiste, Spencer

    Devlin, Tim

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dicks, Terry

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dover, Den

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Duncan, Alan

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Boswell, Tim

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bowden, Andrew

    Eggar, Tim

    Bowls, John

    Elletson, Harold

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evennett, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Faber, David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Burns, Simon

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burt, Alistair

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Butcher, John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Butler, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Butterfill, John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Forth, Eric

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Carrington, Matthew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Cash, William

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    French, Douglas

    Churchill, Mr

    Fry, Peter

    241

    Gale, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gallie, Phil

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    MacKay, Andrew

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Maclean, David

    Garnier, Edward

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gill, Christopher

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Madel, David

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Malone, Gerald

    Gorst, John

    Mans, Keith

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marlow, Tony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mates, Michael

    Hague, William

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Merchant, Piers

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Milligan, Stephen

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mills, Iain

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hawkins, Nick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hawksley, Warren

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heald, Oliver

    Needham, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hendry, Charles

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hicks, Robert

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Norris, Steve

    Horam, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

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

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pickles, Eric

    Jack, Michael

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Riddick, Graham

    Key, Robert

    RifKind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robathan, Andrew

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knapman, Roger

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knox, Sir David

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sackville, Tom

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Legg, Barry

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lidington, David

    Sims, Roger

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lord, Michael

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Luff, Peter

    Soames, Nicholas

    242

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Trend, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Trotter, Neville

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Viggers, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Sproat, Iain

    Walden, George

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Waller, Gary

    Steen, Anthony

    Ward, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stern, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stewart, Allan

    Watts, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Wells, Bowen

    Sumberg, David

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Sweeney, Walter

    Whitney, Ray

    Sykes, John

    Whittingdale, John

    Tapsell Sir Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Willetts, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Wilshire, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Thomason, Roy

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Yeo, Tim

    Thurnham, Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tracey, Richard

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Tredinnick, David

    Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clelland, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Coffey, Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Alton, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Corbett, Robin

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ashton, Joe

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Cox, Tom

    Barron, Kevin

    Cryer, Bob

    Battle, John

    Cummings, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bell, Stuart

    Dafis, Cynog

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Darling, Alistair

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

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

    Betts, Clive

    Denham, John

    Blair, Tony

    Dewar, Donald

    Blunkett, David

    Dixon, Don

    Boateng, Paul

    Dobson, Frank

    Boyes, Roland

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bradley, Keith

    Dowd, Jim

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Eastham, Kan

    Burden, Richard

    Enright, Derek

    Byers, Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Caborn, Richard

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fisher, Mark

    Cann, Jamie

    Flynn, Paul

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Clapham, Michael

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Fraser, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Fyfe, Maria

    243

    Galbraith, Sam

    Litherland, Robert

    Galloway, George

    Livingstone, Ken

    Gapes, Mike

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Garrett, John

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    George, Bruce

    Loyden, Eddie

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    McAllion, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McCrea, Rev William

    Gordon, Mildred

    Macdonald, Calum

    Gould, Bryan

    McFall, John

    Graham, Thomas

    McGrady, Eddie

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    McKelvey, William

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McLeish, Henry

    Grocott, Bruce

    Maclennan, Robert

    Gunnell, John

    McMaster, Gordon

    Hain, Peter

    McNamara, Kelvin

    Hall, Mike

    McWilliam, John

    Hanson, David

    Madden, Max

    Hardy, Peter

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mahon, Alice

    Harvey, Nick

    Mallon, Seamus

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Mandelson, Peter

    Henderson, Doug

    Marek, Dr John

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Hoey, Kate

    Maxton, John

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Meacher, Michael

    Home Robertson, John

    Michael, Alun

    Hood, Jimmy

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Milburn, Alan

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Morley, Rhodri

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hume, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Hutton, John

    Morris, Estelle (B'Ham Yardley)

    Illsley, Eric

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Ingram, Adam

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Mudie, George

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jamieson, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Janner, Greville

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Olner, William

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Jowell, Tessa

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Parry, Robert

    Keen, Alan

    Patchett, Terry

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Pendry, Tom

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Pickthall, Collin

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pike, Peter L.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Pope, Greg

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Leighton, Ron

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lewis, Terry

    Prescott, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Purchase, Ken

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Radice, Giles

    Stevenson, George

    Randall, Stuart

    Stott, Roger

    Raynsford, Nick

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Redmond, Martin

    Straw, Jack

    Reid, Dr John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Richardson, Jo

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Turner, Dennis

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Tyler, Paul

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Vaz, Keith

    Rogers, Allan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wallace, James

    Rooney, Terry

    Walley, Joan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wareing, Robert N

    Ruddock, Joan

    Watson, Mike

    Salmond, Alex

    Welsh, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Simpson, Alan

    Wilson, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wise, Audrey

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Snape, Peter

    Soley, Clive

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Alan Meale and

    Spellar, John

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Division No. 10]

    [10.17 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Alexander, Richard

    Bowden, Andrew

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bowis, John

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Amess, David

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Ancram, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bright, Graham

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Ashby, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Atkins, Robert

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Burns, Simon

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Butcher, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Butler, Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Butterfill, John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Bates, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carrington, Matthew

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cash, William

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Churchill, Mr

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Clappison, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Booth, Hartley

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Boswell, Tim

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    246

    Coe, Sebastian

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Colvin, Michael

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Congdon, David

    French, Douglas

    Conway, Derek

    Fry, Peter

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Gale, Roger

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Gallie, Phil

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Cormack, Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Couchman, James

    Garnier, Edward

    Cran, James

    Gill, Christopher

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Day, Stephen

    Gorst, John

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)

    Devlin, Tim

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Dicks, Terry

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Dover, Den

    Hague, William

    Duncan, Alan

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Dunn, Bob

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hannam, Sir John

    Eggar, Tim

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Elletson, Harold

    Harris, David

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Heald, Oliver

    Evennett, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Faber, David

    Hendry, Charles

    Fabricant, Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Hicks, Robert

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Horam, John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

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

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    247

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pawsey, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jack, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jessel, Toby

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Richards, Rod

    Key, Robert

    Riddick, Graham

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Knapman, Roger

    Roberson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knox, Sir David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Sackville, Tom

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Legg, Barry

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Leigh, Edward

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lidington, David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shersby, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Sims, Roger

    Lord, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Luff, Peter

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Soames, Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maclean, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Madel, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spring, Richard

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Sproat, Iain

    Malone, Gerald

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mans, Keith

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marland, Paul

    Steen, Anthony

    Marlow, Tony

    Stephen, Michael

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stern, Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stewart, Allan

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Streeter, Gary

    Mates, Michael

    Sumberg, David

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Sykes, John

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thomason, Roy

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thurnham, Peter

    Needham, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Tracey, Richard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Trend, Michael

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Trotter, Neville

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Norris, Steve

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Viggers, Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Ottaway, Richard

    Walden, George

    Page, Richard

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Paice, James

    Waller, Gary

    248

    Ward, John

    Wilshire, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Watts, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wells, Bowen

    Wood, Timothy

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Yeo, Tim

    Whitney, Ray

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Whittingdale, John

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Willetts, David

    Mr. Sidney Chapman.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ashton, Joe

    Lewis, Terry

    Austin-Walker, John

    Livingstone, Ken

    Barnes, Harry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Burden, Richard

    McKelvey, William

    Callaghan, Jim

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Madden, Max

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Cohen, Harry

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Olner, William

    Cox, Tom

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Cryer, Bob

    Rendel, David

    Cummings, John

    Salmond, Alex

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Skinner, Dennis

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

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Tyler, Paul

    Godsiff, Roger

    Wallace, James

    Graham, Thomas

    Walsh, Andrew

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Harvey, Nick

    Hoey, Kate

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mr. Don Foster and

    Jamieson, David

    Mr. Simon Hughes.

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    4. TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RATES)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) For the Table in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

    "TABLE

    1. Cigarettes

    An amount equal to 20 per cent. of the retail price plus £52·33 per thousand cigarettes.

    2. Cigars

    £77·58 per kilogram.

    3. Hand-rolling tobacco

    £81·86 per kilogram

    4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

    £34·26 per kilogram."

    (2) This Resolution shall come into force at 6 o'clock in the evening of 30th November 1993.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    5. HYDROCARBON OIL (RATES)
    Motion made, and Question put,—
    That—

    (1) In section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 for "£0.3058" and "£0.2514" there shall be substituted "£0.3314" and "£0.2770" respectively.

    (2) In section 11(1) of that Act for "£0.0105" and "£0.0149" there shall be substituted "£0.0116" and "£0.0164" respectively.

    (3) In section 14(1) of that Act for "£0.0105" there shall be substituted "£0.0116".

    (4) This Resolution shall come into force at 6 o'clock in the evening of 30th November 1993.

    249
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 52.

    Division No. 11]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Devlin, Tim

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Alexander, Richard

    Dicks, Terry

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Ancram, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dunn, Bob

    Ashby, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkins, Robert

    Eggar, Tim

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bates, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Faber, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    Booth, Hartley

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Boswell, Tim

    Forth, Eric

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bowis, John

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    French, Douglas

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fry, Peter

    Brazier, Julian

    Gale, Roger

    Bright, Graham

    Gallie, Phil

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Garnier, Edward

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gill, Christopher

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Burns, Simon

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Burt, Alistair

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butcher, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butler, Peter

    Gorst, John

    Butterfill, John

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hague, William

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Churchill, Mr

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clappison, James

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Coe, Sebastian

    Harris, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Congdon, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Conway, Derek

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heald, Oliver

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hendry, Charles

    Couchman, James

    Heseltine, Rt HON michael

    Cran, James

    Hicks, Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Day, Stephen

    Horam, John

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    250

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

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

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pickles, Eric

    Jack, Michael

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Riddick, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Robathan, Andrew

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knapman, Roger

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knox, Sir David

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sackville, Tom

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Legg, Barry

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lidington, David

    Sims, Roger

    Lightbown, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lord, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Luff, Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Maclean, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sproat, Iain

    Madel, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Steen, Anthony

    Malone, Gerald

    Stephen, Michael

    Mans, Keith

    Stern, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Stewart, Allan

    Marlow, Tony

    Streeter, Gary

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sumberg, David

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Sykes, John

    Mates, Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Merchant, Piers

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thomason, Roy

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er v)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Thurnham, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tracey, Richard

    Needham, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trend, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Trotter, Neville

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Viggers, peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Norris, Steve

    Walden, George

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waller, Gary

    251

    Ward, John

    Wilshire, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Watts, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wells, Bowen

    Yeo, Tim

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Whitney, Ray

    Whittingdale, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Mr. James Arburthnot

    Willetts, David

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Alton, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ashton, Joe

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Barnes, Harry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Burden, Richard

    Maclennan, Hobert

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Mahon, Alice

    Canavan, Dennis

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Cann, Jamie

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Cryer, Bob

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Cummings, John

    Parry, Robert

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

    Rendel, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Graham, Thomas

    Tyler, Paul

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Wallace, James

    Harvey, Nick

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Alex Salmond and

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Mr. Andrew Welsh

    TABLE

    (1) Period (in months) for which licence granted

    (2) Small prize or five-penny machines

    (3) Other machines

    £

    £

    1

    50

    125

    2

    90

    230

    3

    130

    335

    4

    170

    435

    5

    210

    540

    6

    245

    630

    7

    290

    735

    8

    330

    840

    9

    365

    930

    10

    405

    1,035

    11

    425

    1,090

    12

    450

    1,150"

    (5) In section 24 (restrictions on number of licences)—

    (a) subsection (2),

    (b) in subsections (3) and (4), "such", and

    (c) in subsection (6)(a), the words from "or" at the end of sub-paragraph (i) to "greater", are omitted.

    (6) In section 26 (supplementary provisions), in subsection (4)—

    (a) "section 22(5) or" is omitted, and

    (b) for "those provisions" there is substituted "that provision".

    (7) In Part II of Schedule 4 (supplementary provisions) for paragraphs 6 and 7 (applications and duration of licences) there is substituted—
    Question accordingly agreed to.

    6. GAMING MACHINE LICENCE DUTY (SURRENDER, ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Part II of Schedule 4 to the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981.

    7. GAMING MACHINE LICENCE DUTY (NEW LICENCES)
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall have effect.

    7. GAMING MACHINE LICENCE DUTY (NEW LICENCES)

      Licences for periods beginning on or after 1st May 1994
      1.—(1) The Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) For section 21(3) (period of gaming machine licences) there is substituted—
      "(3) A gaming machine licence may be granted for a period of a month, or of any number of months not exceeding twelve, beginning on any day of any month".
      (3) Section 22(5) (rates of duty) is omitted.
      (4) For section 23 (amount of duty) there is substituted—

      Amount of duty
      23.—(1) The amount of duty payable on a gaming machine licence shall be—

      (a) the appropriate amount for the machine which it authorises, or

      (b) if it authorises two or more machines, the aggregate of the appropriate amounts for each of those machines.

      (2) The appropriate amount for each machine shall be determined in accordance with the following Table by reference to—

      (a) the period for which the licence is granted, and

      (b) whether the machine falls within column 2 or column 3 of the Table,

      and references in this Part to a rate of gaming machine licence duty are references to the rate in column 2 or the rate in column 3.
      "6. An application for a gaming machine licence shall be made to the Commissioners in such form and manner as they may require.
      7. The period for which a gaming machine licence is granted shall begin with the day on which application for the licence is received by the Commissioners or, if a later day is specified for that purpose in the application, with that day; and the licence shall expire at the end of that period."
      (8) Paragraphs 9 to 11 A of that Schedule (amendment, etc.) shall not apply at any time before 1st May 1994 to any licence in relation to which this paragraph has effect.
      (9) This paragraph of this Resolution shall have effect in relation to gaming machine licences granted for any period beginning on or after 1st May 1994.

      Special licences
      2. No special licence (as defined in section 21(2) of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981) may be granted for any period beginning on or after 1st May 1994.
      Seasonal licences
      3.—(1) In Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act (exemptions), for paragraph 4 (and the cross-heading preceding it) there shall be substituted—

      Seasonal licences
      4.—(1) If at any time during March of any year there has previously been granted a seasonal licence for that year authorising the provision of any number of small-prize machines on any premises and that licence has not been surrendered, it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as authorising the provision at that time of that number of small-prize machines on the premises.
      (2) Where a seasonal licence is granted for any year authorising the provision of any number of small-prize machines on any premises, and the licence is not surrendered, it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as authorising during October of that year the provision of that number of small-prize machines on the premises.
      (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, in this Schedule "seasonal licence", in relation to any year, means a gaming machine licence expressed to authorise only the provision of small-prize machines on any premises for the period of six months beginning with 1st April in that year.
      (4) A licence in respect of any premises is not a seasonal licence in relation to any year if any gaming machine licence has been granted in respect of those premises for any period which includes the whole or any part of the preceding winter period.
      (5) If in relation to any year—

      (a) a seasonal licence is granted in respect of any premises, and

      (b) another gaming machine licence is granted (whether before or after the grant of the seasonal licence or after the surrender of the seasonal licence) in respect of those premises for any period which includes the whole or any part of the following winter period (and does not include the whole or any part of the preceding winter period),

      there shall (unless an amount has already become payable under this sub-paragraph in respect of the seasonal licence) be payable on the seasonal licence on the relevant date an additional amount of duty.

      38,000

      44,000

      —

      —

      —

      2,730

      2,730

      1,240

      (6) In Schedule 4, paragraph 6(6)(a), (c) and (d) shall be omitted.
      (7) In Schedule 5, in the second column of paragraph 2 in the Table set out in Part II, for "125·00" there shall be substituted "130·;00".
      (8) This Resolution shall apply in relation to licences taken out after 30th November 1993.
      And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

      9. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (GENERAL)
      Resolved,
      That provision may be made about vehicles excise duty.

      10. AIR PASSENGER DUTY
      Resolved,
      That provision may be made for the imposition of a duty of excise on the carriage of passengers by air from any place in the United Kingdom.

      11. VALUE ADDED TAX (REPAYMENT SUPPLEMENT)
      Resolved,
      That section 20 of the Finance Act 1985 may be amended.
      (6) The additional amount is the difference between the duty payable (apart from this paragraph) on that licence at the time it was granted and the amount that would have been so payable if the licence has been granted for a period of eight months or, in a case where the seasonal licence has been surrendered before the beginning of September, seven months.
      (7) In sub-paragraph (5) above, the "relevant date" means—

      (a) the date on which the seasonal licence granted, or

      (b) the date on which the other licence is granted, which ever is the later.

      (8) In this paragraph "winter period" means November to February."
      (2) The references in paragraph 4(4) and (5)(b) of that Schedule (as inserted by this paragraph) to a licence in respect of any premises included a reference to any special licence in respect of any machine on those premises.
      (3) Section 21(3) and 23 of that Act (as inserted by paragraph 1 of this Resolution) shall have effect for the purposes of paragraph 4(6) of that Schedule (as inserted by this paragraph) in relation to gaming machine licences granted for the period of six months beginning with 1st April 1994.
      (4) This paragraph of this Resolution shall have effect in relation to gaming machine licences granted for any period beginning on or after 1st April 1994.

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

    8. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (RATES)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) The Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 2(1)(b), for "£35" there shall be substituted "£50".
    (3) In Schedule 1, in Part I, paragraph 4(a) shall be omitted.
    (4) In Schedule 2—

    (a) in Part I, paragraphs 3 and 5 shall be omitted; and

    (b) in the second column of the first entry in the Table set out in Part II, for "125" there shall be substituted "130".

    (5) In Schedule 4, in the Table set out in paragraph 4(1), there shall be inserted at the end—

    12. INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
    Motion made, and Question put,—
    That provision may be made for charging a tax on premiums (including anything treated as a premium) received in respect of insurance contracts.
    The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 287.

    Division No. 12]

    [10.44 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Alexander, Richard

    Bates, Michael

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amess, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Ancram, Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Ashby, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Booth, Hartley

    Atkins, Robert

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Baldry, Tony

    Bowis, John

    255

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gill, Christopher

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brazier, Julian

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bright, Graham

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gorst, John

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Burns, Simon

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Burt, Alistair

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Butcher, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butler, Peter

    Hague, William

    Butterfill, John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hannam, Sir John

    Cash, William

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Harris, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Churchill, Mr

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clappison, James

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Heald, Oliver

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hendry, Charles

    Colvin, Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Congdon, David

    Hicks, Robert

    Conway, Derek

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Horam, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Couchman, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

    Howard, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dicks, Terry

    Jack, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dover, Den

    Jessel, Toby

    Duncan, Alan

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dunn, Bob

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Eggar, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Elletson, Harold

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evennett, David

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Faber, David

    Knox, Sir David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Forman, Nigel

    Legg, Barry

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Leigh, Edward

    Forth, Eric

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lidington, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lightbown, David

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    French, Douglas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fry, Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Luff, Peter

    Gallie, Phil

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gardiner, Sir George

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Maclean, David

    256

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shersby, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sims, Roger

    Madel, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Malone, Gerald

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mans, Keith

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Marland, Paul

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Marlow, Tony

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spring, Richard

    Mates, Michael

    Sproat, Iain

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Steen, Anthony

    Merchant, Piers

    Stephen, Michael

    Milligan, Stephen

    Stern, Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Stewart, Allan

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Streeter, Gary

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Sumberg, David

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sweeney, Walter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Sykes, John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Needham, Richard

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thomason, Roy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Norris, Steve

    Thurnham, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Paice, James

    Trend, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Trotter, Neville

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Viggers, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Walden, George

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Ward, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Watts, John

    Richards, Rod

    Wells, Bowen

    Riddick, Graham

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Whitney, Rey

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Willetts, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Wilshire, David

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Sackville, Tom

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Yeo, Tim

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Barnes, Harry

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Barron, Kevin

    Ainger, Nick

    Battle, John

    Allen, Graham

    Bayley, Hugh

    Alton, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Bell, Stuart

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashton, Joe

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Austin-Walker, John

    Benton, Joe

    257

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Godsiff, Roger

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Betts, Clive

    Gordon, Mildred

    Blair, Tony

    Graham, Thomas

    Blunkett, David

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Boateng, Paul

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Boyes, Roland

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bradley, Keith

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gunnell, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hain, Peter

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Hall, Mike

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hanson, David

    Burden, Richard

    Hardy, Peter

    Byers, Stephen

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Caborn, Richard

    Harvey, Nick

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Henderson, Doug

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Heppell, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cann, Jamie

    Hoey, Kate

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Home Robertson, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Clelland, David

    Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hume, John

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hutton, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Illsley, Eric

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ingram, Adam

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cox, Tom

    Jamieson, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Janner, Greville

    Cummings, John

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Keen, Alan

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

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Denham, John

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dewar, Donald

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Dobson, Frank

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Leighton, Ron

    Dowd, Jim

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Lewis, Terry

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Litherland, Robert

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Livingstone, Ken

    Eastham, Ken

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Enright, Derek

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Etherington, Bill

    Loyden, Eddie

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McAllion, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Faulds, Andrew

    McCrea, Rev William

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fisher, Mark

    McFall, John

    Flynn, Paul

    McGrady, Eddie

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McKelvey, William

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Foulkes, George

    McLeish, Henry

    Fraser, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Fyfe, Maria

    McMaster, Gordon

    Galbraith, Sam

    McNamara, Kevin

    Galloway, George

    McWilliam, John

    Gapes, Mike

    Madden, Max

    Garrett, John

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    George, Bruce

    Mahon, Alice

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mandelson, Peter

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Marek, Dr John

    258

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Martlew, Eric

    Rowlands, Ted

    Maxton, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    Meacher, Michael

    Salmond, Alex

    Michael, Alun

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Milburn, Alan

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Simpson, Alan

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Morley, Elliot

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Snape, Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Soley, Clive

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mudie, George

    Speller, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Murphy, Paul

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Stevenson, George

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Stott, Roger

    O'Hara, Edward

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Olner, William

    Straw, Jack

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Parry, Robert

    Tipping, Paddy

    Patchett, Terry

    Turner, Dennis

    Pendry, Tom

    Tyler, Paul

    Pickthall, Colin

    Vaz, Keith

    Pike, Peter L.

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Pope, Greg

    Wallace, James

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Walley, Joan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Prescott, John

    Watson, Mike

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Welsh, Andrew

    Purchase, Ken

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Radice, Giles

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Randall, Stuart

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wilson, Brian

    Redmond, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Reid, Dr John

    Wise, Audrey

    Rendel, David

    Worthington, Tony

    Richardson, Jo

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Mr. Alan Meale and

    Rogers, Allan

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    13. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1994–95)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) income tax shall be charged for the year 1994–95, and for that year—

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

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

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

    (2) For the year 1994–95 section 1(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply as if—

    (a) the amount specified in paragraph (aa) were £3,000, and

    (b) the amount specified in paragraph (b) were £23,700; and accordingly section 1(4) of that Act shall not apply for the year 1994–95.

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

    14. INCOME TAX (PERSONAL ALLOWANCE)
    Resolved,
    That section 257 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply for the year 1994–95 as if the amounts specified in it were the same as the amounts specified in it as it applies for the year 1993–94, and accordingly section 257C(1) of that Act so far as relating to section 257 shall not apply for the year 1994–95.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    15. MARRIED COUPLE'S ALLOWANCE ETC.
    Resolved,
    That the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect as follows.
    (1) The provisions of section 256 of that Act shall become subsection (1) of that section and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(2) Where under any provision of this Chapter the relief to which a person is entitled for any year of assessment consists in an income tax reduction calculated by reference to a specified amount, the effect of that relief shall be that the amount of that person's liability for that year to income tax on his total income shall be the amount to which he would have been liable apart from that provision less whichever is the smaller of—

    (a) the amount equal to 20 per cent. of the specified amount; and

    (b) the amount which reduces his liability to nil.

    (3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the amount of income tax to which a person would be liable apart from any provision providing for an income tax reduction, no account shall be taken—

    (a) where that provision is section 259 or 261A, of any income tax reduction under any of the other provisions of this Chapter;

    (b) where that provision is section 262(1), of any income tax reduction under any of the other provisions of this Chapter except section 259 or 261A; or

    (c) whatever that provision—

    (i) of any relief by way of a reduction of liability to tax which is given in accordance with any arrangements having effect by virtue of section 788 or by way of a credit under section 790(1); or

    (ii) of any tax at the basic rate on so much of that person's income as is income the income tax on which he is entitled to charge againt any other person or to deduct, retain or satisfy out of any payment;

    but paragraph (a) above, so far as it relates to any income tax reduction under section 261A, is without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of that section."
    (2) In section 257A of that Act—

    (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "to a deduction" onwards there shall be substituted "for that year to an income tax deduction calculated by reference to £1,720";

    (b) in subsection (2), for the words from "to a deduction" to "the deduction" there shall be substituted "for that year to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to £2,665 (instead of to the reduction";

    (c) in subsection (3), for the words from "to a deduction" to "the deduction" there shall be substituted "for that year to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to £2,705 (instead of to the reduction"; and

    (d) in subsection (6), for "deduction" there shall be substituted "income tax reduction".

    (3) In subsections (1) and (2) of section 257BA of that Act—

    (a) for the words "to deduct from her total income", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to"; and

    (b) for the words "that he is entitled to deduct under section 257A", in each place where they occur, there shall be
    260
    substituted "by reference to which the calculation of the income tax reduction to which he is entitled under section 257A is to be made".

    (4) In subsection (3) of section 257BA of that Act—

    (a) for "to deduct from his total income" there shall be substituted "to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to";

    (b) for "the amount, if any, that he is already entitled to deduct" there shall be substituted "any income tax reduction to which he is already entitled"; and

    (c) for "that she is entitled to deduct by virtue of that election" there shall be substituted "by reference to which the calculation of the income tax reduction to which she is entitled by virtue of that election is to be made".

    (5) Any election made for the purposes of section 257BA of that Act before 6th April 1994 which, apart from this Resolution, would have effect in accordance with that section for the year 1994–95 shall so have effect as if it were an election for the purposes of that section as amended by this Resolution.
    (6) In subsection (1) of section 257BB of that Act, for paragraph (b) and the words after that paragraph there shall be substituted—
    "(b) the amount of the reduction to which he is entitled is determined in accordance with section 256(2)(b) or, by virtue of his having no income tax liability to which that reduction is applicable, is nil,
    his wife shall be entitled (in addition to any reduction to which she is entitled by virtue of an election under section 257BA) to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to an amount equal to the unused part of the amount by reference to which her husband's income tax reduction fell to be calculated in pursuance of section 257A and any election under section 257BA."
    (7) In subsection (3) of section 257BB of that Act, for paragraph (b) and the words after that paragraph there shall be substituted—
    "(b) the amount of the reduction to which she is entitled is determined in accordance with section 256(2)(b) or, by virtue of her having no income tax liability to which that reduction is applicable, is nil,
    her husband shall be entitled (in addition to any other reduction to which he is entitled by virtue of section 257A) to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to an amount equal to the unused part of the amount by reference to which his wife's income tax reduction fell to be calculated in pursuance of that election.";
    and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) In this section references, in relation to such an amount as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (3)(b), to the unused part of an amount by reference to which any income tax reduction fell to be calculated are references to so much of it (including, where the amount so mentioned is nil, all of it) as has no practical effect on the determination of the amount so mentioned."
    (8) Subsection (6) of section 257BB of that Act shall cease to have effect.
    (9) Where the year in question for the purposes of subsection (5) of section 257D of that Act is the year 1994–95, deductions by virtue of any of sections 257A to 262 of that Act shall be disregarded in determining the deductions which a wife is taken for the purposes of paragraph (c) of that subsection to have been entitled to make from her total income for the year immediately preceding the year in question.
    (10) In section 257D(5)(d) of that Act, the words "section 257A and" shall be omitted.
    (11) In section 257F(c) of that Act, after "257A" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, an income tax reduction under that section".
    (12) In subsection (1)(b) of section 259 of that Act, for "to a deduction from his total income" there shall be substituted "to an income tax reduction".
    (13) In section 259(2) of that Act, for "to a deduction from his total income of there shall be substituted "for that year to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to".
    (14) In subsection (3) of section 259 of that Act, for "deduction" there shall be substituted "income tax reduction".
    (15) In subsection (4A) of section 259 of that Act—

    (a) for the words "a deduction", in the first and third places where they occur, there shall be substituted "an income tax reduction"; and

    (b) for the words "a deduction", in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted "a reduction".

    (16) In subsection (1)(b) of section 260 of that Act, for the words from "the deduction" to "equal" there shall be substituted "the income tax reduction to which each of them is entitled under that section shall be calculated, subject to subsection (2) below, by reference".
    (17) In subsection (2) of section 260 of that Act, for the words from "the deduction" to "equal" there shall be substituted "the income tax reduction to which he is entitled for that year under section 259 shall be calculated by reference".
    (18) In section 261A(1) of that Act, for "to a deduction from his total income of" there shall be substituted "for that year to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to".
    (19) In subsection (1) of section 262 of that Act—

    (a) in paragraph (a), for "to a deduction from her total income of' there shall be substituted "to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to"; and

    (b) in paragraph (b), for "to a deduction of" there shall be substituted "to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to".

    (20) In section 265(3)(b) of that Act, the words from "section 257A" to "or under" shall be omitted.
    (21) In section 276 of that Act, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(1A) In subsection (1) above the references to relief under this Chapter do not include references to relief consisting in such an income tax reduction as is mentioned in section 256(2) above."
    (22) This Resolution shall apply for the year 1994–95; and section 257C(1) of that Act, so far as relating to section 257A(1) to (3) of that Act, shall not apply for the year 1994–95.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    16. AMOUNT BY REFERENCE TO WHICH MCA IS REDUCED
    Resolved,
    That section 257A(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply for the year 1994–95 as if the amount specified in it were the same as the amount specified in it as it applies for the year 1993–94, and accordingly section 257C(1) of that Act so far as relating to section 257A(5) shall not apply for the year 1994–95.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    17. RELIEF FOR MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS ETC.
    Resolved,
    That sections 347A and 347B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and section 38 of the Finance Act 1988 shall have effect in relation to payments becoming due on or after 6th April 1994 with the following modifications.
    (1) Section 347A shall apply to any payment made—

    (a) in pursuance of any obligation which falls within paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) of section 36 of the Finance Act 1988 and is an obligation under an order made by a court, a written or oral agreement or a deed executed for giving effect to an agreement, and

    (b) for the benefit, maintenance or education of a person (whether or not the person to whom the payment is made) who attained the age of 21 on or before the day on which the payment became due after 5th April 1994,

    as if that obligation were not an existing obligation within the definition contained in that subsection.
    (2) In subsection (2) of section 347B—

    (a) the words "Notwithstanding section 347A(1)(a) but" shall be omitted; and

    (b) for the words from "in computing" to "to deduct" there shall be substituted "for a year of assessment to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to".

    (3) In subsection (3) of section 347B, for the words from the beginning to "exceed" there shall be substituted "The amount by reference to which any income tax reduction is to be calculated under this section shall be limited to".
    (4) In subsection (5) of section 347B, for "otherwise than under this section" there shall be substituted "by virtue of section 36(3) of the Finance Act 1988 but otherwise than in accordance with section 38(2)(a) of that Act".
    (5) After subsection (5) of Section 347B there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(5A) Where any person is entitled under this section for any year of assessment to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to the amount determined in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) above ('the relevant amount'), the amount of that person's liability for that year to income tax on his total income shall be the amount to which he would have been liable apart from this section less whichever is the smaller of—

    (a) the amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the relevant amount; and

    (b) the amount which reduces his liability to nil;

    and in this subsection 'the appropriate percentage' means 20 per cent.
    (5B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5A) above the amount of income tax to which a person would be liable apart from any income tax reduction under this section, no account shall be taken of—

    (a) any income tax reduction under Chapter I of Part VII;

    (b) any relief by way of a reduction of liability to tax which is given in accordance with any arrangements having effect by virtue of section 788 or by way of a credit under section 790(1); or

    (c) any tax at the basic rate on so much of that person's income as is income the income tax on which he is entitled to charge against any other person or to deduct, retain or satisfy out of any payment."

    (6) In subsection (3) of section 38, for the words from the word "aggregate", in the first place where it occurs, to "exceed" there shall be substituted "amount (if any) by which the relevant aggregate exceeds the amount specified in section 257A(1) of the Taxes Act 1988 for the year; and in this subsection and subsection (3A) below 'the relevant aggregate' means whichever is the smaller of the following, that is to say, the aggregate amount of the payments made by him which fall due in that year and to which this section applies and".
    (7) After subsection (3) of section 38 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) Sections 347A and 347B of the Taxes Act 1988 (except, in the case of section 347A, so far as it restricts the extent to which any payment is to be treated as forming part of the income of the person to whom it is made or any other person) shall have effect as if so much of the relevant aggregate for any year of assessment as does not exceed the amount specified for that year in section 257A(1) of that Act were a qualifying maintenance payment made otherwise than in pursuance of an existing obligation."
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    18. RELIEF FOR BLIND PERSONS
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In section 265(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for "£1,080" there shall be substituted "£1,200".
    (2) This Resolution shall apply for the year 1994–95
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    19. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (LIMIT FOR 1994–95)
    Resolved,
    That, for the year 1994–95, the qualifying maximum defined in section 367(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be £30,000.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    20. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (NEW BASIS)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) For subsection (1) of section 353 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
    "(1) Where a person pays interest in any year of assessment, that person, if he makes a claim to the relief, shall for that year of assessment be entitled (subject to sections 354 to 368) to relief in accordance with this section in respect of so much (if any) of the amount of that interest as is eligible for relief under this section by virtue of sections 354 to 365."
    (2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(1A) Where a person is entitled for any year of assessment to relief under this section in respect of any amount of interest which—

    (a) is eligible for that relief by virtue of section 354 or 365, and

    (b) so far as eligible by virtue of section 354, is so eligible in a case which falls, or is treated as falling, within section 355(1)(a), 356 or 358,

    that relief shall consist in an income tax reduction for that year calculated by reference to that amount.
    (1B) Where a person is entitled for any year of assessment to relief under this section in respect of any amount of interest which—

    (a) is eligible for that relief otherwise than by virtue of section 354 or 365, or

    (b) is eligible for that relief by virtue of section 354 in a case falling within section 355(1)(b),

    that relief shall consist (subject to sections 237(5)(b) and 355(4)) in a deduction or set-off of that amount from or against that person's income for that year.
    (1C) Without prejudice to subsection (1E) below, where the whole or any part of an amount of interest is eligible for relief under this section by virtue of section 354 in a case which (apart from this subsection) would fall, or be treated as falling, within both section 355(1)(a) or 356 and section 355(1)(b), then that case shall be treated for the purposes of this section and the following provisions of this Act—

    (a) except in relation to payments to which an election made for the purposes of this subsection by the person entitled to the relief applies, as falling within section 355(1)(b) and not within section 355(1)(a) or 356; and

    (b) in relation to payments to which such an election does apply, as falling within section 355(1)(a) or, as the case may be, 356, and not within section 355(1)(b).

    (1D) An election for the purposes of subsection (1C)—

    (a) shall be made, and may be withdrawn, by the giving of written notice to an officer of the Board;

    (b) shall apply to every payment of interest which—

    (i) is made after the time specified in the notice of that election as the time as from which it takes effect; and

    (ii) is not made after a time specified in a notice of the withdrawal of that election as the time as from which that election is withdrawn;

    (c) shall not be made so as to take effect as from any time except the beginning of a year of assessment or a time as from which the conditions for the case to fall, or be treated as falling, within both section 355(1)(a) or 356 and section 355(1)(b) have begun to be satisfied in relation to payments of interest on the loan in question;

    (d) shall not be withdrawn except as from the beginning of a year of assessment; and

    (e) shall not be made so as to take effect, and shall not be withdrawn, as from anytime before the beginning of the year of assessment immediately before that in which the notice of the election or, as the case may be, of the withdrawal is given to an officer of the Board.

    (1E) Where any person is entitled for any year of assessment to relief under this section in respect of any amount of interest which is eligible for that relief partly as mentioned in subsection 1(A) above and partly as mentioned
    264
    in subsection (1B) above, that amount of interest shall be apportioned between the cases to which each of those subsections applies without regard to what parts of the total amount borrowed remain oustanding but according to the following factors, that is to say—

    (a) the proportions of the total amount borrowed which were applied for different purposes; and

    (b) in the case of so much of any amount of interest which is, or in pursuance of an appointment under paragraph (a) above is treated as, eligible for relief by virtue of section 354, the different uses to which the land or other property in question is put from time to time;

    and subsection (1A) or (1B) above shall apply accordingly in relation to the interest apportioned to the case to which that subsection applies.
    (1F) Where any person is entitled under this section for any year of assessment to an income tax reduction calculated by reference to an amount of interest, the amount of that person's liability for that year to income tax on his total income shall be the amount to which he would have abeen liable part from this section less whichever is the smaller of—

    (a) the amount equal to the applicable percentage of that amount of interest; and

    (b) the amount which reduces his liability to nil.

    (1G) In subsection (1F) above 'the applicable percentage'—

    (a) in relation to so much of any interest as is eligible for relief under this section by virtue of section 354, means 20 per cent.; and

    (b) in relation to so much of any interest as is eligible for relief under this section by virtue of section 365, means the percentage which is the basic rate for the year of assessment in question.

    (1H) In determining for the purposes of subsection (IF) above the amount of income tax to which a person would be liable apart from any income tax reduction under this section, no account shall be taken of—

    (a) any income tax reduction under Chapter I of Part VII or section 347B;

    (b) any relief by way of a reduction of liability to tax which is given in accordance with any arrangements having effect by virtue of section 788 or by way of a credit under section 790(1); or

    (c) any tax at the basic rate on so much of that person's income as is income the income tax on which he is entitled to charge against any other person or to deduct, retain or satisfy out of any payment."

    (3) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 353 of that Act shall cease to have effect.
    (4) In section 355(4) of that Act—

    (a) for the words from "where" to "but" there shall be substituted "falling within subsection (1)(b) above shall be given only against income from the letting of any land, caravan or house-boat (whether or not the land, caravan or house-boat in question), but"; and

    (b) for the words "the first-mentioned land, caravan or house-boat" there shall be substituted "the land, caravan or house-boat in question".

    (5) In section 356(1) of that Act, for "Section 355(1)" there shall be substituted "Section 355(1)(a)".
    (6) In section 356A(3) of that Act, after "is", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "or but for section 353(1C)(a) would be".
    (7) In sections 356D(1) and 357(1) of that Act, for "eligible for relief under section 353 by virtue of section 355(1)(a) or 356(1)" there shall, in each case, be substituted ", in a case falling or treated as falling within section 355(1)(a), 356 or 358, eligible for relief under section 353 by virtue of section 354".
    (8) In sections 357A(7) and 357B(1)(c) and (6) of that Act, for "by virtue of section 355(1)(a) or 356(1)" there shall, in each case, be substituted "and is such that the conditions for the case to fall, or be treated as falling, within section 355(1)(a), 356 or 358 were satisfied".
    (9) In section 357C(1)(e) of that Act, for "by virtue of section 355(1)(a) or 356(1)" there shall be substituted "and would have been such that the conditions for the case to fall, or be treated as falling, within section 355(1)(a), 356 or 358 were satisfied".
    (10) In section 357C(2) of that Act, for "by virtue of section 355(1)(a) or 356(1)" there shall be substituted "and was been such that the conditions for the case to fall, or be treated as falling, within section 355(1)(a), 356 or 358 were satisfied".
    (11) In section 358 of that Act, after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(4A) References in this Act to a case falling within this section shall not include references to a case falling within section 355(1)(b) where the interest paid by the personal representatives or trustees is eligible for relief under section 353 apart from the assumptions for which subsection (3) above provides."
    (12) In section 368(1) of that Act, for "for any other purpose of the Income Tax Acts" there shall be substituted "for any purpose of the Income Tax Acts except so far as it is so allowable in accordance with subsection (1B) of that section."
    (13) In subsection (1) of section 369 of that Act, for the words from "income tax" onwards there shall be substituted "the applicable percentage thereof." and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(1A) In subsection (1) above 'the applicable percentage'—

    (a) in relation to so much of any payment of relevant loan interest as is not a payment in relation to which paragraph (b) below has effect, means 20 per cent.; and

    (b) in relation to so much of any payment as—

    (i) has become due before 6th April 1994; or

    (ii) being a payment becoming due on or after 6th April 1994, would, apart from section 353(2), be eligible for relief under section 353 by virtue of section 365,

    means the percentage which is the basic rate for the year of assessment in which the payment has become or becomes due."
    (14) For subsections (3) to (5B) of section 369 of that Act there shall be substituted the following subsection—
    "(3) The following payments, that is to say—

    (a) payments of relevant loan interest to which this section applies, and

    (b) payments which would be such payments but for section 373(5),

    shall not be allowable as deductions for any purpose of the Income Tax Acts except in so far as they fall to be treated as such payments by virtue only of section 375(2) and would be allowable apart from this subsection."
    (15) In section 370 of that Act—
    (a) in subsection (2), after "section 353(2)" there shall be inserted "and any other provision applying to interest falling to be treated as relevant loan interest"; and

    TABLE A

    Cylinder capacity of car in cubic centimetres

    Cash equivalent

    £

    1,400 or less

    640

    More than 1,400 but not more than 2,000

    810

    More than 2,000

    1,200

    TABLE AB

    Cylinder capacity of car in cubic centimetres

    Cash equivalent

    £

    2,000 or less

    580

    More than 2,000

    750

    (b) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(6A) In disregarding section 353(2) for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above, section 353(1C) and (1D) shall apply for determining whether or not the condition in section 355(1) or 356(1) is fulfilled as (but for section 353(2)) they would apply for the purpose of determining whether or not the case falls, or is treated as falling, within section 355(1)(a) or 356."
    (16) In section 375(3) of that Act, for the words from "entitles" to "been allowed" there shall be substituted "shall be taken as regards the borrower as entitling him to any deduction or to retain any amount deducted and, accordingly, where any amount that has been deducted exceeds the amount which ought to have been deducted".
    (17) Subsection (7) of section 57 of the Finance Act 1993 shall cease to have effect.
    (18) This Resolution—

    (a) shall have effect in relation to payments of interest made on or after 6th April 1994 (whenever falling due); and

    (b) shall also have effect, so far as it relates to relevant loan interest, in relation to any payments of interest becoming due on or after 6th April 1994 which have been made at any time before that date but on or after 30th November 1993;

    and in this paragraph "relevant loan interest" has the same meaning as in Part IX of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
    And it hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collectioin of Taxes Act 1968.

    21. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1994)
    Resolved,
    That corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 1994 at the rate of 33 per cent.

    22. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES: 1994)
    Resolved,
    That for the financial year 1994—
    (a) the small companies' rate shall be 25 per cent., and
    (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be one fiftieth.

    23. BENEFITS IN KIND (CAR FUEL)
    Resolved,
    That, for the year 1994–95, section 158 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect with the substitution of the following for the Tables in subsection (2)—

    TABLE B

    Description of car

    Cash equivalent

    £

    Any car

    1,200"

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

    24. BENEFITS IN KIND (BENEFICIAL LOAN ARRANGEMENTS)
    Resolved,
    That charges to income tax may be imposed in respect of loans made by reason of a person's employment.

    25. NON-CASH VOUCHERS, CREDIT-TOKENS AND CASH VOUCHERS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about non-cash vouchers, credit-tokens and cash vouchers.

    26. PAYE (EXTENSION OF SCOPE)
    Resolved,
    That charges may be imposed by—
    (a) provisions relating to regulations under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and
    (b) provisions connected with the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a).

    27. PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about private medical insurance.

    28. MEDICAL INSURANCE (REDUCTION OF RELIEF)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Section 54 of the Finance Act 1989 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (3) for the words from "it shall be deducted" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted "the individual shall be entitled to relief under this subsection in respect of the payment; and (except where subsections (4) to (6) below apply) relief under this subsection shall be given—

    (a) in accordance with subsections (3A) to (3C) below, and

    (b) only on a claim made for the purpose."

    (3) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
    "(3A) Where an individual is entitled to relief under subsection (3) above in respect of one or more payments made in a given year of assessment, the amount of his liability for that year of assessment to income tax on his total income shall be the amount to which he would be liable apart from this section less whichever is the smaller of—

    (a) the amount found under subsection (3B) below, and

    (b) the amount which reduces his liability to nil.

    (3B) The amount referred to in subsection (3A)(a) above is an amount found by—
    (a) taking the amount of the payment referred to in subsection (3A) above or (as the case may be) the aggregate amount of the payments there referred to, and
    (b) finding an amount equal to tax on the amount taken under paragraph (a) above at the basic rate for the year of assessment concerned.
    268
    (3C) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A) above the amount of income tax to which a person would be liable apart from this section, no account shall be taken of—

    (a) any income tax reduction under Chapter I of Part VII of the Taxes Act 1988 or under section 347B of that Act;

    (b) any income tax reduction under section 353(1A) of the Taxes Act 1988;

    (c) any relief by way of a reduction of liability to tax which is given in accordance with any arrangements having effect by virtue of section 788 of the Taxes Act 1988 or by way of a credit under section 790(1) of that Act;

    (d) any tax at the basic rate on so much of that person's income as is income the income tax on which he is entitled to charge against any other person or to deduct, retain or satisfy out of any payment."

    (4) This Resolution shall apply in relation to payments made on or after 6th April 1994.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    29. MEDICAL INSURANCE (SURVIVING SPOUSE)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In section 54 of the Finance Act 1989 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
    "(2A) In a case where—
    (a) a payment is made in respect of a premium under a contract at a time when the contract meets the requirement in subsection (2) above by virtue of paragraph (c) of that subsection, and
    (b) a payment is made under the same contract at a time after one of the individuals has died and when the contract does not (apart from this subsection) meet the requirement in subsection (2) above by virtue only of the fact that the surviving spouse is not aged 60 or over at the time,
    for the purposes of subsection (2) above in its application to the contract the surviving spouse shall be deemed to be aged 60 or over at the time mentioned in paragraph (b) above."
    (2) This Resolution shall apply where the first or only payment to be made in respect of a premium under the contract after the death occurs is made on or after 6th April 1994.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    30. PROFIT SHARING SCHEMES
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Schedule 10 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph 3 the words from "In this paragraph" to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted.
    (3) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 3—
    "3A.—(1) In paragraph 3 above the reference to the relevant age shall be construed as follows.
    (2) Where the scheme is approved before 25th July 1991 and the event occurs before 30th November 1993, the relevant age is pensionable age.
    (3) Where—

    (a) the scheme is approved before 25th July 1991,

    (b) the event occurs on or after 30th November 1993

    (c) the scheme defines the period of retention by reference to the age of 60 for both men and women, and

    (d) the reference to that age is incorporated in the definition by virtue of an alteration approved by the Board under paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 before the event occurs,

    the relevant age is 60.
    (4) Where—

    (a) the scheme is approved before 25th July 1991,

    (b) the event occurs on or after 30th November 1993, and

    (c) sub-paragraph (3) above does not apply, the relevant age is pensionable age.

    (5) Where the scheme is approved on or after 25th July 1991, the relevant age is the specified age."
    And it is hereby declared that it is expendient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    31. PROFIT-RELATED PAY (THE DISTRIBUTABLE POOL)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Schedule 8 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted—
    "13A.—(1) Where a scheme includes provision by virtue of paragraph 13(4) or (5) above the scheme must be so framed that in arriving at the profits for the base year or for the previous profit period any profit-related pay and any secondary Class I contributions in respect of it are accorded the same accountancy treatment as is accorded to any profit-related pay and any secondary Class I contributions in respect of it in arriving at the profits in the profit period.
    (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above—
    (a) "profit-related pay" means profit-related pay under whatever scheme;
    (b) "secondary Class I contributions" means secondary Class I contributions under Part I of the Social Security Act 1975 or Part I of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 or Part I of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or Part I of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
    (3) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall apply notwithstanding anything in paragraph 19 below.
    (4) Where a scheme includes provision by virtue of paragraph 13(4) above the scheme must also include provision that if the pay for the profit period is less than the pay for the base year or for the previous profit period (as the case may be) the percentage to be applied for the purposes of the provision included by virtue of paragraph 13(4) above shall be the increased percentage (instead of any other percentage).
    (5) The increased percentage must be one arrived at by—
    (a) taking the percentage that would be applied for the purposes of the provision included by virtue of paragraph 13(4) above apart from the provision included by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above, and
    (b) adding the percentage found by expressing the difference in pay as a percentage of the profits for the base year or for the previous profit period (as the case may be).
    (6) For the purposes of this paragraph—
    (a) the pay for the profit period or for the previous profit period or for the base year is the pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the period or year concerned in the employment unit concerned;
    (b) the difference in pay is the difference between the pay for the profit period and the pay for the previous profit period or for the base year (as the case may
    270
    be);
    and any profit-related pay shall be ignored in applying paragraph (a) above."
    (3) After paragraph 14 there shall be inserted—
    "14A.—(1) Where a scheme includes provision to give effect to paragraph 14(3) above or provision by virtue of paragraph 14(4) above the scheme must be so framed that in arriving at the profits in the preceding period of 12 months any profit-related pay and any secondary Class I contributions in respect of it are accorded the same accountancy treatment as is accorded to any profit-related pay and any secondary Class I contributions in respect of it in arriving at the profits in the profit period.
    (2) Where a scheme includes provision by virtue of paragraph 14(5) above the scheme must be so framed that in arriving at the profits in the relevant period of 12 months any profit-related pay and any secondary Class I contributions in respect of it are accorded the same accountancy treatment as is accorded to any profit-related pay and any secondary Class I contributions in respect of it in arriving at the profits in the profit period; and for this purpose the relevant period of 12 months is the period of 12 months immediately preceding the first or only profit period to which the scheme relates.
    (3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above—
    (a) "profit-related pay" means profit-related pay under whatever scheme;
    (b) "secondary Class I contributions" means secondary Class I contributions under Part I of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or Part I of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
    (4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall apply notwithstanding anything in paragraph 19 below.
    (5) Where a scheme includes provision by virtue of paragraph 14(4) above the scheme must also include provision that if the pay for the profit period is less than the pay for the preceding period of 12 months the percentage to be applied for the purposes of the provision included by virtue of paragraph 14(4) above shall be the increased percentage (instead of any other percentage).
    (6) The increased percentage must be one arrived at by—
    (a) taking the percentage that would be applied for the purposes of the provision included by virtue of paragraph 14(4) above apart from the provision included by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) above, and
    (b) adding the percentage found by expressing the difference in pay as a percentage of the profits in the preceding period of 12 months.
    (7) For the purposes of this paragraph—
    (a) the pay for the profit period or for the preceding period of 12 months is the pay paid to employers in respect of employment in the period concerned in the employment unit concerned;
    (b) the difference in pay is the difference between the pay for the profit period and the pay for the preceding period of 12 months;
    and any profit-related pay shall be ignored in applying paragraph (a) above."
    (4) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to any scheme not registered before 1st December 1993.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    32. PROFIT-RELATED PAY (PARTS OF UNDERTAKINGS)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Schedule 8 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended by inserting the following paragraphs after paragraph 22—
    "23.—(1) In a case where—

    (a) paragraph 21 above applies to a scheme, and

    (b) method A (specified in paragraph 13 above) is employed for the purposes of the scheme,

    the scheme must contain provisions which comply with this paragraph and which apply as regards each profit period to which the scheme relates.
    (2) The scheme must ensure that no payments are made under it by reference to a given profit period if the percentage mentioned in paragraph 13(1) above exceeds the permitted percentage.
    (3) The scheme must ensure that the permitted percentage is a percentage found by—
    (a) taking the pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment unit to which the other scheme mentioned in paragraph 22(1)(a) above relates or (if there are two or more other schemes) the aggregate of the pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment units to which the other schemes relate;
    (b) taking the profit-related pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment unit to which the other scheme mentioned in paragraph 22(1)(a) above relates or (if there are two or more other schemes) the aggregate of the profit-related pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment units to which the other schemes relate;
    (c) taking the pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment unit to which the scheme mentioned in paragraph 21 above relates;
    (d) taking the fraction whose denominator is equal to the number of whole pounds found under paragraph (a) above and whose numerator is equal to the number of whole pounds found under paragraph (b) above;
    (e) multiplying the amount found under paragraph (c) above by the fraction found under paragraph (d) above;
    (f) taking the profits for the relevant year of the undertaking mentioned in paragraph 21 above;
    (g) expressing the amount found under paragraph (e) above as a percentage of the amount found under paragraph (f) above;
    (h) taking the percentage found under paragraph (g) above as the permitted percentage.
    (4) The scheme must ensure that the relevant year is a period of 12 months identified in the scheme and ending at a time within the period of two years immediately preceding the given profit period.
    24.—(1) In a case where—

    (a) paragraph 21 above applies to a scheme, and

    (b) method B (specified in paragraph 14 above) is employed for the purposes of the scheme,

    the scheme must contain provisions which comply with this paragraph and which apply as regards each profit period to which the scheme relates.
    (2) The scheme must ensure that no payments are made under it by reference to the first or only profit period to which the scheme relates if the notional pool mentioned in paragraph 14(1)(a) above exceeds the permitted limit.
    (3) The scheme must also ensure that no payments are made under it by reference to a given profit period other than the first if the distributable pool for the previous profit period (mentioned in paragraph 14(1)(b) above) exceeds the permitted limit.
    (4) The scheme must ensure that the permitted limit is a limit found by—
    (a) taking the pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment unit to which the other scheme mentioned in paragraph 22(1)(a) above relates or (if there are two or more other schemes) the aggregate of the pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment units to which the other schemes relate;
    (b) taking the profit-related pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment unit to which the other scheme mentioned in paragraph 22(1)(a) above relates or (if there are two or more other schemes) the aggregate of the profit-related pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment units to which the other schemes relate;
    272
    (c) taking the pay paid to employees in respect of employment in the relevant year in the employment unit to which the scheme mentioned in paragraph 21 above relates;
    (d) taking the fraction whose denominator is equal to the number of whole pounds found under paragraph (a) above and whose numerator is equal to the number of whole pounds found under paragraph (b) above;
    (e) multiplying the amount found under paragraph
    (c) above by the fraction found under paragraph
    (d) above;
    (f) taking the amount found under paragraph (e) above as the permitted limit.
    (5) The scheme must ensure that the relevant year is—
    (a) a period of 12 months identified in the scheme and ending at a time within the period of two years immediately preceding the first or only profit period to which the scheme relates (in the case of provisions contained in the scheme by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above);
    (b) a period of 12 months identified in the scheme and ending at a time within the period of two years immediately preceding the given profit period (in the case of provisions contained in the scheme by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above)."
    (2) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to any scheme not registered before 1st December 1993.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    33. VOCATIONAL TRAINING
    Resolved,
    That, in relation to payments made on or after 1 January 1994, section 32 of the Finance Act 1991 shall have effect with the following amendments.
    (1) In subsection (1), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
    "(ca) the individual has attained school-leaving age and, if under the age of nineteen, is not a person who is being provided with full-time education at a school,
    (cb) the individual undertakes the course neither wholly nor mainly for recreational purposes or as a leisure activity,".
    (2) In subsection (10), the words after paragraph (b) shall be omitted.
    (3) After subsection (10) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
    "(11) In this section—
    'school' means any institution at which full-time education is provided to persons at least some of whom are under school-leaving age; and
    'school-leaving age' means the age of sixteen."
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    34. RETIREMENT BENEFITS SCHEMES (GENERAL)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about retirement benefits schemes (including provision imposing liability on persons for tax due from others, whenever falling due).

    35. RETIREMENT BENEFITS SCHEMES (ANNUITIES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about annuities acquired with funds held for the purposes of retirement benefits schemes.

    36. ASSESSMENT UNDER SCHEDULE D
    Resolved,
    That charges may be imposed by—

    (a) provisions changing the basis of assessment under each of Cases Ito VI of Schedule D;

    (b) provisions connected with provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

    37. PARTNERSHIPS AND SUCCESSIONS
    Resolved,
    That charges may be imposed by provisions about partnerships and the effect of changes in the ownership of trades, professions and vocations.

    38. DIVIDENDS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about dividends.

    39. MANUFACTURED PAYMENTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about amounts representative of dividends or interest.

    40. SALE AND REPURCHASE OF SECURITIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the sale and repurchase of securities.

    41. PREMIUMS REFERRED TO PENSION BUSINESS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about premiums to be referred to pension business.

    42. AUTHORISED UNIT TRUSTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Chapter III of Part XII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    43. DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (REGULATIONS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made empowering regulations to extinguish or limit entitlement to relief under Part XVIII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    44. RESTRICTION ON DEDUCTION FROM INCOME
    Resolved,
    That section 808 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 may be amended.

    45. NON-RESIDENT COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about companies regarded for the purposes of double taxation relief arrangements as resident outside the United Kingdom.

    46. CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision maay be made amending Schedule 25 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    47. EXCHANGE GAINS AND LOSSES
    Resolved,
    That Chapter II of Part II of the Finance Act 1993 may be amended.
    e app

    48. INTEREST RATE AND CURRENCY CONTRACTS AND OPTIONS
    Resolved,
    That charges (including charges by reference to existing contracts and options) may be imposed by—

    (a) provisions about interest rate contracts and options and currency contracts and options;

    (b) provisions connected with provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

    49. LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about Lloyd's underwriters.

    50. CORPORATION TAX (NON-PAYMENT)
    Resolved,
    That, in relation to cases in which, following a change in the ownership of a company, corporation tax for an accounting period of the company beginning before the change is unpaid, provision may be made for the payment of the unpaid tax by other persons.

    51. CHARGEABLE GAINS (ANNUAL EXEMPT AMOUNT)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made as to the operation of section 3 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 for the year 1994–95.

    52. CHARGEABLE GAINS (INDEXATION ALLOWANCE)
    Resolved,
    That for the purpose of the taxation of chargeable gains provision may be made about indexation allowance.

    53. CHARGEABLE GAINS (OPTIONS AND FUTURES)
    Resolved.
    That provision may be made in relation to options and commodity and financial futures contracts.

    54. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES (MACHINERY AND PLANT)
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about capital allowances in respect of machinery and plant.

    55. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES (CHANGE OF PERIODS AND METHODS)
    Resolved,
    That charges may be imposed by—

    (a) provisions changing the periods in respect of which, and the methods by which, effect is given to the provisions of the Capital Allowances Act 1990;

    (b) provisions connected with provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

    56. LOSS RELIEF
    Resolved,
    That charges may be imposed by—

    (a) provisions amending Chapter I of Part X of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

    (b) provisions connected with provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

    57. RAILWAYS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in connection with transfers and other disposals under or by virtue of the Railways Act 1993.

    58. EXPENDITURE INVOLVING CRIME
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made preventing expenditure being deducted, or included in expenses of management, if incurred in making a payment induced by blackmail or extortion.

    59. PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX (ABORTIVE EXPLORATION EXPENDITURE)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 5 of the Oil Taxation Act 1975 with effect from the time of royal assent to the Finance Act 1993.

    60. PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX (TRANSFER OF ASSETS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the treatment for the purposes of petroleum revenue tax of certain disposals, within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Oil Taxation Act 1983, of assets which, in relation to a participator in an oil field, are qualifying assets for the purposes of that Act.

    61. VALUATION OF OIL, INCLUDING GAS
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax, provision may be made with respect to the valuation of oil, including gas.

    62. INHERITANCE TAX (INDEXATION OF RATE BANDS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made as to the operation of section 8(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 as regards chargeable transfers made in the year beginning 6th April 1994.

    63. STAMP DUTY (EXECUTION OF DEEDS)
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning 7th December 1993 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
    (1) In section 122 of the Stamp Act 1891 (definitions)—
    (a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—"(1A) For the purposes of this Act a deed (or, in Scotland, a deed for which delivery is required) shall be treated as executed when it is delivered or, if it is delivered subject to conditions, when the conditions are fulfilled", and
    (b) at the end of the definition of "executed" and "execution" in subsection (1) there shall be added "(but subject to subsection (1A) of this section)".
    (2) In section 27 of the Stamp Duties Management Act 1891 (definitions), in the definition of "executed" and execution", for the words following "execution" there shall be substituted "have the same meaning as in the Stamp Act 1891".
    (3) This Resolution shall apply to any instrument except one which, on or before 7th December 1993, had been executed for the purposes of the Stamp Act 1891 as that Act had effect before amendment by this resolution.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.

    64. STAMP DUTY (EXCHANGE, PARTITION, ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning 7th December 1993 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
    (1) Where—
    (a) the consideration for the transfer or vesting of any estate or interest in land or the grant of any lease or tack consists of or includes any property, and
    (b) for the purposes of stamp duty chargeable under or by reference to the heading "Conveyance or Transfer on sale" in Schedule 1 to the Stamp Act 1891 no amount or value is, apart from this Resolution, attributed to that property on that transfer, vesting or grant,
    then, for those purposes, the consideration or, as the case may be, the consideration so far as relating to that property shall be taken to be the market value of the property immediately before the instrument in question is executed, and accordingly the instrument shall be charged with ad valorem duty under that heading.
    (2) For the purposes of this Resolution the market value of the property at any time is the price which that property might reasonably be expected to fetch on a sale at that time in the open market.
    (3) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable under the heading "Exchange or Excambion" in Schedule 1 to the Stamp Act 1891, and section 73 of that Act o(exchange and partition or division) shall cease to apply to the exchange of property; and, accordingly, in that section the words from first "upon" to "heritable property, or" and the words "exchange or" shall cease to have effect.
    (4) In that section, as amended by paragraph (3) above, for "real or heritable property" there shall be substituted "estate or interest in land".
    (5) In Schedule 1 to that Act, in paragraph (3) of the heading "Lease or Tack" (consideration consisting of money, stock or security charged as on a conveyance on sale), for "or security" there shall be substituted "security or other property".
    (6) This Resolution shall apply to instruments executed after 7th December 1993, not being instruments executed in pursuance of a control made before 30th November 1993.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.

    65. STAMP DUTY (UNASCERTAINABLE CONSIDERATION)
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning 7th December 1993 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
    (1) Where, for the purposes of stamp duty chargeable under or by reference to the heading "Conveyance or Transfer on sale" in Schedule 1 to the Stamp Act 1891, the consideration, or any part of the consideration, for—
    (a) the transfer or vesting of any estate or interest in land, Or
    (b) the grant of any lease or tack,
    cannot, apart from this Resolution, be ascertained at the time the instrument in question is executed, the consideration for the transfer, vesting or grant shall for those purposes be taken to be the market value immediately before the instrument is executed of the estate or interest transferred or vested or, as the case may be, the lease or tack granted.
    (2) Where, for the purposes of stamp duty chargeable under paragraph (3) of the heading "Lease or Tack" in Schedule 1 to that Act, the rent, or any part of the rent, payable under any lease or tack cannot, apart from this Resolution, be ascertained at the time it is executed, the rent shall for those purposes be taken to be the market rent at that time.
    (3) For the purposes of this Resolution—
    (a) the cases where consideration or rent cannot be ascertained at any time do not include cases where the consideration or rent could be ascertained on the assumption that any future event mentioned in the instrument in question were or were not to occur,
    (b) the market rent of a lease or tack at any time is the rent which the lease or tack might reasonably be expected to fetch at that time in the open market, and
    (c) the market value of property at any time is the price which that property might reasonably be expected to fetch on a sale at that time in the open market.
    (4) This Resolution shall apply to instruments executed after 7 December 1993.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.

    66. STAMP DUTY (SURRENDER OF LEASES)
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning 7th December 1993 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
    (1) Where, in pursuance of any agreement, any lease is surrendered (or, in Scotland, renounced) at any time otherwise than by deed, the agreement shall be treated for the purposes of any duty chargeable under the Stamp Act 1891 as if it were a deed executed at that time effecting the surrender (or, as the case may be, renunciation).
    (2) This Resolution shall apply to any agreement made after 7th December 1993.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provision of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.

    67. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)
    That it is expedient to authorise any incident or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

    PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
    Resolved,
    That, notwithstanding anything to the country in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in

    277
    Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

    (a) provision about the management of tax;

    (b) provision about Lloyd's underwriters;

    (c) provision about annuities acquired with funds held for the purposes of personal pension schemes;

    (d) provision about the taxation of social security benefits payable in respect of incapacity for work;

    (e) provision amending sections 79 and 79A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

  (a) provision about the management of tax;

  (b) provision about Lloyd's underwriters;

  (c) provision about annuities acquired with funds held for the purposes of personal pension schemes;

  (d) provision about the taxation of social security benefits payable in respect of incapacity of work;

  (e) provision amending sections 79 and 79A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise—
  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by virtue of any provision of that Act enabling provision to be made under section 128 of the Finance Act 1990 about the repayment of fees for nominations relating to vehicle registration marks;
  (b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such money which is attributable to any provision of that Act conferring jurisdiction on tribunals.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Michael Portillo, Sir John Cope, Mr. Anthony Nelson and Mr. Stephen Dorrell do prepare and bring it in.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
    FINANCE BILL
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  MADAM SPEAKER put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion relating to further expenditure, pursuant to Order [26 November].
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House welcomes the new spending plans set out in the Budget statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30th November; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policy of reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector; welcomes the contribution which is being made by firm control of public spending to reducing the PSBR, so providing conditions for sustainable recovery; supports the increased spending planned in priority areas and the pressure being applied to the Government's own costs; and commends the Government's determination to maintain sound public finances and improve value for the taxpayers' money.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  Amendment proposed to the Question, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes the real cuts in the Government's new spending plans set out in the Budget statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30th November 1993 resulting from the complete inadequacy of the Government's economic policies which have failed to produce either high employment or sustainably high rates of growth; regrets the absence of any strategy for using public investment to help generate growth and employment; condemns the unacceptable cuts to key public services and public investment programmes, while forcing public sector workers to pay the price of the Government's economic failure; and condemns the betrayal of election pledges which will see public spending plans cut below this year's level in real terms both next year and the year after, will slash transport and housing programmes, cut the employment budget and support for local authorities, and sharply reduce unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit and the Government's contribution to sick pay, so increasing poverty.'.—[Mr. Derek Foster.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 331.

  Division No. 13]

  [10.58 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cox, Tom

  Alton, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dobson, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blair, Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Enright, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burden, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garrett, John

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coffey, Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Connarty, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbett, Robin

  Grocott, Bruce

  279

  Gunnell, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hain, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Hall, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harvey, Nick

  Morley, Elliot

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Murphy, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Olner, William

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Parry, Robert

  Hume, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnston, Sir Russel

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jowell, Tessa

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Redmond, Martin

  Keen, Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rendel, David

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Richardson, Jo

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Salmond, Alex

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCrea, Rev William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McGrady, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Spellar, John

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mahon, Alice

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mendelson, Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michael, Alun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Turner, Dennis

  280

  Tyler, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wilson, Brian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Winnick, David

  Wallace, James

  Wise, Audrey

  Walley, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wareing, Robert N

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Watson, Mike

  Welsh, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan-smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Faber, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowden, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowis, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butcher, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butler, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butterfill, John

  Garnie, Edward

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, William

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorst, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, Hary (Ealing N)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedala)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hague, William

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  281

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawksley, Warren

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heald, Oliver

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hendry, Charles

  Needham, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Horam, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Page, Richard

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pawsey, James

  Jack, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Pickles, Eric

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Richards, Rod

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Riddick, Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Robertson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knox, Sir David

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lightbown, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sims, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Luff, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smyth, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spring, Richard

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  282

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thomason, Roy

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tracey, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trimble, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Michael Brown and

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 284.

  Division 14]

  [11.13

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Cash, William

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amass, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Ancram, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cran, James

  Bates, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwins (S D'by'ire)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dicks, Terry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Eggar, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Elletson, Harold

  Bright, Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Butler, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butterfill, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forman, Nigel

  283

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forth, Eric

  Lidington, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lightbown, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luff, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Maclean, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gillen, Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hague, William

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawkins, Nick

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heald, Oliver

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Needham, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Horam, John

  Norris, Steve

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

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

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pawsey, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jessel, Toby

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Richards, Rod

  Key, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knapman, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Knox, Sir David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sackville, Tom

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  284

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Sims, Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Trimble, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Spring, Richard

  Ward, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Watts, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Stephen, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stern, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Allan

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sumberg, David

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sweeney, Walter

  Willetts, David

  Sykes, John

  Wilshire, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thomason, Roy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mr. Andrew McKay and

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Thurnham, Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Coffey, Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Austin-Walker, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Bob

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blair, Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davis, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Denham, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Dixon, Don

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eastham, Ken

  Canavan, Dennis

  Enright, Derek

  Cann, Jamie

  Etherington, Bill

  285

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Fisher, Mark

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Keen, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Foulkes, George

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fraser, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Galbraith, Sam

  Leighton, Ron

  Galloway, George

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry

  Garrett, John

  Litherland, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Loyden, Eddie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gordon, Mildred

  McAllion, John

  Graham, Thomas

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGrady, Eddie

  Gunnell, John

  McKelvey, William

  Hain, Peter

  MacKinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike

  McLeish, Henry

  Hanson, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harvey, Nick

  McWilliam, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Madden, Max

  Henderson, Doug

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Maxton, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Michael, Alun

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Milburn, Alan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hume, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hutton, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Ingram, Adam

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Janner, Greville

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Mullin, Chris

  286

  Murphy, Paul

  Simpson, Alan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Olner, William

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Soley, Clive

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Parry, Robert

  Spellar, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stevenson, George

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prescott, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tyler, Paul

  Radice, Giles

  Vaz, Keith

  Randall, Stuart

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wallace, Joan

  Redmond, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rendel, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Richardson, Jo

  Watson, Mike

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the new spending plans set out in the Budget statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30th November; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policy of reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector; welcomes the contribution which is being made by firm control of public spending to reducing the PSBR, so providing conditions for sustainable recovery; supports the increased spending planned in priority areas and the pressure being applied to the Government's own costs; and commends the Government's determination to maintain sound public finance and improve value for the taxpayers' money.

  PETITION

    RAF Chivenor
    11.25 pm
    Mr. Nick Harvey: I have the honour to present a petition from the people of north Devon concerning the future of RAF Chivenor, a much-loved part of the local community. The petition has been signed by 34,601 people, which represents more than half of the voting public in that scattered, rural population. The
    288
    Government have invited public responses to the proposal from today and I believe that this petition will represent a strong response.
    The petition reads:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will recognise that RAF Chivenor is a highly operationally effective unit, having had millions of pounds spent on upgrading the facilities; that the favourable weather conditions and low air traffic in the surrounding area facilitate maximum flying hours; that over many years an excellent relationship has been built up with the local community; that RAF Chivenor provides essential air-sea rescue services; and that RAF Chivenor is essential to the local economy, and will therefore urge the Secretary of State for Defence in his study of training facilities to retain it as an operational flying unit.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Great Yarmouth and Waveney Health Authority
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
11.26 pm
Mr. Michael Carttiss: I am grateful for the opportunity to protest on behalf of my constituents in Great Yarmouth against the Government's decision to accept East Anglian regional health authority's recommendation to split Great Yarmouth and Waveney health district.
I am honoured to see here with me the Chief Whip, some of whose constituents belong to the James Paget hospital catchment area, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), together with other colleagues and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
Since the inception of the national health service 45 years ago, Waveney and Great Yarmouth have been treated as one health community. The old Great Yarmouth general hospital and Lowestoft general hospital, serving what we now call the Waveney district, were in the same hospital group for hospital management services when the NHS was set up—that also included the Norwich hospitals. Waveney and Great Yarmouth was treated as one district in the old Norfolk area health authority from 1973–74, which is when I became a member of that health authority. I well remember the difficulties we had in Great Yarmouth and Waveney in getting Norwich people to give us any attention.
Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority was established when the districts were created about 13 years ago. For all that time, Waveney and Great Yarmouth have been treated as one health district. The James Paget hospital was built at the southern end of my constituency to serve Great Yarmouth and the Waveney district, replacing the two general hospitals to which I have referred.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, whose great uncle was a Prime Minister, my great uncle and grandfather worked on the land in Filby where I live now. I am sure that the Prime Minister to whom I refer, who held office in the early part of the century, would have shared my grandfather's view—although he was not a Liberal—that if it works, do not mend it.
We have a situation which works in Great Yarmouth and Waveney, but the East Anglian health authority proposes to split it up. It proposes to merge Yarmouth with Norwich to create an East Norfolk health authority, and to put Waveney with the Suffolk authority. Decisions which affect people in Yarmouth and in Waveney which have been taken for the past 20 years within our district will now be decided in Ipswich for the Suffolk end and in Norwich for the Norfolk end.
My local newspaper, the Great Yarmouth Mercury, reported:
"Opposition is stacked up against the changes planned for the local health service. The medical staff is solidly against the shake-up, and it has even united the Labour and Tory sides at Great Yarmouth Town Hall."
When East Anglian regional health authority launched its consultation exercise in the summer, it presented four options about which it talked widely with various people who submitted their views. The general view was that local
290
people were in favour of Yarmouth and Waveney district remaining as the purchasing body under the new arrangements. The hospitals are self-governing trusts and it makes sense to reorganise—I am not against that.
The Minister did not accept that merging Yarmouth with Waveney and Norwich would have been a reasonable proposition. I accept that there must be some merger. I am not asking that we do not merge with Norwich, because I recognise that we must have a reorganisation of the health service. The problem is that the splitting of Yarmouth and Waveney will create a small bit on the east coast of Norfolk. The huge conglomeration of Norwich, with about 500,000 people in that health district, should be compared with the 70,000 or 80,000 in my health district. When Waveney, which is much bigger, is added the total will be around 250,000 people.
In the time which I spent on the Norfolk area health authority, we were able to balance the interests of our area with those of Norwich. Under the new arrangements, Waveney will be at one end of the Suffolk regime, while Yarmouth will be a small bit on the end of Norfolk.
The chairman of the Association of Voluntary Organisations in Great Yarmouth wrote to the chairman of the East Anglian regional health authority, saying:
"I am writing to say that, at a general meeting of our Association at which some 25 local organisations were represented, we found that your authority's decision to ignore the strength of local feeling quite abhorrent … This Association has rarely been more united about anything, nor has it been more vocal; democracy of local people is being totally ignored and public confidence in the whole process of consultation has been swept away."
That is the perception in Great Yarmouth and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) who, with permission, will intervene later.
In publishing its four options for change, the health authority was confronted by recognition in most quarters that there had to be some change. However, the change which would have gained public support would have been one which ensured that the integrity of Yarmouth and Waveney together would continue.
In putting the reasons for rejecting the Great Yarmouth and Waveney merger with Norwich—the proposal of which the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district health authority approved—there was much talk about coterminosity. I will not take the time of the House to read all the details. However, the fundamental argument against Yarmouth and Waveney staying together was the need, according to the regional health authority and endorsed by the Department of Health and my hon. Friend the Minister, to relate the boundaries of the new health district and the purchasing bodies of hospitals and other local services to the providers of social services, education, probation etc.
In that sense, the Minister felt that East Anglian regional health authority was right to remove Waveney, which is in Suffolk, and to put Yarmouth, which is in Norfolk, with the Norfolk health authority. Next year, however, the review body which is to look at the structure of local government will be in Norfolk. It is likely to recommend abolishing Norfolk and Suffolk county councils, with the result that social services providers will not be based on the present boundaries.
In the west of Norfolk, the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), the health district set up under this new system of purchasing bodies-replacing the old administrative ones—and known as the North-West Anglia

291
authority, cuts across the county boundaries of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. So the coterminosity argument has not applied in the King's Lynn and Wisbech area, and what is good enough for King's Lynn and Wisbech is certainly good enough for us in Yarmouth and Waveney.
The other argument is that there will be more competition if we have an area health authority based in Norwich and one in Ipswich buying services from the James Paget. That is the market economy theory. I am not against the reorganisation of the health service or against bringing some private enterprise market forces to bear on it, but the ultimate conclusion that one is forced to draw from the idea of having the two authorities is that if the Suffolk authority can purchase care more cheaply from Ipswich, which is 50 miles from Waveney, that is where it will purchase it. That will result in fewer services being created and expanded in the James Paget hospital, which serves 250,000 people on the coast.
I conclude by saying that every organisation in Great Yarmouth was wholly opposed to this move. It would not cost the Government any more to agree to what I am saying. We know that in London 5,000 fewer nurses have been replaced by a threefold increase in the number of administrators. I fear that something similar might emerge from the reorganisation that the Minister has accepted.
11.36 pm
Mr. David Porter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and to the Minister for allowing me to intervene in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth will know that I agree with every word he said—not because he is almost invariably right but because he lives, works and has his being in his constituency, just as I have mine in Waveney. He and I are here first and foremost to represent our constituents.
In Waveney I have not been made aware of a single person in favour of the dismembering of the district health authority. The Minister has sadly misjudged the mood of the people. He takes professional advice: some good, some bad, some with hidden agendas and some with personal axes to grind. He should have listened to the advice that we both gave him. We should be his advisers for matters to do with the coast.
We told my hon. Friend, other Ministers and the Whips that we objected to the plans from day one. I even came to London in the summer recess to tell him that. We brought a health deputation to see him, with petitions containing over 30,000 signatures. He ignored them all. The consultation exercise proved a sham from start to finish. The RHA is a sham, distant and remote. Now it is to go. Its guarantees on health care are seen as worthless.
It is not so much the RHA that people care about; it is the future of the James Paget hospital. It has been a great success story and is dear to the hearts of the people of Great Yarmouth and Waveney. The Minister has given guarantees that the James Paget shall be presumed to be the local hospital for the people of north Suffolk, not Ipswich hospital, which is more than 40 miles away.
The Minister's guarantees are being dismissed locally as another sham exercise—a fobbing off by London planners of the tiresome people of East Anglia who know what we want left alone. How can guarantees be given in
292
an internal market? This decision has undermined confidence, the winning of hearts and minds to the NHS reforms that was going on slowly but steadily.
If the new Suffolk-only purchasers cut any funds out of the James Paget hospital, it will begin to wither. With the Norfolk and Norwich hospital in such a mess, Norfolk will follow suit and the James Paget will die. Health care on the coast will return to pre-James Paget conditions, worse than those of the third world. Thus the Government are also undermining the enormous transformation in health care east of Norwich which they have so successfully brought about in the past 14 years.
If only at this late hour my hon. Friend would have the courage to scrap the plan, or at least go for an alternative. I urge him either to delay for a year or two, until the other reforms have settled down, even if we are the last bureaucratic oddity in Britain; or to put Waveney in with a Norfolk configuration. Waveney has always looked to Norwich, not Ipswich, as our regional centre.
I, too, am in favour of economy of scale, better value for spending and skills development of staff. However, the reforms must carry people with them, not fly in their face. My hon. Friend the Minister has ignored history and culture as well as the NHS criteria. Those criteria are, first, that change must demonstrate patient care gain—the alleged £250,000 savings are figures out of the air—and, secondly, that change must be by popular consent. The plans fail on both counts. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to remember that he is a politician first and has become a bureaucrat only because he is a politician.
11.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) for his courteous approach to this subject, which I know exercises considerable feelings in his area. He was good enough to say that he accepted the basic premise of the argument for larger health authorities and that he understood well why they should be larger, should have more clout, should be better able to withstand the pressures and distortions within a particular area and should be able to find savings by reducing bureaucracy. He said that he understood all those arguments. I am glad that he realises that the retention of very small health authorities runs counter to the spirit of the reforms that we have introduced.
As my hon. Friend said, one of the factors that we have to take into account in assessing how the new, larger purchasing authorities should be configured is "coter-minosity", meaning common boundaries with other authorities such as family health services authorities and social services departments. If we went for the option that my hon. Friend favours as his second preference—putting Waveney and Great Yarmouth into the new East Norfolk health authority—there would be one boundary for the Suffolk FHSA, another for the social services department and another set of boundaries for the health authority. It would be a pity to leave that anomaly unless there were good reasons for it.
I am aware of the concerns of local people because my hon. Friend has spelt them out on more than one occasion and again tonight. Particularly in the Waveney area people feel that they will find themselves denied access to the James Paget hospital. There is no reason for that. Now that health authorities are separated from hospital management

293
they have only one function. It is to purchase, buy, commission or whatever one likes to call it, health care for everyone in the area.
There is no reason why health authorities should decide to distort the access of my hon. Friends' constituents to an excellent local hospital, change the patterns that have been built up and alter local health care which is satisfactory relative to what it was some time before the James Paget hospital existed. Not only would there be no reason to do that, but there are specific guarantees. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) says that the guarantees mean nothing because they are from the region. However, they are backed up by the health authorities, and have been confirmed in a letter from me. We regard them as sensible and achievable guarantees. My hon. Friend's constitutents have guarantees that they will continue to be referred to what they rightly regard as their local hospital—the James Paget hospital. There is no question of them suddenly being referred to Ipswich or anywhere else. I reiterate that.
I am also aware that people feel that the hospital is put at some risk by the new arrangements. There is no reason for that. My hon. Friend knows that I have visited the hospital twice since I took on this job. It is an excellent hospital, and it is very much loved and respected by everyone in the locality. There is no reason why it should suffer—indeed, there is every reason why it might well find that it has extra patients and demand from people outside the old Great Yarmouth and Waveney area as a result of joining the new areas to the two larger health authorities. It may mean that there is greater demand for the services of the James Paget hospital.
Reiterating the guarantees given by the region, we have also said that the funds that are now spent within the Great Yarmouth and Waveney area should be ring-fenced, which is an additional safeguard for the hospital. We have also said that the additional funds which will be forthcoming as a result o0f having fewer health authorities and therefore fewer overheads—fewer bureaucrats, if one likes—will be spent in that area. All those guarantees have been given.
When my hon. Friend brought the deputation of clinicians and others on 2 November, we had quite a long meeting, as he knows, and I listened very carefully to their fears about the future of the James Paget hospital. The only really substantive worry that I could identify was that at some time in the fairly distant future certain specialties might be "rationalised", as we tend to say in the health service, away from the James Paget to either Ipswich or Norwich, or both, in pursuit of cost savings. Of course, that is always a possibility in a changing health service, but if choices had to be made about a service or specialty continuing at James Paget or being provided on a larger scale in Norwich or Ipswich, a small health authority, such as one formed by keeping Great Yarmouth and Waveney
294
together, would find itself even more tempted to take that low-cost option because it would be less able to withstand the problems of adopting or maintaining a higher cost service.
The James Paget is an excellent hospital and has a sound future. I have no doubt about that and nothing that I have seen or heard with my own eyes or ears, or from officials or anyone else, puts its future in any doubt.
Looking to the future, we have heard various guarantees and statements, designed to calm the fears of local people, clinicians and my two hon. Friends. It is up to them, the community health council, the clinical directors at the hospital and anyone else concerned to monitor that that happens and to ensure that people continue to be referred where they believe that they should be, that services remain at the James Paget hospital and that all the things that have been said about its future are upheld.
I am aware that both my hon. Friends are very disappointed at the decision. I should like to have been able to find some reason to contradict the decision of the regional health authority. I accept that there are fears, but in reality I have not found any good reasons why we should adopt what is, in effect, an anomalous option and I have therefore been unable in conscience to contradict the regional health authority, and I had to advise the Secretary of State of that.
As I have discovered in the short time that I have been in this job, the health service is littered with anomalies, ranging from large hospitals that were built but probably should not have been, to some very strange arrangements throughout the country, which may or may not have been the result of acceding to political pressures. That may be perfectly defensible, but it is not my job to suggest anomalies where there are no good health or patient care reasons for allowing them.
Both my hon. Friends have suggested that some sort of "Yes Minister" syndrome is operating here—that I have become the tool of bureaucrats and officials and that I am acting merely in the interests of bureaucratic tidiness and the usual mediocrity that is found in organisations. That is not true. The conclusions that I have reached and have conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are designed precisely to implement the policies set down by Ministers. The aim is, if possible, to establish large health authorities that will be coterminous with other agencies.
I am personally convinced that neither the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth nor those of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney have anything to fear from these arrangements. I think that the James Paget hospital has a very bright future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department provides cars for the Lord Chancellor and myself. The annual cost of providing this service is £119,184 (for the year to November 1993). The cost includes two vehicles maintained on a permanent basis and a limousine as required.

  Succession
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to United Kingdom ratification of the Hague convention on succession.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In March 1990, following the opening of the Hague convention on succession for signature in 1988, the Government issued a consultation paper to obtain views as to whether the United Kingdom should, with a view to ratification, amend its rules as to which law governs succession to a deceased person's estate to bring them into line with the rules in the convention. The response did not indicate a large degree of support for United Kingdom ratification and there was some opposition. The Government therefore decided not to proceed further at present, but the matter is being kept under review. So far only two other member states have signed the convention and there have been no ratifications.

  Torture
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to seek a change in the civil law to allow actions in the English courts for compensation for torture inflicted overseas in violation of international law and enforcement of judgment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to amend the law in the way referred to. Under the present law there are circumstances in which a victim of wrongful conduct abroad may sue in England: the jurisdictional rules vary according to the country in which the wrongful conduct took place. A judgment of an English court awarding compensation in such a case will be enforceable throughout the United Kingdom and in certain other countries.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total budget allocated by his Department in 1992–93 to urban development corporations in(a) Teesside, (b) Tyne and Wear and (c) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Baldry
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) £40·3 million grant in aid;

  (b) £44·1 million grant in aid;

  (c) the 12 English urban development corporations and the docklands light railway) received grant in aid of £515·8 million.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland are responsible for grant in aid paid to the Cardiff Bay and Laganside development corporations respectively.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Gummer
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government Departments are stated in the Government IT security policy document. This documenht is supported by the 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 Government IT security authorities. These have been developed specifically for use within government and are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice. 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.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he is considering in connection with the council tax system; and when he expects to make an announcement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is presently consulting the local authority associations about regulations to give an effect to the scheme of transitional reductions for 1994–95 announced by my right hon. Friend on 2 December, and about some minor changes to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. I have sent copies of the consultation letters to the hon. Member and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. A number of suggestions have also been put to us for small changes to the secondary legislation covering council tax exemptions and discounts, and we are considering these.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to help the severely mentally impaired living in the community with their council tax.

  Mr. Baldry
  Severely mentally impaired people are not counted towards the personal element of the council tax.
  125
  A household entirely composed of such people is therefore eligible for a 50 per cent. discount from their council tax bill. This liability may be partly or wholly rebated by council tax benefit, depending on the household's circumstances.

  We have received a number of representations in favour of further assistance for this group. We are considering these representations. I will write to the hon. Member when a decision is reached.

  Construction Industry
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the cost to builders of building and associated products.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have received no direct representations.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department will give, in making the final decision concerning THORP, to the current status of the negotiations between BNFL and Nuclear Electric or Scottish Nuclear over spent nuclear fuel contracts for THORP.

  Mr. Yeo
  All relevant consideration will be taken into account by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in reaching their decision.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the incinerators in the north west licensed to incinerate BSE-infected cattle and scrapie-infected sheep; and how many such carcasses were destroyed in each of the last 12 months at each incinerator.

  Mr. Yeo
  Under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 clinical waste incinerators with a capacity of 1 tonne or more an hour require authorisation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and those with a lesser capacity require an authorisation from the relevant local authority.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has to date authorised no clinical waste incinerators in the north west. From the statistical information collected by my Department, 41 incinerators with a capacity of under 1 tonne an hour were authorised by local authorities in the north west by the end of June 1993. My Department does not hold a central list of these incinerators. However, it is likely that most of these will be incinerators burning clinical waste. Information about each incinerator, including a copy of the application for authorisation, must be included in a public register held by each local authority for the processes for which it is responsible.

  Tendering
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that, when putting contracts out to tender, his Department includes on the tender list companies which have acquired the BS5750 quality assurance standard.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department fully recognises the value of BS5750 as a quality assurance standard but it does not 126
  make this, as a matter of course, a prerequisite for tendering in order to allow small firms, for which the cost of certification can represent a burden, the opportunity to compete.

  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government will support the establishment of a leasehold enfranchisement advisory service.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to announce that the Government has approved the application from the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee for financial assistance to enable the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service for England and Wales to be established. The Department of the Environment has agreed to make a grant through its special grants programme of £27,575 in 1993–94 and £73,000 in 1994–95. The Welsh Office will also contribute £1,000 in 1994–95. I anticipate that similar amounts will be made available for 1995–96, subject to the satisfactory performance of the service.

  In addition, they have received offers of support for the service from private sector organisations worth over £35,000 per annum.

  The aim of the agency will be to provide information to the large number of leaseholders whom we anticipate will wish to take advantage of the provisions contained in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 which took effect on 1 November. These enable qualifying leaseholders either to purchase jointly the freehold of their flats or to purchase new long leases.

  I expect the service to have a very important role to play in advising both landlords and tenants about the necessarily complex procedures involved in exercising these new rights.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there will be transitional costs arising from local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: There will be some start-up costs associated with reorganisation, which we expect authorities to keep to an absolute minimum, and which in the longer term can be offset against savings arising locally from the reorganisation.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made to ensure that local authorities and council tax payers not involved in local government reorganisations are protected from any transitional costs resulting from areas that are reorganised.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Transitional reorganisation costs will be incurred only by those authorities in the areas that are reorganised. As my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 2 December, we intend that authorities should be able to meet by borrowing any such costs incurred by them in 1994–95, and that any borrowing should be repaid from savings or sales of assets after reorganisation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Security Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to publishing(a) a full or (b) an abridged version of the chief of the intelligence services' annual report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Intelligence Bill provides for the Prime Minister to lay before Parliament annual reports by both the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Committee. We do not intend to publish the annual report of the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service.

  Ministers (Foreign Visits)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Ministers in his Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia, (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since June 1987 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have made the following visits to(a) Saudi Arabia (b) Malaysia (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa:

  Saudi Arabia:

  Mr. Mellor, December 1987

  Mr. Waldegrave, October 1988

  Secretary of State, January 1989

  Secretary of State, May-June 1989

  Secretary of State, September 1990

  Secretary of State, February 1991

  Mr. Hogg, February 1992

  Secretary of State, September 1993

  Malaysia:

  Mrs. Chalker, August 1987

  Secretary of State, April 1988

  Lord Glenarthur, November 1988

  Secretary of State, October 1989 (for CHOGM)

  Lord Brabazon, January 1990

  Mr. Maude, February 1990 (EC/ASEAN Meeting)

  Lord Caithness, April 1991

  Mr. Hogg, September 1991

  Lord Caithness, September 1991

  Secretary of State, July 1992

  Mr. Goodlad, April 1993

  Singapore:

  Lord Glenarthur, October 1987

  Secretary of State, April 1988

  Lord Glenarthur, October 1988

  Lord Glenarthur, July 1989

  Lord Brabazon, December 1989

  Lord Caithness, April 1991

  Mr. Goodlad, April 1993

  Secretary of State, July 1993

  South Africa:

  Mrs. Chalker, November 1988

  Secretary of State, March 1990

  Mr. Waldegrave, September 1990

  Mrs. Chalker, February 1991

  Secretary of State, July 1991

  Mrs. Chalker, January 1992

  Secretary of State, September 1992

  Baroness Chalker, September 1992

  Baroness Chalker, February 1993

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign
  128
  and Commonwealth Affairs met members of Conservatives Abroad in the course of his visit to South Africa in July 1991. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey attended a Conservatives Abroad reception in South Africa in February 1991. There is no record of any other party political activities by FCO Ministers during the course of official visits to the countries concerned since June 1987.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of the CSCE of Ministers in Rome.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs represented the United Kingdom at the Council meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which took place on 30 November and 1 December in Rome.

  The Council decided to develop the CSCE's capabilities in conflict prevention, crisis management and in combating aggressive nationalism. Ministers endorsed arrangements for more comprehensive monitoring and oversight of peacekeeping forces deployed in Georgia. In this and other conflicts oversight and monitoring must ensure that third party military forces are deployed with the consent of the parties, respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of CSCE states, are impartial and multinational in character, have a clear mandate and are integrally linked to a political process. There must be a plan for their orderly withdrawal.

  The Council welcomed the resumption of peace talks in Geneva on the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. They urged the parties to take advantage of the initiative represented by the European Union action plan and called for the early, unconditional return of CSCE missions to Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina. The Council emphasised that the CSCE stood ready, in co-operation with others, to rebuild civic society.

  I regret that despite intensive negotiations the Council was unable to agree on any new steps to resolve the conflict dealt with by the Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh. Ministers asked the Chairman of the Minsk Conference to explore urgently the possibility of providing new impetus to the peace process.

  The Council welcomed the withdrawal of Russian troops from Lithuania and stressed the political significance of speedy withdrawal of those remaining in Estonia and Latvia. The Council called for an early, orderly and complete withdrawal of the Russian 14th Army from Moldova and expressed concern at the lack of progress in finding a political solution to the problems of the Transdniester region. The Council decided to establish a CSCE mission to Tadjikstan to promote respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

  The Council reiterated the fundamental importance of respect for human rights and decided to strengthen the CSCE's instruments of conflict prevention and early warning in this context. The Council decided to enhance the role of the High Commissioner on National Minorities and to strengthen the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, for example in its ability to monitor elections.
  129
  I regret that the Council was unable to develop into principles on non-proliferation the commitment to indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty agreed at Stockholm in December 1992.

  The Secretary General has taken up his appointment as envisaged at the Stockholm Council meeting last year. The Rome Council established a permanent committee in Vienna under the Chairman in Office, to be supported by a unified Secretariat. These arrangements should enable the CSCE to fulfil more effectively its role in setting standards in human rights, resolving conflict, and providing early warning of possible crises. I hope that the CSCE will make an increasingly effective contribution to peace and stability in our region.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 1 April 1993, the number of persons employed in each grade level (ie including equivalent grades) within the Department (including agencies) and the number of those who had classified themselves as being black people and as being Asian were:

  Total staff at grade level

  Total classified as black people

  Total classified as Asians

  Grades 1-4

  167

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  370

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  123

  —

  1

  Grade 7

  865

  —

  2

  Senior executive officer

  676

  3

  4

  Higher executive officer

  1,511

  3

  11

  Executive officer

  2,736

  14

  28

  Adminstrative officer/Administrative assistant

  3,329

  105

  71

  Industrial staff

  63

  1

  2

  These figures exclude staff who have classified themselves as being of other ethnic origin. There is no compulsion on staff to report their ethnic origin; the response rate for the staff in this answer is about 80 per cent.

  European Terms
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is given to officials about when to use the terms(a) European Union, (b) European Community and (c) European Economic Community.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on 2 December at column 680.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Saudi Arabian Government about delays in the payment of refunds of pension contributions to the Saudi Arabian General Organisation for Social Insurance due to British subjects.
  130
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our embassy in Riyadh is in regular contact with the Saudi Arabian General Organisation for Social Insurance about payment of refunds to British subjects.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult with Welsh representative on the Committee of the Regions before he goes to the European Union summit in Brussels.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will see the Welsh representatives at a meeting with all United Kingdom nominees to the Committee of the Regions on 8 December.

  Tibet
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to encourage dialogue between China and Tibet on the future of Tibet; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that the option of Tibetan independence is on the agenda of such dialogue.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have consistently urged the Chinese authorities to begin talks, without pre-conditions, with the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, and to allow Tibetans greater autonomy. It is for the parties concerned to decide the agenda for such talks. Neither we nor our European partners believe that independence is a realistic option.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the names and nationality of each member of a delegation of the International Commission of Jurists who visited Kashmir in August; if he will arrange for their report to be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The members of the delegation from the International Commission of Jurists who visited Kashmir in August were Sir William Goodhart from the United Kingdom, Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn from Thailand, Dr. Dalmo Dallari from Brazil and Mrs. Florence Butegwa from Uganda. Their report is expected in January. As soon as a copy is available we will arrange for it to be placed in the Library.

  Exports
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy regarding exports to(a) Israel, (b) Iran, (c) Iraq, (d) Syria, (e) Kuwait, (f) Saudi Arabia, (g) Jordan and (h) Egypt.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Apart from Iraq, which is subject to a UN trade embargo and where special arrangements therefore apply, United Kingdom exporters are free, and indeed encouraged, to trade with the countries listed. However, goods covered by the Export of Goods Control Order 1992, as amended, are subject to various restrictions, which will vary from country to country.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  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. Portillo
  I made a visit to Mexico and Chile from 3-11 July. The purpose of the visit was to strengthen the United Kingdom's relations with the two countries, and to promote trade and investment: several British businessmen accompanied me. Two of the companies represented on the visit have since won major contracts. British Gas was awarded the investment distribution concession for the US$1·1 billion natural gas pipeline between Argentina and Chile. North West Water signed in September a £285 million 10-year contract with the Mexico City authorities for metering, billing and management services.

  The cost attributable to my own participation in the visit, which was borne by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was £5,526.

  Taxation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the proportion of gross domestic product paid in(a) income tax and (b) income tax plus value added tax, for each country in the European Union.

  Mr. Nelson
  International comparisons of income tax and VAT receipts are not readily available. However, figures for taxes on personal income and for taxes on general consumption as a share of GDP can be found in tables 10 and 28 of the 1993 edition of Revenue Statistics of OECD member countries, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date the United Kingdom is obliged under the terms of relevant European directives and other agreements to cease to zero-rate each of those categories of goods and services which benefit from such zero rating; what levels of value added tax within the United Kingdom would be able or obliged to apply to each of those different categories of goods and services after that date; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The United Kingdom is not obliged under any EC directive or other agreement to cease current zero rates of VAT.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to harmonise United Kingdom value added tax rates with those which pertain in other European countries; by what date; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have no proposals to harmonise value added tax rates in the United Kingdom with those charged in other European countries.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's long-term plans for the zero rating for value added tax purposes of the sale of new houses.
  132
  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. and learned Friend said in his Budget statement that he had no proposals to make any changes to the VAT base.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) VAT for goods and services currently zero rated and (b) VAT for goods and services currently exempt are included in his definition of the tax base.

  Sir John Cope
  No.

  Private Health Insurance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the tax yield in a full year of 3 per cent. tax on private health insurance premiums.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Private health insurance premia are included within the accident and health category of insurance premia. The yield from tax at 3 per cent. on all insurance premia in this category is estimated to be about £100 million in 1995–96.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he will make funds available for London Underground to commence Work on line renewal of the Northern line;

  (2) when he will make funds available for London Underground to commence work on replacement of escalators at St. Paul's, Notting Hill Gate, Highgate and Marylebone stations;

  (3) when he will make funds available for London Underground Ltd. to be able to commence work on the renewal of signalling systems on the Hammersmith, Circle and District lines.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport's grant settlement for the three years to 1994–95 was announced on 30 November. Decisions on the timing of individual investment projects are for the management of London Transport and London Underground.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to authorise the construction of the North Greenwich station on the Jubilee line.

  Mr. Norris
  This will depend on completion of negotiations between London Underground Limited and British Gas on a financial contribution by British Gas to the costs involved.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from London Underground regarding projects considered essential for the delivery of a proper service to its customers.

  Mr. Norris
  I am regularly briefed by London Underground on many aspects of its investment programme.

  Railways Regulator
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be the regulator for the railways industry; and when he will officially begin his duties.
  133
  Mr. MacGregor
  I have appointed Mr. John Swift QC as rail regulator and international rail regulator. Parliamentary approval to new expenditure on administrative and other costs of the regulator will be sought in a new estimate to establish an Office of the Rail Regulator Vote (Class VI, Vote 8). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £500,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  M25
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written representations he has received about the proposed link roads alongside the M25 between junctions 12 and 16; and how many of these came from(a) residents of Staines and (b) other residents of the Spelthorne constituency.

  Mr. Key
  Some 4,250 individual letters have been received in response to public consultations on proposals for link roads between junctions 12 and 16 of the M25. Of these, 263 came from addresses in Staines and 114 from Ashford, Ashford Common, Laleham, Poyle, Shepperton, Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Sunbury. In addition, some 8,500 pre-printed postcards were received during the consultations and other correspondence has been received subsequently but no statistics have been compiled about the origins of these.

  Heathrow Report
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written representations he has received about the proposals contained in the Heathrow and south-west quadrant orbital movements study—HASQUAD—report; and how many of these came from(a) residents of Sunbury on Thames and (b) other residents of the Spelthorne constituency.

  Mr. Norris
  To date some 1,700 written representations have been received, of which about 125 were from residents of Sunbury on Thames and about 30 were from other residents of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be in a position to decide on the future of the proposals contained in the Heathrow and south-west quadrant orbital movements study—HASQUAD—proposals.

  Mr. Norris
  I hope to make an announcement on the future of the HASQUAD study recommendations at the earliest opportunity, after I have been able to give careful consideration to all the comments received.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rate of return on(a) existing and (b) new investment he is asking Railtrack to achieve.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are currently discussing with Railtrack the setting of appropriate financial targets including the required rate of return on investment.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of assets transferring to the ownership of Railtrack on 1 April 1994.
  134
  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail, in conjunction with Railtrack and its auditors, is presently working on the identification of the assets to be transferred to Railtrack, and the values to be ascribed to them.

  River Thames
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will promote the increased use of the River Thames for transporting London's waste to points of disposal.

  Mr. Norris
  The River Thames working group, which I chair, is examining the benefits and potential of maximising all types of traffic on the River Thames, including the transportation of waste. The working group is expected to produce and publish its recommendations next summer.

  Quality Assurance Standards
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that when putting contracts out to tender his Department includes on the tender list companies which have acquired the BS5750 quality assurance standard.

  Mr. Key
  Most of my Department's contracts are placed with the road construction industry.

  Several firms within the industry have already introduced recognised quality management schemes on a voluntary basis but the number to have done so is not yet sufficient to ensure proper competition if such schemes were mandatory.

  For that reason it is not yet a departmental requirement that firms invited to tender for roadworks contracts must have such schemes in place.

  However, my Department is working towards the gradual introduction of quality management requirements within the framework of BS5750. As a first step, we are proposing to introduce quality plans for individual contracts starting next year.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department received a request from the Campaign for Freedom of Information for information about the environmental aspects of transporting nuclear materials; when a reply was sent; and if he will make a statement on the time scale.

  Mr. Key
  A request was received by the Department on 30 September 1993 and acknowledged on 12 October. I expect that a full reply will be sent within the next five days.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year since 1979 the number of children killed as a result of road traffic accidents(a) before attending school in the morning and (b) after school had ceased in the afternoon when clocks were set at (i) Greenwich mean time and (ii) British summer time.

  Mr. Key
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Road casualty statistics do not distinguish between school days and holidays.

  Motorway Safety
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has as to the consequences of adding additional lanes to existing motorways for the risks of death and serious injury resulting from multiple or other types of accident.

  Mr. Key
  Available evidence from existing four-lane motorways in Britain does not suggest that accident rates are significantly different on them as compared with three-lane motorways. Motorways are widened to increase capacity and so relieve congestion. If this were not done more vehicles would be forced on to all-purpose roads where the accident rate is significantly higher.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is carrying out the current survey of staff attitudes at the Vehicle Inspectorate; and what is the cost.

  Mr. Key
  The current staff attitude survey is being conducted by Peratee Ltd. at a cost of £6,000 plus VAT. Peratee Ltd. are advising the Vehicle Inspectorate on the adoption of total quality management practice. The survey is part of a wider contract the total cost of which is £59,000 + VAT.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of staff employed at the Vehicle Inspectorate for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Key
  The average number of staff employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate in each of the last three financial years is as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  1,653

  1991–92

  11,879

  1992–93

  1,861

  1 This includes 255 staff from the Traffic Enforcement Organisation which was integrated into the inspectorate in April 1991.

  Staff numbers are expressed as full-time equivalents.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of vehicles inspected by the Vehicle Inspectorate for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Key
  This data has been published in the VI Annual Report and Accounts for 1992–93, a copy of which has been deposited in the House of Commons Library. With the exception of five small schemes, the relevant data are summarised in the table.

  Inspections

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Annual tests

  HGV vehicles

  778,693

  587,252

  578,499

  HGV trailers

  272,117

  268,270

  266,485

  PSVs

  85,558

  85,907

  87,484

  HGV notifiable alterations

  20,029

  15,882

  21,498

  PSV notifiable alterations

  3,102

  2,926

  2,200

  Class IV, V and ambulances

  13,397

  12,168

  13,228

  Class VII

  —

  81,546

  44,484

  Roadworthiness enforcement

  HGVs inspected at roadside

  112,661

  117,477

  126,370

  PSVs inspected at roadside

  20,527

  21,106

  24,895

  Private and LGVs inspected at roadside

  12,405

  35,231

  31,176

  136

  Inspections

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Operator licensing

  HGV number of vehicles inspected

  59,085

  60,974

  62,093

  PSV number of vehicles inspected

  6,786

  7,288

  8,128

  Traffic enforcement

  HGVs examined

  281,140

  266,746

  295,124

  PSVs examined

  32,584

  33,778

  40,508

  Total

  1,698,084

  1,596,551

  1,602,172

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total equipment budget for the Vehicle Inspectorate for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Key
  The budget for capital expenditure on equipment is summarised below. The budget covers the purchase of testing equipment such as roller brake testers, load simulators and smoke meters. The budget includes spare parts, but does not include staff and other costs involved in maintaining the equipment.

  Year

  Budget

  1990–91

  1,542,795

  1991–92

  1,911,100

  1992–93

  2,110,700

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer of the repeal of the disabled passenger scheme for exemptions from vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Key
  There were around 20,000 beneficiaries in the disabled passengers scheme at the date of repeal on 13 October 1993. These disabled people will continue to benefit from exemption from vehicle excise duty (VED) for as long as their disability remains. There were around 4,000 new applications per year at the time of repeal, so the estimated saving to the Exchequer is about £500,000 in the first year.

  Trans-European Road Network
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the final decision by the Council of Ministers on TERN.

  Mr. Key
  I have today placed in the House Libraries copies of the Council decision on the creation of a trans-European road network.

  A41
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the growth in traffic on the A41 at Aston Clinton since the opening of the Berkhamsted-Kings Langley bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  None, but traffic counts indicate an additional 2,700 vehicles per day (average 16-hour weekday) an increase of 13·5 per cent. above figures taken before completion of Berkhamsted-Kings Langley bypass.
  137
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement about the design standards proposed or applied to the various sections of the east-west route for which his Department has published proposals or which have already been opened to traffic;

  (2) what plans he has to review his Department's traffic forecasts for the east-west route following the inclusion of the route in the trans-European road network; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he plans to upgrade the design standards of all or any part of the east-west route following its inclusion in the trans-European road network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 24 November at column 60. Inclusion in the TERN has no bearing on the standards or volume of traffic on the route.

  Driver Identification Numbers
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State, if he will list the smallest number of separate identification numbers that a person with a driving licence can have; and how many persons are employed in the various Departments of state to administer these separate registers, stating the number employed in each case.

  Mr. Key
  For driving licence purposes the "driver number" is the only identification number required. It is automatically generated by computer when a driving licence is issued and requires no additional staff effort. There is no link between the driver number and any other identification number.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government

  Date

  Location

  Purpose

  1Travel

  22 January 1993

  Republic of Ireland

  Attend inter-governmental conference

  £5,708·16

  31 March 1993

  Republic of Ireland

  Attend football international

  £3,781·84

  1-8 May 1993

  USA

  Promoting Northern Ireland

  £19,570·17

  25 May 1993

  Republic of Ireland

  Attend inter-governmental conference

  £5,706·33

  26-27 July 1993

  Republic of Ireland

  Speaking engagements

  £3,515·40

  11 November 1993

  France

  Wreath laying ceremony on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at the Somme

  £1,360·00

  Total expenditure

  £39,277·90

  1 These figures are for travel costs of the Secretary of State and, where applicable, accompanying officials.

  138
  Departments are stated in the Government 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 Government 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.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  There is no sensitive document unit in the Northern Ireland Office or in any of the Northern Ireland Departments.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mink farms have operated in each county in Northern Ireland in each year since 1984; and how many there are at present.

  Mr. Ancram
  There has only ever been one licensed mink farm in Northern Ireland. It was situated in Co. Down and was in operation during the period from 1984 to 1991. There are no licensed mink farms in Northern Ireland at present.

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

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]: I have made six visits abroad in 1993, to 1 December. The available information requested is:

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Franchises
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the changes of rules for television franchises will exempt Tyne Tees/Yorkshire because of his announced two-franchise limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Holdings plc owns two companies, which each hold a regional ITV licence. If the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1993 is approved, the present limit on the holding of only two licences to provide regional ITV services would remain, although only one London licence could be held. If the holder of another ITV regional licence wanted to own Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Holdings, it would have to make arrangements to keep within the limit of two licences.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for NationalHeritage what plans he has to visit Liverpool to discuss the museums in the city; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans to visit Liverpool at the present time. Since taking office, however, I have visited both the Walker art gallery and the Liverpool museum, and have also been to the Lady Lever art gallery and the Tate gallery, Liverpool.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how often he has visited Liverpool since he was appointed.

  Mr. Brooke
  Twice.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has concerning the extent to which United Kingdom television producers are currently using facilities in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Successive Governments have refrained from interfering in questions of television programme content and production. This is a matter for the broadcasters concerned, so long as they act within the law.

PRIME MINISTER

  Visits
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official visits by himself and his predecessor to(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia and (c) Singapore since June 1987; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  The Prime Minister
  Official visits were made to Saudi Arabia in January 1991, March 1991 and January 1993; to Malaysia in August 1988, October 1989 (for CHOGM) and September 1993; and to Singapore in August 1988. The 140
  official visits made by my right hon. and noble Friend were a matter for her. Since November 1990 each of my visits to the countries concerned have been entirely for official purposes.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 419, which charitable or other non-official organisations or groups have been notified that they may organise events at No. 10 Downing street under the financial arrangements described in his answer.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 30 November 1993 at columns 418-19.

  Ministers (Severance Pay)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will list those who have resigned, retired or been dismissed from ministerial office in the past 10 years and the severance pay in (i) cash and (ii) current prices paid to each one.

  The Prime Minister
  As the Financial Secretary explained on 28 October in his reply to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1984 introduced severance payments for Ministers and other paid office holders in the House of Lords, subject to the conditions set out in the Act. The Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 extended the provision to Commons Ministers and other paid office holders in neither House.

  Although no composite list is kept, we have identified from our records the following occasions on which severance payments have been authorised since 31 July 1984. In each case the severance payment would have been equal to three months of the relevant ministerial salary, as provided for by the Act.

  Ministers (Severance Pay)

    Severance Payments
    Date and ministerial post
    11 September 1984
    Minister of State for the Environment
    26 March 1985
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Environment
    3 September 1985
    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    11 September 1986
    Minister of State, Environment
    Minister of State, Scottish Office
    15 June 1987
    Minister of State, Foreign Office
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Trade and Industry
    23 July 1989
    Secretary of State, Trade and Industry
    Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
    24 July 1989
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Energy
    25 July 1989
    Lord in Waiting
    26 July 1989
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office
    22 July 1990
    Minister of State, Industry
    6 September 1990
    Minister of State, Scottish Office
    3 December 1990
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office
    22 May 1991
    Chief Whip, House of Lords
    31 December 1991
    Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords
    11 April 1992
    Secretary of State, Defence
    Secretary of State, Home Office
    Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office
    Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords
    14 April 1992
    Minister of State, Defence
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Education and Science
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Education and Science
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Energy
    Minister of State, Environment
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Health
    Minister of State, Home Office
    Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office
    Minister for the Arts
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Trade and Industry
    14 April 1992
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Transport
    Minister of State, Transport
    Financial Secretary to the Treasury
    Economic Secretary to the Treasury
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office
    27 April 1992
    Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office
    5 May 1992
    Chairman of Committees, House of Lords
    Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, House of Lords
    Deputy Speaker, House of Commons
    25 September 1992
    Secretary of State, National Heritage
    11 December 1992
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Education
    26 May 1993
    Chancellor of the Exchequer
    27 May 1993
    Minister of State, Defence
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Trade and Industry
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of Public Service and Science
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Transport
    6 June 1993
    Minister of State, FCO
    24 June 1993
    Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office
    16 September 1993
    Chief Whip, House of Lords

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fire Doors
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many additional fire doors have been constructed(a) in the Palace of Westminster and (b) in the outbuildings in each of the last three years; what circumstances resulted in additional fire doors being built; what were the costs to the Exchequer; and how many additional fire doors are planned for the current year.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Director of Works and I will ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Beds (Staff)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many beds are available for use by House of Commons staff; what are the criteria for their use; if he will list the numbers of beds at each location; and what is the annual cost of laundry for staff beds.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I will ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Library (Asbestos)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what assessment was made of worker safety in respect of the return of staff to the Library in the summer recess while asbestos clearing work was being undertaken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The work to remove asbestos from the Library was carried out by a firm on the approved list for asbestos removal. It was undertaken in accordance with strict guidelines and procedures laid down by the Health and Safety Executive, on the basis of a professional assessment that there would be no danger to staff in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  LINK Programmes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing for each LINK programme(a) its year of commencement, (b) its total expenditure, (c) its expenditure in each year of operation, (d) the number of projects in each programme and (e) the planned expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows Government expenditure for each LINK programme. Figures given for 1993–94 are for the period April to September 1993; the whole year expenditure estimate is £30 million. Government expenditure on LINK programmes is at least matched by industry.
  143

  LINK programme and announcement date

  Projects

  Government spend £k1

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–942

  Total

  February 1988

  Molecular electronics

  3

  15·9

  136·4

  783·0

  477·9

  1,029·9

  103·4

  2,546·5

  Advanced semiconductor materials

  11

  21·1

  71·0

  594·0

  2,147·3

  2,515·8

  956·2

  6,305·4

  Industrial measurement systems

  34

  23·7

  377·4

  1,317·3

  1,673·0

  1,749·3

  740·3

  5,881·0

  Eukaryotic genetic engineering

  11

  36·6

  99·0

  323·3

  524·5

  428·6

  280·9

  1,692·9

  Nanotechnology

  20

  30·0

  390·2

  656·8

  1,441·4

  1,844·1

  298·3

  4,660·8

  April 1988

  Biotransformations

  13

  14·6

  140·1

  424·4

  761·1

  429·3

  323·1

  2,092·6

  June 1988

  Personal communications

  15

  9·5

  62·9

  669·3

  1,089·3

  1,459·8

  369·5

  3,660·3

  Selective drug delivery and targeting

  6

  —

  155·0

  272·6

  355·8

  270·0

  169·4

  1,222·8

  Construction maintenance and refurbishment

  13

  47·0

  91·0

  99·3

  218·2

  491·8

  182·0

  1,129·3

  September 1988

  Food processing sciences

  33

  —

  288·0

  416·6

  1,761·7

  1,862·0

  826·7

  5,155·0

  April 1989

  Ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration

  9

  —

  1·4

  7·4

  297·8

  461·9

  176·8

  945·3

  Optoelectronic systems

  26

  —

  4·9

  132·4

  1,865·3

  3,549·1

  1,862·1

  7,413·8

  May 1989

  Design of high speed machinery

  23

  —

  533·6

  241·2

  573·9

  1,634·4

  563·5

  3,546·6

  Structural composites

  15

  —

  74·5

  95·1

  529·3

  933·3

  347·0

  1,979·2

  June 1989

  Protein engineering

  14

  —

  7·0

  43·4

  267·6

  1,344·6

  716·6

  2,379·2

  Biochemical engineering

  23

  —

  5·4

  133·3

  694·7

  1,501·5

  837·7

  3,172·6

  New catalysts and catalytic processes

  11

  —

  11·0

  18·8

  215·5

  770·6

  362·3

  1,378·2

  July 1989

  Power Electronic Devices and Derived Systems

  15

  —

  102·4

  423·5

  867·1

  1,097·2

  314·1

  2,804·3

  September 1989

  Control of Plant Metabolism

  3

  —

  —

  10·0

  57·4

  211·2

  83·5

  362·1

  Molecular Sensors

  14

  —

  20·1

  4·8

  312·1

  452·5

  238·7

  1,028·2

  Technology for Analytical and Physical Measurement

  28

  —

  33·1

  109·8

  761·5

  1,113·1

  594·4

  2,611·9

  April 1990

  Transport Infrastructure and Operations

  21

  —

  —

  26·1

  246·0

  293·5

  283·0

  848·6

  June 1990

  Asymmetric Synthesis

  19

  —

  —

  20·4

  28·4

  263·1

  74·7

  386·6

  Crops for Industrial Use

  11

  —

  —

  161·2

  290·4

  412·4

  376·8

  1,240·8

  October 1990

  Enabling Technologies for Advanced Rotorcraft

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59·0

  2·5

  61·5

  December 1990

  Medical Implants

  6

  —

  —

  10·0

  151·0

  420·0

  252·4

  833·4

  Agro-Food Quality

  21

  —

  —

  —

  44·0

  547·0

  480·9

  1,071·9

  April 1991

  Hydrocarbon Reservoirs

  7

  —

  —

  —

  90·0

  239·5

  140·5

  470·0

  July 1991

  Technologies for Sustainable Farming Systems

  12

  —

  —

  —

  15·1

  192·8

  202·7

  410·6

  September 1991

  Enhanced Engineering Materials

  1

  —

  —

  —

  28·6

  29·2

  31·9

  89·7

  April 1993

  Biological Treatment of Soil and Water

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cell Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June 1993

  Personal Communications (Phase II)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July 1993

  High Performance Interfaces and Protocols

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  440

  198·4

  2,604·4

  6,994·0

  17,785·9

  27,606·5

  12,191·9

  67,381·1

  1 Industry's own spend will be at least equal to that of Government.

  2 Spend as at 30 September 1993.

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage manufacturers to produce products which make use of recycled materials.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In recent years, the main encouragement for manufacturers to use recycled materials in their products has come from customer demand, as members of the public take account of this environmental consideration when making their purchasing decisions. Many Government Departments have helped to encourage demand by themselves specifying recycled content in their purchases of stationery and other supplies. The Department of Trade and Industry is funding a number of projects aimed at identifying new end-uses for secondary raw materials, such as glass, plastics and rubber, and is addressing the issue of product standards to seek to remove any unnecessary discrimination against the use of recycled material.

  Advice Centres
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget allocated by his Department during 1992–93 to(a) Business Advice Gateshead, (b) Business Advice Newcastle, (c) Business Advice North Tyneside, (d) Business Advice South Tyneside, (e) Entrust, Newcastle upon Tyne, (f) Gateshead Business Team, (g) Blaydon Business Centre, (h) Marketing Advice Centre, Newcastle and (i) Sunderland Business and Enterprise Centre.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are as follows:

  (a) Nil;

  (b) Nil;

  (c) Nil:

  (d) Nil;

  (e) £218,538;

  (f) Nil;

  (g) Nil;

  (h) Nil;

  (i) Nil.

  My Department was not the primary source of funding for these organisations in 1992–93. The training and enterprise councils (TECs) and local authorities provided core funding for the business advice centres and during this period my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment made provision for the TECs in her Estimates.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget allocated by his Department during 1992–93 to(a) the business advice centres in Cleveland, Cumbria, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear and (b) the eight enterprise agencies in County Durham.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are as follows:

  (a) £105,778

  (b) £21,350

  My Department was not the primary source of funding for these organisations in 1992–93. The training and enterprise councils (TECS) and local authorities provided core funding for the regional business advice centres and the enterprise agencies operating in County Durham. During this period my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment made provision for the TECs in her Estimates.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the budget allocated by his Department during 1992–93 to(a) the Derwentside Industrial development agency, (b) the Shildon and Sedgefield development agency, (c) the East Durham Development Company, (d) the County Durham development agency, (e) the Northern Development Company Ltd., (f) the Teesside development corporation, (g) the Tyne and Wear development corporation, (h) the Tyne and Wear Development Company Ltd. and (i) the West Cumbria development agency.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures are as follows:

  (a) nil

  (b) nil

  (c) £59,855

  (d) nil

  (e) £1,723,500

  (f) nil

  (g) nil

  (h) nil

  (i) nil

  My Department is not the primary source of funding for these organisations. The regional and sub-regional development agencies listed are funded through a combination of local authority and, in some cases, private sector contributions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment makes provision for the urban development corporations in his Estimates.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. McLoughlin
  Invitations to tender issued by the Department for information technology goods and services include details of any relevant IT security requirements with which the supplier must comply. Those requirements are developed in accordance with cental Government IT security standards and best practice. One factor for consideration can be security within the supplier's own environment. The Department has welcomed the code of practice for information security management as a practical guide to effective information security management and, where a supplier has adopted and implemented the code, this will be evidence that security is taken seriously.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many local authorities have submitted bids under the Konver programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Fifty-eight.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the allocations under the Konver programme to the United Kingdom and France; if he will make representations to ensure that the United Kingdom obtains a fairer proportion of EC defence diversification moneys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government expressed concern to the European Commission in May and June 1993 about the
  147
  latter's method of allocation of 1993 Konver grant. The Commission acknowledged that the method and data used were imperfect. In any future Konver initiative the Commission would take account of data provided by the Government.

  Scottish Calibration Centre
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total revenue raised from auction sale of equipment of the Scottish calibration centre.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The recent auction of equipment at NEL was not confined solely to the sales equipment from the Scottish Calibration Centre which was closed in September, it involved the disposal of equipment which had become surplus to a wide range of National Engineering Laboratory activities. The total net proceeds from the sale at auction was £180,725 of which £91,850 represented the sale of equipment which had formerly been used in the Scottish calibration centre.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the annual turnover of car boot sales in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No information is available on the turnover of car boot sales in the United Kingdom.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contracts for technical and technological advice and research have been placed with external consultants since 1 April 1992; what was the total cost; and which such research was commissioned from agencies outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department does not classify consultancy contracts in terms of their activity or the contractors country of origin, and the information requested cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which sections, teams or project groups have been named for closure at the National Engineering Laboratory since 1 April.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The only section team or project group which has been named for closure or closed at NEL since 1 April 1993 was the Scottish calibration centre which was closed on 30 September. The Scottish calibration centre was not a core activity of NEL and employed five staff, two of whom were in scientific grades.

  Exports
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further proposals he has to assist small and medium-sized firms in their export efforts.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department, jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides a wide range of high quality advice and support to United Kingdom 148
  exporters, 75 per cent. of our export services are taken by small to medium-sized companies and I plan to increase their awareness and access to these through the establishment of 200 business links throughout England. With DTI support, business links bring together local business support providers—TECs, chambers of commerce, local authorities and local enterprise agencies—in partnerships to meet the needs, including exporting needs, of small and medium sized companies in their area. Additional export help is targetted at small to medium sized companies that are passive or less experienced exporters through 17 export development advisers supported by DTI, based in chambers of commerce throughout the country.

  Gas and Electricity
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the relationship between the powers of the Director General of Gas Supply and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission with regard to the setting of the capping price for gas.

  Mr. Eggar
  Section 24 of the Gas Act 1986 enables the Director General of Gas Supply to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the question whether any matter relating to the supply of gas by a public gas supplier to tariff customers, including the tariff formula, may operate or be expected to operate against the public interest. If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission finds that the matter operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest, the Director General is required under section 26 of the Gas Act to modify such conditions of the public gas supplier's authorisation as appears to her to be requisite to remedy or prevent the adverse effects found by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the mechanism which he uses to ensure that the disconnection regulators of gas and electricity use their discretion in ways consonant with national energy policy.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 the Director General of Gas Supply and the Director General of Electricity Supply each has a duty to protect the interests of consumers. Domestic electricity and gas disconnections are now the lowest on record.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the proposed timetable for decommissioning THORP.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 2 December 1993 at column 736.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on possible private sector involvement in the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A recent review by Stoy Hayward. Consulting examined the work of the Insolvency Service and its official receivers and looked at the scope for involving the private sector to a larger extent in their mechanical, processing tasks. I am currently considering what further work needs to be done and shall announce to the House in due course what the next steps will be.

  Plugs and Sockets
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the harmonisation of plug and socket installations to a common European standard; if the European unfused electrical plug is under consideration; what steps will be taken to avoid confusion by the public over differing safety standards; and who is to bear the costs of changing plugs and sockets in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No decision has been taken to change the standard for plugs and sockets in the United Kingdom. Although the plug standards which are currently under discussion in CENELEC, the body responsible for electrical standards in Europe, do not incorporate a fuse, there are other means of providing an equivalent level of protection. My Department has commissioned an independent analysis of the costs and benefits for the United Kingdom, and the results of this study will be published in the new year. In assessing whether any change to our present standards might be desirable at some future date full account will be taken both of consumer safety issues and of the cost implications for consumers and industry.

  Wearmouth Pit
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many British Coal employees at the Wearmouth pit on 26 November(a) work on surface and (b) work below ground; and what is the average annual wage, including shift allowance, of employees in each category.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of all contractors' companies operating at Wearmouth pit, the number of employees of each individual contractor at the pit and that number as a percentage of the total British Coal work force at Wearmouth pit; and what is the average length of employment contract issued by individual contracting companies at Wearmouth pit.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Quality Assurance Standards
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that when putting contracts out to tender his Department includes on the tender list companies which have acquired the BS5750 quality assurance standard.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our buyers are encouraged to include on tender lists companies certificated to BS5750 or its equivalent wherever possible.

  Government-funded Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table updating the information and showing the changes from table 3.19.1 of the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research" in the light of the recent public expenditure statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Revised figures for the Department of Trade and Industry's expenditure on Research and 150
  Development will be prepared in light of this year's Public Expenditure Survey and published in the 1994 Forward Look of Science and Technology (which replaces the Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development).

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effect of the level of paper waste prices in Germany on United Kingdom waste paper resources.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The Government are keenly aware of the problems being experienced by the United Kingdom waste paper industry as a result of the German packaging ordinance and the DSD collection scheme. We have raised our concerns bilaterally with the German Government, and at EC level. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, has also written to EC Commissioners, encouraging them to come to an early conclusion on their consideration of the German system's compatibility with EC law.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, recently attended a meeting of EC Environment Ministers, called by the German Minister, to discuss the effects of trade flows of secondary raw materials, including paper. The German Government referred there to the expectation that some 800,000 tonnes of waste paper recycling capacity would come on stream in Germany by the end of 1994; they have suggested that the quantity of waste paper exported for recycling will diminish substantially as a consequence. In ur view, however, this does not address the fundamental cause of the problem, which is the statutory requirement in Germany to recover and recycle far more waste material than there is demand for.

  The announcement on producer responsibility which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment and I made in July was intended partly as a response to the difficulties caused by over-collection of some materials under the German DSD scheme. It is intended to provide that United Kingdom collectors and reprocessors are put on a similar basis to their competitors in Germany, and in other EC countries.

  For the longer term, we believe that distortions of the kind currently being experienced are,best dealt with by setting an overall framework through Community-wide legislation, such as the proposed EC Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.

  Patenting of Human Genes
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the European Commission's proposal to ban the patenting of human genes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: My Department supports the proposal contained in the European Commission's draft Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions that the human body and parts of the body should not be patentable. Whilst this would exclude genes in the body from patentability, we do accept that it may be appropriate for sequences of nucleotides of specific industrial application, which may derive from human genes, to be patentable provided the normal criteria of novelty and inventive step are met.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any plutonium has been exported to the United States of America since 1990 under the 1959 amendment to the 1958 United Kingdom-United States mutual atomic energy exchange agreement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: No exports of civil plutonium have been made to the United States since 1990 under the 1958 defence agreement between that country and the United Kingdom. Exports of other plutonium are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Levitt Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he now has to appoint inspectors to investigate the activities of Roger Levitt and the collapse of the Levitt group of companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The Serious Fraud Office has conducted extensive inquiries into the activities of Mr. Levitt and the Levitt Group. No useful purpose would be served by my Department duplicating these inquiries into the activities of the undischarged bankrupt Roger Levitt and the companies formerly under his control.

  Jetstream
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what meetings or correspondence his Department has had with the European Commission or other officials of multinational organisations about the effect of unfair competition on Jetstream;

  (2) what representations he has received alleging unfair support to aircraft manufacturers overseas which are in direct competition with Jetstream; what action he has taken; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what visits Ministers or officers of his Department have made or plan to make to the British Aerospace Jetstream plant at Prestwick.

  Number of staff in post

  Black

  Asian

  Other Ethnic Origin

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  47

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  17

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  154

  1

  1

  2

  SEO and equivalent

  111

  0

  0

  1

  HEO and equivalent

  357

  6

  2

  1

  E0 and equivalent

  478

  23

  12

  3

  AO and equivalent

  600

  52

  23

  5

  AA and equivalent

  360

  14

  6

  0

  TOTAL

  2,142

  96

  44

  12

  These figures reflect the number of staff in post and include 360 staff in the Teachers Pensions Agency.
  152
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answers 6 December 1993]: My Department has had no contact with the European Commission or other multinational organisations about the effect of unfair competition on Jetstream.

  There have been a number of representations from Jetstream alleging unfair support to aircraft manufacturers overseas. We have asked the company for specific details of the evidence they have on these allegations, and have offered to meet them to discuss what remedies are available under international mechanisms.

  Four officials from my Department's aerospace division visited the British Aerospace Jetstream plant at Prestwick in the last year. The recently appointed head of the division is to visit Prestwick in early December.

EDUCATION

  Schools (Inspectors Reports)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the inspector's report naming Dick Sheppard school and Lilian Baylis school as schools as giving cause for concern and serious concern.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Both schools will be inspected in the current academic year under the new inspection arrangements introduced following the Education (Schools) Act 1992. Lilian Baylis school will be inspected in the spring term and Dick Sheppard school in the summer term.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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.

  Mr. Boswell
  We do not hold information on the ethnic origin of all our staff but of those who have responded to the ethnic monitoring survey (98 per cent.) carried out last year, the figures at 1 December 1993 are as follows:

  Universities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new steps he is considering to enable universities to play a more active role in the development of Britain's manufacturing capacity.

  Mr. Boswell
  Universities are already contributing significantly to the development of our manufacturing
  153
  capacity, both through the supply of highly qualified people and through collaborative research and other services. My right hon. Friend has encouraged scientific and technological education in universities through a differential tuition fee structure. He has also recently announced a bursary scheme to encourage particularly able students to enter engineering courses.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to enable university personnel greater freedom to undertake outside consultancy work.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for universities as employers to determine the conditions of employment of their staff, including arrangements for consultancy work. The Government have no locus in this matter.

  Students
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the trends in students entering higher education from(a) different social classes and (b) differential parental income brackets since the introduction of student loans.

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the socio-economic background of accepted applicants to higher education have been collected and published by both the higher education admissions agencies since 1991. Details of the number of mandatory award holders in relation to the residual income of their parents are collected and published by the Department in the Statistics of Education Students Awards Volume. The 1993 student income and expenditure survey, the results of which are due to be published shortly, also sought information about the socio-economic background of those interviewed.

  Although it is too early to identify any significant trends, the evidence so far indicates that the introduction of loans has had no adverse effect on participation by students from less well-off families.

  School Performance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements his Department has for taking into account when judging school performance the range of intake to a particular school and other relevant factors.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ofsted is responsible for advising my right hon. Friend on the quality of education and standards achieved in schools. I have asked Professor Sutherland, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, to send the hon. Member a copy of his published Framework of Inspection which sets out the criteria for judging school performance. Work on operational approaches to value added in the context of school performance tables is being taken forward by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

  Numbers and percentages of day pupils taking free school meals in maintained schools in England—January 1992

  Primary (including nursery)

  Secondary

  Special

  LEA

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Corporation of London

  91

  41

  Camden

  3,291

  31

  1,762

  17

  143

  48

  Greenwich

  5,727

  27

  2,204

  16

  250

  36

  Hackney

  6,567

  40

  2,443

  31

  222

  44

  Hammersmith

  2,929

  31

  1,236

  21

  145

  38

  Islington

  5,094

  34

  1,806

  23

  131

  42

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,980

  31

  741

  20

  1

  100

  Local Government Review
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultation has taken place with teacher trade unions, about their employment conditions in the light of the local government review.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The teacher trade unions have sought no such consultations with my right hon. Friend. None has taken place.

  Swimming Instruction
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what surveys he has recently conducted via local education authorities of the percentage of pupils receiving swimming instruction; what assessment he has made of any change there has been in that percentage over the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department carried out two surveys at the end of 1991 to inform decisions on the feasibility of making swimming a statutory requirement of national curriculum physical education. One was to determine the number of schools with swimming pools; the other to find out how many of a representative sample of over 1,200 schools, with or without their own pools, made provision of some kind for swimming lessons. Copies of the findings of these surveys were placed in the Library. Neither, however, yielded information on the number or proportion of schools pupils receiving swimming instruction.

  Free School Meals
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, by education authority area, the number of pupils in receipt of(a) free school meals and (b) clothing grants for each year since 1987; and if he will indicate, in each case, what percentage this represents of the total number of pupils in each area.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested on take-up of free school meals in January 1992—the latest date for which information is available—is shown in the table. Similar information for January 1989 and subsequent years is published annually in the Statistics of Education (Schools) Volumes, copies of which are available in the Library. Information prior to 1989 is not available on a comparable basis although the results of early school meals censuses were published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy up to 1988 in "—School Meal Statistics at October " copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of pupils in receipt of clothing grants is not collected centrally.
  155

  Primary (including nursery)

  Secondary

  Special

  LEA

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Lambeth

  6,720

  35

  1,607

  26

  324

  43

  Lewisham

  5,188

  26

  2,257

  21

  154

  38

  Southwark

  7,162

  34

  2,433

  27

  160

  45

  Tower Hamlets

  9,179

  45

  4,406

  40

  269

  57

  Wandsworth

  4,822

  28

  1,903

  20

  202

  39

  Westminster

  2,949

  32

  1,992

  28

  63

  47

  Barking

  2,330

  15

  665

  7

  30

  19

  Barnet

  2,738

  11

  1,467

  8

  56

  18

  Bexley

  2,030

  11

  714

  5

  88

  32

  Brent

  4,574

  21

  1,789

  15

  119

  34

  Bromley

  2,257

  11

  1,165

  7

  65

  18

  Croydon

  4,217

  16

  1,466

  9

  157

  31

  Ealing

  4,830

  17

  1,831

  16

  138

  30

  Enfield

  3,096

  14

  1,548

  9

  137

  32

  Haringey

  4,992

  27

  2,240

  26

  116

  34

  Harrow

  1,277

  7

  536

  7

  40

  20

  Havering

  1,560

  8

  724

  5

  51

  23

  Hillingdon

  1,436

  7

  938

  7

  86

  21

  Hounslow

  2,942

  15

  1,600

  12

  90

  23

  Kingston upon Thames

  705

  7

  340

  5

  37

  16

  Merton

  1,982

  13

  706

  10

  64

  26

  Newham

  5,758

  23

  2,429

  18

  130

  38

  Redbridge

  1,981

  11

  1,081

  8

  73

  19

  Richmond upon Thames

  824

  8

  560

  8

  30

  20

  Sutton

  1,122

  9

  552

  5

  54

  22

  Waltham Forest

  4,355

  22

  2,102

  17

  214

  28

  Birmingham

  32,673

  30

  15,042

  23

  1,327

  48

  Coventry

  6,863

  23

  2,600

  14

  281

  37

  Dudley

  3,780

  14

  1,711

  10

  183

  32

  Sandwell

  6,727

  21

  2,329

  13

  328

  42

  Solihull

  2,572

  13

  892

  6

  81

  29

  Walsall

  5,823

  20

  2,786

  15

  207

  38

  Wolverhampton

  5,445

  22

  1,870

  12

  187

  38

  Knowsley

  6,867

  37

  2,544

  29

  312

  55

  Liverpool

  15,828

  31

  6,888

  24

  670

  46

  St. Helens

  3,379

  19

  1,310

  11

  169

  36

  Sefton

  4,850

  18

  2,308

  12

  163

  38

  Wirral

  7,391

  24

  3,849

  18

  305

  40

  Bolton

  4,766

  17

  1,823

  11

  166

  35

  Bury

  2,334

  14

  806

  8

  99

  40

  Manchester

  18,506

  40

  6,154

  26

  734

  42

  Oldham

  5,461

  23

  2,519

  16

  201

  34

  Rochdale

  4,915

  22

  2,049

  16

  173

  36

  Salford

  6,748

  29

  1,686

  13

  160

  35

  Stockport

  3,588

  14

  1,495

  8

  118

  29

  Tameside

  4,408

  19

  1,637

  12

  143

  35

  Trafford

  2,942

  15

  1,186

  11

  102

  26

  Wigan

  5,061

  17

  1,795

  9

  318

  40

  Barnsley

  4,197

  20

  1,442

  12

  63

  40

  Doncaster

  6,568

  22

  2,699

  13

  259

  38

  Rotherham

  4,798

  19

  1,723

  10

  245

  39

  Sheffield

  9,924

  21

  3,278

  14

  315

  45

  Bradford

  8,984

  22

  9,588

  21

  310

  32

  Calderdale

  3,528

  18

  1,403

  11

  50

  25

  Kirklees

  6,185

  17

  2,742

  10

  205

  36

  Leeds

  9,398

  17

  7,099

  14

  326

  33

  Wakefield

  4,707

  16

  2,184

  11

  215

  39

  Gateshead

  4,640

  26

  1,360

  12

  141

  41

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7,605

  33

  2,716

  16

  269

  37

  North Tyneside

  3,017

  18

  1,526

  10

  161

  37

  South Tyneside

  4,584

  28

  1,376

  15

  137

  40

  Sunderland

  7,611

  25

  2,651

  14

  266

  38

  Isles of Scilly

  8

  5

  23

  25

  0

  0

  Avon

  12,852

  16

  4,496

  8

  575

  32

  Bedfordshire

  6,053

  14

  4,629

  10

  293

  28

  Berkshire

  5,350

  9

  2,018

  4

  336

  21

  Buckinghamshire

  3,392

  6

  1,366

  4

  322

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  6,768

  12

  2,907

  7

  212

  23

  Cheshire

  11,950

  13

  5,033

  8

  291

  25

  Cleveland

  15,336

  24

  5,650

  14

  548

  40

  Cornwall

  5,846

  15

  3,058

  11

  101

  42

  Cumbria

  5,205

  12

  2002

  7

  76

  25

  Derbyshire

  11,351

  13

  4,662

  8

  375

  30

  Devon

  11,598

  15

  4763

  8

  434

  28

  Dorset

  2,995

  7

  2,423

  6

  243

  23

  Durham

  11,724

  20

  3,968

  11

  402

  43

  East Sussex

  7,282

  15

  3,071

  9

  384

  30

  156 157

  Primary (including nursery)

  Secondary

  Special

  LEA

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Essex

  14,808

  12

  5,890

  6

  583

  24

  Gloucestershire

  4,774

  11

  1,905

  6

  351

  29

  Hampshire

  15,169

  12

  4,579

  5

  864

  25

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,848

  8

  2,776

  6

  274

  24

  Hertfordshire

  7,643

  9

  3,744

  6

  387

  24

  Humberside

  13,969

  17

  6,339

  11

  382

  34

  Isle of Wight

  1,314

  19

  1,425

  14

  68

  27

  Kent

  15,577

  13

  6,838

  7

  665

  24

  Lancashire

  23,320

  18

  10,430

  13

  1,102

  36

  Leicestershire

  10,669

  14

  4,604

  8

  300

  32

  Lincolnshire

  2,812

  6

  2,104

  6

  263

  28

  Norfolk

  7,511

  12

  2,394

  6

  183

  23

  North Yorkshire

  4,944

  9

  2,012

  5

  162

  20

  Northamptonshire

  4,441

  9

  3,160

  7

  237

  21

  Northumberland

  3,210

  15

  2,403

  8

  119

  28

  Nottinghamshire

  15,939

  18

  6,981

  11

  517

  32

  Oxfordshire

  3,843

  9

  2,011

  6

  155

  20

  Shropshire

  4,924

  14

  2,088

  8

  176

  33

  Somerset

  3,132

  9

  1,726

  6

  161

  27

  Staffordshire

  13,618

  15

  4,946

  7

  623

  31

  Suffolk

  4,535

  11

  3,019

  6

  128

  19

  Surrey

  5,821

  8

  1,338

  3

  273

  19

  Warwickshire

  4,660

  10

  1,310

  5

  361

  31

  West Sussex

  4,922

  10

  1,910

  5

  205

  19

  Wiltshire

  4,676

  10

  1,987

  6

  145

  25

  England

  681,167

  16

  294,297

  10

  26,504

  32

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for including the testing of trigonometry at key stage 4; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  From 1994, trigonometry will be examined at key stage 4 through GCSEs prepared to meet national curriculum requirements in mathematics. In a recent report on this year's GCSE, the Office for Standards in Education identified trigonometry as an area of mathematics where there were often high standards of achievement among candidates.

  Schools Capital Programme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has held with his colleagues regarding increasing the capital programme for schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Decisions on central Government capital provision for schools were taken as part of the overall discussions within this year's public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will consider increasing Coventry education department's capital programme for schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Capital bids for 1994–95 from all local education authorities are currently under consideration. My right hon. Friend expects to announce annual capital guidelines and voluntary-aided school capital allocations to all authorities, including Coventry, later this month.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has for improving teacher training; and when they will be implemented.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has set out new standards for initial training which define the 158
  knowledge and skills new teachers require. Student teachers must spend more time in schools, and schools will be able to play a full part in designing and running courses. Training for primary teachers must include more time on the core subjects. Courses are already being adjusted—all secondary courses must meet the new criteria by September 1994, all primary courses by September 1996. My right hon. Friend has also made arrangements to allow groups of schools to run their own courses. The first started this September, and more will start next year.

  The Education Bill recently introduced in another place provides for a Teacher Training Agency to underpin these reforms. Subject to the passage of the legislation, the agency will be established in September 1994. It will fund teacher training and related courses; accredit institutions offering initial teacher training; and act as a central focus of information and advice about teaching as a career.

  Play Groups
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional resources he intends to provide for improving facilities for pre-school play groups.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Education is this year making available a grant of £887,000 to the national Pre-School Playgroups Association to improve the education content of playgroup provision by supporting a number of training posts. This compares with a grant of £649,500 in 1992–93. Financial support is also provided by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence. Grant to the association for 1994–95 is currently under consideration. Individual playgroups are self-financing and receive most of their income from fees charged to parents, grants from local authorities, and local fund-raising.

  Education Welfare Officers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many education welfare officers were employed(a) in 1979 and (b) for the latest year for which information is available; and if he will break the figure down by individual local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects the findings of the current national survey of local education authority discretionary award provision to be published.

  Mr. Boswell
  This survey was commissioned by the Calouste Gulbenkian and Sir John Cass Foundations, with the support of my Department and the Further Education Funding Council, and is being conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research. Accordingly, publication of the survey's findings is not in the Government's hands. I understand that by the middle of November only half of the local education authorities in England and Wales had been able to return the second of the two questionnaires sent to them in May. I very much hope that the remaining authorities will be able to make their returns by the end of December. The survey's steering committee, on which my Department is represented, now expects the findings to be published as a Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation document at the end of March.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice Act 1992
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure was incurred in the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1992, including the cost of training of lay magistrates; and what was the cost of implementing the subsequent amending legislation to the Act.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 contained a wide range of provisions including the introduction of a framework for sentencing, new early release arrangements and provisions relating, among other things, to children's evidence, prisoner escorts and cash limits for magistrates courts. A number of Government Departments and other agencies were involved in implementing the Act. Information about the expenditure which they may have incurred specifically in relation to implementing provisions of the Act is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The training of lay magistrates is carried out by courts locally, and training about the provisions of the 1991 Act was effected within overall training budgets. It is not possible to disaggregate the costs of this training. For similar reasons, it is not possible to identify the cost of implementing the amendments made to the sentencing framework of the 1991 Act by the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  Crime, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to tackle youth crime in Blyth Valley and in south-east Northumberland.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is already supporting in different ways a range of local action which has a reduction of the opportunity for, and prevalence of, crime by young people among its objectives. Thus, the local probation service is involved in a number of multi-agency initiatives. An activity project has been set up for more constructive use of leisure time and programmes are being developed to increase training and employment opportunities.

  In addition, the Home Office funded Drugs Prevention Newcastle, in collaboration with the Northumbria Coalition Against Crime has produced "Dialogue on Drugs", an educational resource pack on good practice for drugs education which is being disseminated through Education Departments in Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.

  The Government announced on 2 March 1993 further measures to tackle youth crime throughout England and Wales ranging from improving discipline in schools to giving courts a new sentence of detention, the secure training order, for persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in south-east Northumberland were unemployed in each year since 1989;

  (2) what percentage of offenders in Blyth Valley and south-east Northumberland were aged under 21 years in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected centrally on the employment status of defendants appearing before the courts.

  The table shows the number and percentage of offenders by age convicted at Blyth Valley, Morpeth and Wansbeck petty sessional divisions and at the Crown court who were committed by the above mentioned three courts for 1992. 1993 data will not be available until autumn 1994. From 1 April 1993 the three courts combine to form the south-east Northumberland petty sessional division.

  Number and percentage of offenders aged under 21 and all ages found guilty at Blyth Valley, Morpeth and Wansbeck petty sessional divisions and at the Crown Court by committing Blyth Valley, Morpeth and Wansbeck petty sessional divisions and type of offence 1992

  Under 21

  PSD/Type of offence

  Number

  Per cent.

  All ages (= 100 per cent.)

  Blyth Valley

  Indictable offences

  176

  37

  479

  Summary non-motoring offences

  81

  9

  895

  Summary motoring offences

  121

  17

  701

  All offences

  378

  18

  2,075

  Morpeth

  Indictable offences

  64

  32

  198

  Summary non-motoring offences

  58

  18

  317

  Summary motoring offences

  89

  5

  1,894

  All offences

  211

  9

  2,409

  Wansbeck

  Indictable offences

  161

  39

  411

  Summary non-motoring offences

  92

  16

  579

  Summary motoring offences

  128

  22

  570

  All offences

  381

  24

  1,560

  Note:—From 1 April 1993 Blyth Valley, Morpeth and Wansbeck PSD combine to form the South East Northumberland PSD.
  161
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new strategies he intends to promote to tackle drug problems in Blyth Valley and in south-east Northumberland.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's overall strategy for tackling drug misuse is aimed at reducing both the supply of and demand for drugs throughout the United Kingdom. Through the local drugs prevention teams we are developing imaginative strategies specifically designed to tackle local drug problems in key areas. Initiatives planned by the team in Newcastle include the launch of a drugs information line and publication of information packs for both young people and parents which will also benefit those living in Blyth Valley and south-east Northumberland.

  Obscenity and Violence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations he has received over the last six months on videos available to children and containing pornographic material and scenes of violence; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent representations he has received on reform of the laws relating to obscenity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about the availability of pornographic and violent videos, and also about the law relating to obscenity in general. We have made clear our determination to act firmly against those who trade in obscene material, especially those engaged in the deplorable traffic in child pornography. We intend shortly to invite this House to approve legislation which will make child pornography offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 serious arrestable offences—thereby giving the police increased powers of search and seizure as well as assisting them to break up child pornography rings by arresting those involved. We propose to extend existing legislation so that it will cover simulated child pornography manufactured on computer and to make other important changes to the law as it affects computer pornography. We will also be proposing that courts should have a power of imprisonment for those convicted of possessing child pornography and that the validity of search warrants under the Protection of Children Act should be extended from 14 to 28 days. In addition we propose to extend the powers of local authority trading standards officers and magistrates' courts to enforce the Video Recordings Act 1984.

  Our controls on obscene materials and, in particular, on video recordings are already the toughest in Europe, and we will continue to seek suitable ways in which they might be further strengthened. Nevertheless, the final responsibility for what children watch inevitably rests in the home, and it is important that all parents and guardians should ensure that their children are not exposed to unsuitable material.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration he has given to 162
  appointing a body other than the British Board of Film Classification to undertake statutory responsibility of the classification system under the Video Recordings Act 1984;

  (2) when was the last time he met members of the British Board of Film Classification to discuss the operation of the Video Recordings Act 1984;

  (3) if he will publish the details of the research project being carried out by the British Board of Film Classification into the impact of violent videos on children; and when he expects to receive a copy of the report.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government keep the arrangements for the control of video recordings under constant review, but we have no plans to designate any other persons to undertake the classification of video works currently carried out by the British Board of Film Classification. We believe that the BBFC fulfils its role conscientiously. My officials maintain frequent contact with them. I met Lord Birkett, a Vice-President of the BBFC, to discuss the operation of the Video Recordings Act 1984 earlier this year.

  The BBFC, together with the BBC, the ITC and the Broadcasting Standards Council, commissioned research into the viewing habits of young offenders and other children of comparable age. It will be for the sponsor bodies to arrange publication of the results of this research; but I understand that this is likely to be early next year.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cautions were administered by the North Wales police for driving-related offences in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to written warnings for alleged motoring offences and is as follows:

  Written warnings for motoring offences in north Wales

  Year

  Number

  1990

  3,655

  1991

  3,781

  1992

  13,326

  1 Provisional.

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

  Mr. Howard
  There are at present 28 members of the information officer class employed as press and publicity officers in the Department's public relations branch. In addition, there are seven information officer grades similarly employed in the Prison Service and one in the national criminal intelligence service.

  Precise information for 1985 and 1979 is not readily available, but comparable totals for the Department in those years are believed to be 27 and 24.

  Right of Silence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the abolition of the right of silence in a criminal court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was published, we have received 13 letters from right hon. and hon. Members on this issue and 51 letters direct from members of the public and organisations.

  Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of EC Home Affairs Ministers on 29 and 30 November.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The meeting on 29 and 30 November was the first Interior and Justice Council held under the provisions of the treaty on European union. The main points dealt with were as follows.

  The Council agreed, for submission to the European Council on 10 and 11 December, action plans and work programmes for the areas for which under Title VI of the Treaty it is responsible.

  The Council took note of the progress made on implementing the work programme on immigration and asylum adopted at Maastricht, and agreed subject to a Spanish reserve a number of matters related to asylum and the practical application of the Dublin convention. It agreed not to seek to transfer competence on the right of asylum to the Community but decided to review the matter before the end of 1995.

  The Council considered a report on racism and xenophobia and agreed a resolution concerning concrete measures to combat this phenomenon.

  The Commission gave a presentation on its proposals for Community legislation under Article 100C providing for a list of third countries whose nationals would require a visa to enter member states, and for an amendment of the draft external frontiers convention. The Council agreed that these proposals should be given further consideration when they were received.

  The Council agreed broad principles to be observed in drawing up readmission agreements with third countries and will consider at a future meeting the question of the inclusion of a commitment to such agreements in Community co-operation agreements.

  The Council considered means of extending cooperation with certain third countries on Title VI matters. It will examine proposals at its next meeting.

  The Council noted an interim report on the work being carried out in the field of extradition and instructed officials to produce a final report by the end of 1994.

  The Council considered a report by the Presidency on possible Community accession to the European convention on human rights and decided to consult the European Court of Justice about the legal consequences. The United Kingdom expressed strong reservations about the need for this at this stage, given the absence of consensus on the desirability of accession.

  The Council noted preparatory work by the Europol drugs unit and progress on the Europol convention. It
  164
  received a report commissioned by Ministers at Kolding in May 1993 on international organised crime and approved the action programme contained in it.

  The Council discussed the internal and external terrorist threat to member states and decided to examine ways to improve co-operation between member states on counter-terrorism.

  The Council adopted recommendations and resolutions on the campaign against money laundering; on protection of the financial interests of the Community; on the exchange of information on environmental crime; and on the responsibilities of organisers of sports events.

  It also agreed five recommendations aimed at combating trade in human beings for prostitution.

  I am placing in the Library of the House the press communique issued following the meeting, and other documents approved by the Council.

  Wormwood Scrubs Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the projects now under development at Wormwood Scrubs prison, the cost of each project and if funding for each project has been approved and granted.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your further Question about the current development work at Wormwood Scrubs prison.
  My letter of 30 November 1993 in reply to your earlier Question about the current development work at the prison explained the work being carried out at the prison and the work planned for the future (published in Hansard on 1 December 1993 col 625). In the final paragraph of my letter I said that a final decision had still to be made about the timing and phasing of proposals to complete the modernisation of the four existing accommodation wings.
  Although a precise timetable has still to be determined we are currently planning to start the modernisation of A and B wings in the Autumn of 1994. The work is expected to take two years. Further modernisation work to C and D wings will be carried out after work to A and B wings has been completed. It is too early to give an indication of the likely timing of this work, which will depend on resources available in future years and priorities across the Prison Service estate.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population roll at Wormwood Scrubs prison on Monday 15 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 Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the prison population roll at Wormwood Scrubs.
  On Monday 15 November 1993 there were 829 prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs.
  165
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in detail the actions that his Department have taken at Wormwood Scrubs prison following the report of Mr. Justice Tumim.

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

  Letter from Mr. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the action taken by the Prison Service at Wormwood Scrubs prison following the report of His Honour Judge Tumim.
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons made an unannounced short inspection of Wormwood Scrubs prison from 18 to 20 August 1993. The report was submitted to the Secretary of State on 22 November, and it is currently being considered.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the days of the week on which the photographs in the White Paper "Sunday Trading—A Guide to the Options for Reform", Cm 2300, were taken.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not know on which day of the week most of the photographs were taken as this is for the most part irrelevant. For example, we do not know on what day of the week the photograph on page 1 of the guide—the 1950s street scene—was taken. But, where a photograph is used clearly to illustrate a specific Sunday activity, the photograph was taken on a Sunday, for example, the photograph of Sunday shopping in Edinburgh on page 5 of the guide.

  Sensitive Documents Unit
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  The Home Office does not have a sensitive documents unit.

  Prisoners (Attacks)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, with reference to the subject of attacks on prisoners, he will make it his policy to ensure that the same information is available on both privately and publicly managed prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on assaults on inmates in each Prison Service establishment is published in "Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishments England and Wales 1992", Cm 2411. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much new money is to be made available for the building of the proposed new prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  166
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how much money is to be made available for the building of the proposed new prisons in England and Wales.
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his earlier Question on 1 December 1993 (columns 627-28).

  Public Order
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the 1992 figures for prosecutions and convictions under(a) the Public Order Act 1936 and (b) sections 17 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Court proceedings data for 1992 became available on 3 December 1993 following publication of the Command Paper "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1992" Cm 2410. Copies of the Command Paper and its four supplementary volumes are available from the Library. Requests for information regarding specific sections of the Public Order Act 1936 can be made direct to room 1824B, S1 division, research and statistics department, Home Office, Lunar house, Wellesley road, Croydon, CR0 9YD.

  I will write to the hon. Member regarding sections 17 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the costs of introducing a national identity card scheme.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The costs of an identity card scheme would depend on the administrative details of the scheme and the checks required before an identity card was issued.

  In 1989, it was estimated, on the basis of the costs of issuing passports, that the cost of introducing a national identity card scheme would be in the region of £350 million, excluding initial capital costs. Annual running costs were estimated to be between £50 million and £100 million. These figures were based on the unit cost of a passport—then £7·50—and assumed a scheme in which identity cards are issued to all British citizens aged 12 and over. The figures were published on 6 February 1989 at column 468 and on 10 May 1993 at column 340.

  In 1991–92, the unit cost of a passport Was £10·15. At this cost, the 1989 estimate of the costs of introducing a national identity card scheme would increase to about £475 million.

  James Bulger
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the parents of James Bulger will be informed of what custodial tariff is to be applied to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.

  Mr. Howard
  I have not yet decided the period of custody to be served for retribution and deterrence in these
  167
  cases. When I have, I will consider what information might be given to the parents of James Bulger, and how that might best be done. In considering what information they might receive I will of course wish to take their own views fully in to account.

  The arrangements for determining the period of custody which those convicted of murder are required to serve in order to satify the requirements for retribution and deterrence are set out in my replies of 27 July 1993 at columns 863-65, and 4 November 1993 at columns 376-78, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).

  Deportation Notices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide figures for the number of notices of intention to deport issued since the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1988.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Notices of intention to deport issued

  Year

  Number

  1988 August to December

  1,117

  1989

  3,213

  1990

  3,001

  1991

  3,440

  1992

  3,594

  1993 January to September

  13,309

  1provisional figure

  Emergency Warning System
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the need for a nationally co-ordinated emergency warning system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  After a review of the civil defence arrangements in the United Kingdom, it was announced on 12 November 1992 that the obsolescent national siren warning system was to be closed down and that future national arrangements for warning the public should be
  based on the use of radio and television broadcasts. Work is in hand for the new system.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of applications for British citizenship outstanding at the latest available date; what was the corresponding figure at the same time in each of the last five years; what is the average time currently between the receipt of a British citizenship application and a decision being taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 30 November 1993, the number of recorded outstanding applications for British citizenship was 39,638. The numbers of recorded applications outstanding at the end of November in each of the previous five years were as follows:

  Number

  November 1988

  114,152

  November 1989

  125,407

  November 1990

  88,671

  168

  Number

  November 1991

  52,713

  November 1992

  49,945

  During November the average waiting time between the receipt of an application and a certificate being issued was 17 months for certificates of naturalisation and 13 months for certificates of registration. The latter figure includes those certificates issued to minors whose applications were submitted at the same time as their parents' application for naturalisation.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to chief constables concerning explanations being given to those refused recruitment to the special constabulary; what right of review or appeal exists to applicants refused admission to the special constabulary; what is the time limit on a fresh application to join the special constabulary being made by a person refused admission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The way individual applications for special constables are dealt with and processed in each force is a matter for the chief constable concerned. No guidance on any of the points raised has been given to chief constables by the Home Office.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations from individuals and organisations he has received concerning the policy of the Yorkshire police in respect of giving reasons when a person is refused admission to the special constabulary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such representations have been received.

  Child Deportees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps his Department takes to ensure that when deporting children article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is upheld;

  (2) how many children have been deported by his Department in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that when deporting children article 16 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is upheld;

  (4) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that when deporting children article 24 of the UN convention on the rights of the child is upheld;

  (5) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that when deporting children article 6 of the UN convention on the rights of the child is adhered to;

  (6) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that when deporting children article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of the child is upheld.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No child under the age of 18 has been deported in the last year. In ratifying the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, the United Kingdom reserved the right to apply such immigration legislation as it deemed necessary from time to time.

  In carrying out any deportation involving children, account is taken of the articles of the convention to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.
  169
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what immunisations his Department arranged for Nkechi Nwokedi to receive before she was deported to Nigeria with her mother on 9 July;

  (2) what steps his Department takes to ensure that children deported with their parents receive the appropriate immunisations to protect their health in the country to which they are deported.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. Nkechi Nwokedi was not deported. She accompanied her mother who was returned to Nigeria on 9 July as the subject of a deportation order. We understand that there is currently no requirement for people travelling to Nigeria to be immunised. However, Ms Nwokedi had been aware for some time of the intention to deport her and it would have been open to her to make arrangements for her child to be immunised, if she thought this desirable.

  More generally, arrangements are made for immunisation to be provided, as appropriate, for any deportee who requests it, and would be extended on request to a child accompanying a deportee.

  International Sikh Youth Federation
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the material which he has supplied to the courts regarding the aims and methods of the United Kingdom branch of the International Sikh Youth Federation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Secretary of State has not supplied any such material to the courts.

  Immigration Complaints Audit Committee
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the membership of the immigration and nationality department complaints audit committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I announced in reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 31 March at column 226 that my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State intended to appoint a Complaints Audit Committee for the Immigration and Nationality Department—IND. My right hon. and learned Friend has appointed Miss Diana Rookledge as chairman and Mr. Blair Greaves and Mr. Karamjit Singh to be members of the committee. The committee will start work at the beginning of the new year.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce ethnic monitoring throughout the criminal justice system.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 23 December 1993]Ethnic monitoring of stop and search by the police was introduced nationally in April 1993. On present plans I anticipate that by 1995 the police will also be in position to monitor arrests and cautions. Our ultimate intention is to extend monitoring throughout the criminal justice system, but at present it would be premature to forecast when that goal will be achieved.

  Drugs Offences
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have taken place of drug dealers in Liverpool in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 December 1993): The available information is of convictions and cautions for the two offences commonly associated with drug dealing, i.e. unlawful supply and possession with intent to supply unlawfully. Figures for the Merseyside police force area for the last three years for which data are available, are given in the table.

  Table: persons found guilty or cautioned for offences of unlawful supply of a controlled drug, or possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply unlawfully

  Merseyside police force area

  Number of persons

  Year

  Unlawful supply

  Possession with intent to supply

  1990

  137

  143

  1991

  119

  178

  1992

  120

  163

  Some persons may have been convicted or cautioned for both offences, so columns cannot be added together to obtain totals.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted for murder each year since the abolition of the death sentence; if he will present in tabular form the number of years' life sentence each of these individuals served before release, again classifying it by the year of conviction; and if he will also detail the number who are still serving their sentence again classified by year of conviction.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of people convicted of murder in England and Wales in each year 1965 to 1992 are tabulated below. Data on time served before release are not available in the precise form requested, but table 8.4 of "Prison statistics England and Wales 1991", Cm 2157 shows data for all life sentence prisoners received by Prison Service establishments. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Persons convicted of murder in England and Wales 1965–1992

  Year

  Numbers

  1965

  57

  1966

  72

  1967

  63

  1968

  74

  1969

  75

  1970

  97

  1971

  97

  1972

  79

  1973

  90

  1974

  112

  1975

  107

  1976

  104

  1977

  115

  1978

  105

  1979

  136

  1980

  169

  1981

  126

  1982

  184

  1983

  132

  1984

  156

  171

  Year

  Numbers

  1985

  173

  1986

  179

  1987

  166

  1988

  231

  1989

  189

  1990

  180

  1991

  201

  1992

  182

  Source: Criminal Statistics, England and Wales.

DEFENCE

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Hanley
  My Department's centrally controlled expenditure for advertising, broken down into media categories, for 1979–80, 1985–86 and 1992–93 and estimated expenditure for 1993–94 is as follows:

  Advertising

  Financial year

  Television

  Radio

  Press

  Total

  1979–80

  2·280

  0·040

  5·750

  8·070

  1985–86

  1·820

  0·020

  6·820

  8·660

  1992–93

  2·521

  0·001

  6·178

  8·700

  1993–94

  2·372

  Nil

  6·408

  8·780

  Note: All figures are expressed in £ million.

  Housing
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's plans regarding security arrangements for housing currently occupied by armed forces personnel.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to change the Department's security arrangements for housing currently occupied by armed forces personnel, the details of which I am not prepared to reveal. Security is one of many factors being considered by officials looking at the proposal that a housing trust take over the management of the married quarters estate.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money he will be spending in the next two years on upgrading the physical condition of married quarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to reveal the future expenditure plans of Ministry of Defence budget holders at this level of detail.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to ensure that the transfer of the administration of married quarters to a housing trust will not involve any change in the level of rents; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to increase the rents of married quarters.
  172
  Mr. Hanley
  The rents paid by service personnel for married quarters are set on the basis of recommendations made by the armed forces pay review body. This will continue to be the case after the transfer of the married quarters estate to a housing trust. The proposed transfer will not therefore affect the method by which rents paid by individual service personnel are determined.

  Tornado GR1
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors have been identified as possible reasons for improvement in the Tornado GR1 accident record.

  Mr. Hanley
  The statistical period involved is too short to draw any firm conclusions; however, the factors which may have contributed to the reduction in the Tornado GR1 accident rate include a greater level of experience among current aircrew and the increased flying hours in support of current overseas operations.

  Night Low Flying (Scotland)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the night low flying without lights which took place at several locations in west and north-west Scotland in the week commencing 18 October; how many and what types of aircraft took part; how many low flying sorties were flown by each type; what proportion of these took place between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am British summer time; at what level of command authority was given for this activity; and what advance information was given to(a) hon. Members, (b) local media and (c) local aviation interests concerning the activity.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is necessary for the RAF and the Anny Air Corps to practise the skills for flying a variety of operations, a number of which would involve flying under cover of darkness and without lights. A period of training to exercise such skills was held in west and north west Scotland between 16 and 28 October. The number of aircraft which took part, the total number of sorties flown and the number flown between 11 pm and 7 am were as follows:

  Total sorties

  Sorties between 11 pm and 7 am

  1 Chinook

  5

  3

  1 Puma

  11

  2

  5 Lynx

  41

  6

  3 Wessex

  20

  0

  1 Hercules

  27

  4

  2 Tornado

  17

  0

  The exercise was authorised at the appropriate level for such activity. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence wrote to forewarn hon. Members for constituencies principally affected and a brief outline of the exercise was disseminated to local media by HQ Scotland and HQ North West Brigade before it began. Civil aviators were notified of the activity by the aeronautical information service in the usual way.

  NATO
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish a summary of the United Kingdom's defence plans, together with details of those
  173
  forces and capabilities that Her Majesty's Government will offer to make available to the alliance during the forthcoming year;

  (2) when during 1993 NATO requested Her Majesty's Government to discuss revisions in the United Kingdom's defence plans, and the scale of military forces and capabilities which it makes available to the alliance;

  (3) if all members of NATO's integrated military structure are obliged to provide annually to the alliance a detailed statement of their respective defence policies together with a disclosure of those military forces and capabilities which they intend to commit or make available to NATO during the forthcoming year;

  (4) if the United Kingdom will be submitting a statement of its defence policy together with details of its military forces and capabilities which it is prepared to place at the disposal of NATO during the forthcoming year, at the Ministerial Defence Planning Committee at its meeting on 8 December;

  (5) which other countries which are members of NATO's integrated military structure will be submitting a statement of their defence policies, accompanied by details of those military forces and capabilities which they are prepared to place at the disposal of the alliance during the forthcoming year, at the Ministerial Defence Planning Committee at its meeting on 8 December;

  (6) if NATO may oblige any member state of the alliance's integrated military structure to discuss any significant changes in its defence plans and/or the scale of the military forces and capabilities which it makes available to NATO which it seeks to make outside of the annual review cycle conducted each autumn by the Ministerial Defence Planning Committee.

  Mr. Hanley
  All NATO allies who participate in collective defence planning: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, are obliged to provide annually to the alliance a detailed statement of their defence policy and the military forces and capabilities they intend to commit to NATO. The commitment for the first year of the planning period is taken to be firm. For calendar year 1994 the United Kingdom submitted details to the alliance in July this year in its reply to the annual NATO defence planning questionnaire. An assessment of these plans will be submitted to NATO Defence Ministers at the autumn Ministerial Defence Planning Committee meeting on 8 December. These details are classified and will.not be published. In exceptional circumstances the alliance may ask a nation to discuss significant changes in plans outside the annual review cycle. No such request was made of the United Kingdom during 1993.

  Tendering
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that, when putting contracts out to tender, his Department includes the tender list companies which have acquired the BS5750 quality assurance standard.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department maintains a list of companies interested in bidding for defence contracts, annotated to show which have achieved the BS5750 quality assurance standard. When seeking tenders for work which merits formal quality assurance procedures, we 174
  ensure that only qualified companies are invited to bid. The MOD Contracts Bulletin, which is published fortnightly, makes it clear that certification will normally be required. Since 1 September 1993 the Department has had a policy of "No Acceptable Certification—No Contract", and compliance with this policy is monitored.

  Defence Costs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish the full terms of reference of the defence costs study known as "Front Line First"; and what previous work will be used in the defence costs study.

  Mr. Aitken
  The defence costs study has been established to take a new and radical look at how the Ministry of Defence conducts its business, including procurement practice, headquarters and manpower costs and all aspects of support to the front line. The purpose will be to identify further areas where we can reduce costs, to ensure that the taxpayers' money we spend on defence is concentrated on the operational effectiveness of our front line force, and to enable our armed forces to discharge their military tasks and commitments properly, to the full and with formidable military capability. The study will build on all relevant previous work.

  Ferranti International
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the management of GEC regarding the future of Ferranti International; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The managements of both GEC and Ferranti International kept my Department informed about their discussions on the future of Ferranti. GEC's decision to make an offer for Ferranti, and its subsequent decision that the offer should lapse, were matters for its commercial judgment.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States of America counterpart regarding the future of Ferranti International; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of all the contracts he currently has with Ferranti International; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not my Department's practice to provide details of all our contracts with a company. We have a large number of contracts with Ferranti International, covering a wide range of projects, on which, in the last financial year, we made payments of over £100 million.

  Officials of my Department are discussing with the receivers of Ferranti International what can be done to minimise any disruption to the completion of our contracts.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the failure of GEC to take over Ferranti International on the defence industrial base; and if he will make a statement.
  175
  Mr. Aitken
  GEC's decision to let its conditional offer for Ferranti International lapse will in itself have no impact on the defence industrial base. The receivers of Ferranti International have said that they wish to restore trading to near-normality as soon as possible. Any long-term effects on the defence industrial base will depend on the outcome of the receivership.

  RAF Support Command (Flying Training)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the future structure of the RAF support command flying training organisation.

  Mr. Hanley
  As a result of the reduced training requirement for pilots and aircrew in the RAF a study has been conducted into the RAF's flying training organisation to ensure that the training is being provided in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible. The study embraced all seven flying training stations and has examined the scope for rationalisation of tasks. While work remains to be done on the scope for rationalising other types of flying training, the review has concluded that fast jet advanced flying training currently based at RAF Valley and RAF Chivenor, can be rationalised and it is proposed that the task should be centred at RAF Valley. This would mean that flying training would cease at RAF Chivenor on 1 October 1994 and that Chivenor would be placed on a care and maintenance basis from 1 October 1995.

  This proposal is expected to save some £127·86 million in net present value terms over 10 years. Some 119 civilian and 779 service posts would be affected. Civilian employees would be offered the range of outplacement services available and redundancies would be kept to a minimum. Any people made redundant would be eligible for compensation under the relevant pension scheme.

  This proposal will be the subject of consultation with the trade unions and other interested parties and I have placed a copy of the consultation document in the Library of the House.

  Separately I have looked again at the provision of RAF search and rescue facilities in the region and have

  Pilot area

  Agreements

  Area (HA)

  Management payment

  Capital payment

  total payment

  Meirionnydd

  84

  18,500

  702,048

  206,867

  908,915

  Dinefwr

  89

  5,575

  224,525

  277,233

  501,758

  Swansea

  28

  822

  35,244

  51,816

  87,060

  TOTAL

  201

  24,897

  961,817

  535,916

  1,497,733

  The response from farmers in these pilot areas has been most positive, with more than 800 inquiries being registered in the first year. A full report on the first year of operation will be published by the Countryside Council for Wales in the new year.

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

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:
  176
  concluded that the Sea King SAR flight should continue to transfer to Chivenor next year. The move will take place by 1 July 1994 and the Wessex SAR flight currently based at Chivenor will be run on until then.

WALES

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Redwood
  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. In procurement and all other aspects of IT development and operation, my Department follows the policy and guidance set down by the Government's own IT security authorities.

  Tir Cymen Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current operation of the Tir Cymen scheme in the three pilot areas in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Tir Cymen, the farm stewardship scheme developed and administered by the Countryside Council for Wales, was launched in July 1992 and operates in three pilot areas based on the local authority districts of Meirionnydd, Dinefwr and Swansea.

  In the first year—from 1 October 1992 to 30 September 1993—a total of 201 Tir Cymen agreements were finalised, covering a total area of 24,897 hectares, which represents 13.75 per cent. of the eligible land area. Total payments to farmers for the first year amount to £1,497,733, of which £961,817 is for management and £535,916 is for capital works. A breakdown of the figures for the three pilot areas is given in the table:

  Date

  Staff employed

  1993

  14

  1985

  15

  1979

  15

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs.
  177
  Knight) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30 November 1993 at columns 490-91.

  Cattle Tagging
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of cattle tagging; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A consultation letter setting out the details of the Government's proposals for implementing the EC directive on animal identification and registration was issued earlier this year. A number of responses have been received on issues raised in the consultation exercise, including cattle tagging, and these are being considered at the moment.

  National Geological Survey
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the future of the National Geological Survey department at Aberystwyth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Four. The proposed closure is an operational matter for the British Geological Survey and its parent council, the Natural Environment Research Council. I understand that the remaining mapping needs of Wales will in future be met by staff based at the survey's headquarters, near Nottingham.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funding is envisaged for unitary authorities in Wales to assist them to enter into access agreements on Forest Enterprise estates being offered for sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend will take decisions on funding for unitary authorities at the appropriate time.

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the question of the operation of the siphon in the context of sheep quota where it applies to changes in existing partnerships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Several.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the percentage of new jobs created by(a) inward investment and (b) British-owned companies since 1991.

  Mr. Redwood
  Comprehensive information on all new jobs created by every employer in Wales is not held centrally. However, on the basis of offers of regional selective assistance made since 1 January 1991 and subsequently accepted, 41·67 per cent., or 10,348, jobs are promised in foreign-owned companies and 58·33 per cent. or 14,485 in other companies. The figures are based on information given by the relevant companies at the time of their applications and take no account of subsequent developments.

  British Steel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Steel plc to consider the state of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no immediate plans to meet the Chairman of British Steel.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each constituency and county in Wales the number of long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Redwood
  The unemployment data requested are available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed on line by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those measures he has adopted to assist manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department and the Welsh Development Agency operate a wide range of measures to assist manufacturing industry, a number of which are focused on the key areas of improving productivity and the quality of goods.

  The main assistance to Welsh manufacturing comes from the Government's general economic policy, based on low inflation and low interest rates, and a strong competition policy.

  Source Wales aims to help Welsh suppliers compete worldwide and, over the last two years, 52 companies have obtained initial contracts worth about £8 million through the programme.

  Support for new product development and innovation is provided through the SMART competition for small companies and through the SPUR—support for projects under research—scheme. In the past two years, 51 SMART awards totalling £2·44 million have been made and, since the start of SPUR in 1991, 24 companies have been assisted with a total grant commitment of £2·16 million.

  In addition, the regional innovation grants element of the regional enterprise grants scheme aims to improve the performance of small businesses, through the introduction of successful new products and processes. The value of offers under this scheme more than doubled to £1·734 million between 1991–92 and 1992–93, and the number of applications received in the first half of 1993–94 was 5 per cent. higher than in the same period of 1992–93.

  Assistance is also provided through various best practice awareness programmes, including: Managing in the 1990s, in which some 2,500 organisations have registered an interest; Inside United Kingdom Enterprise, which includes eight exemplar Welsh companies; and Inside Welsh Industry, which involves 10 Welsh demonstration companies.

  The programme of regional technology transfer has included such themes as world class manufacturing, materials management and maintenance in the 26 projects supported over the past three years, with grants totalling £185,000.

  Audits intended to identify technology and expertise of interest to industry have been initiated in five Welsh colleges.
  179
  My Department has also supported the work of many industry-led initiatives, such as the Wales Quality Centre, the Welsh Medical Technology Forum, and the Mid Wales Manufacturing Group.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of manufacturing jobs(a) created and (b) lost since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Redwood
  Comprehensive information on the number of jobs created and lost is not available. According to the Employment Department's Quarterly Estimates Series there was a net decrease in the number of employees in manufacturing in Wales, between December 1990 and June 1993, of 28,000.

  Business Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of businesses that(a) closed down and (b) went bankrupt in 1988 and in 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no official figures for business closures. The number of companies going into liquidation due to insolvency in England and Wales was 9,427 in 1988, and 24,425 in 1992. The number of personal insolvencies, which could be classified to a trade or profession, was 5,601 in 1988 and 19,525 in 1992.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Aerospace to consider the state of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so at present, but I maintain a close interest in the company's activities in Wales.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many extra people are in employment and what percentage increase that represents over those in employment in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  According to the Employment Department's Quarterly Estimates Series, the civilian work force in employment in Wales fell by 11,000 between June 1988 and June 1993. This represents a fall of 1 per cent.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mink farms have operated in each county in Wales in each year since 1984; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. Redwood
  There have been no licenced mink farms in Wales from 1984 to the present.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Commission Land
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the name, (b) grid reference, (c) area, (d) date of sale and (e) whether formal public access agreements have been established, for each piece of land sold by the Forestry Commission since 1981.
  180
  Sir Hector Monro
  Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992 are held in the Library of the House. A list of the forest land sold by the commission in 1993 will be drawn up and placed in the Library in the new year.

  These lists do not show grid references which could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Arrangements for securing continued public access to Forestry Commission woodlands after sale, by way of prior agreements entered into between the commission and local authorities, were introduced in October 1991. Most of the sales concluded since then were too far advanced in October 1991 to be considered for an access agreement, while most of the areas brought forward for disposal since that date have still to be sold. At the last count, access agreements had been concluded or were being negotiated in respect of 42 woodlands which were in the process of being sold, although none of these has yet been sold. Local authorities have expressed interest in negotiating agreements in over 40 other areas.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what areas of Forestry Commission land have been offered to conservation bodies.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: At the stage when the Forestry Commission is considering selling land under its disposal programme, notices are placed in the Estates Gazette in respect of all woods larger than five hectares and all other land having a known conservation, recreation or amenity interest. This gives conservation or other bodies an advance opportunity to express an interest in purchase.

  If the Government Department or agency responsible far the particular conservation interest concerned gives an unequivocal statement that the acquisition of a property by a conservation body would be in the public interest, and the commission agrees to a sale on these terms, it takes place at open market value.

  No central record is kept of these offers and the compilation of a list would involve disproportionate cost.

  Local Government
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Scotland how many representations he has received from Cumbernauld and Kilsyth concerning his proposals for the future structure of local government; how many of these representations favour his proposals; and how many favour Cumbernauld and Kilsyth becoming part of the proposed east Dunbartonshire council.

  Mr. Stewart
  Some 70 individual letters have been received from Cumbernauld and Kilsyth on the proposal to include the area within the proposed north Lanarkshire authority. In addition, about 4,000 postcards and petition signatures have been submitted. Most of these representations have asked specifically for the Kilsyth area to be included in the proposed east Dunbartonshire council.

  Press and Publicity
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)
  181
  Mr. Lang
  The number of staff in the Information Officer grades employed, at present, in the Scottish Office information directorate is 30·5 with one vacant post. The comparable figures are 19 staff and one vacant post in 1985 and 22 staff and three vacant posts in 1979, both as at 1 April.

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Television advertising

  576,000

  974,000

  741,000

  556,000

  Radio advertising

  40,000

  85,000

  188,000

  141,000

  Newspaper advertising

  378,000

  1,022,000

  613,000

  853,000

  Figures in the form requested are not available for 1979–80 to 1987–88. Total expenditure on information publicity for 1979–80 was £263,000 and in 1984–85 £704,000.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government departments are stated in the Government 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 Government 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 for the protection of official information.

  Forestry Stewardship Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has received on the Forestry Stewardship Council.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have received details of the formation of the Forest Stewardship Council, and of its aims.

  Glenborrodale Castle Hotel
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was given in grant and loan assistance in respect of Glenborrodale Castle hotel by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local enterprise companies; what steps have been taken to recover the money following disposal of the hotel to a private owner; what he estimates to be the net cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No financial assistance has been given to Glenborrodale Castle hotel by

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  Expenditure by my Department in 1992–93 was television advertising £831,000, radio advertising £120,000 and press advertising £415,000.

  For 1988–89 to 1991–92, the figures were:

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise, any of its local enterprise companies or its predecessor body the Highlands and Islands development board.

  Mr. Peterken
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the duration of Mr. Peterken's contract with the Scottish health service management executive; what will be the annual cost to the Exchequer; and from which budget the additional funds are to be drawn.

  Mr. Lang
  The duration of Mr. Peterken's contract is until 31 December 1995. The annual cost to the Exchequer will reflect Mr. Peterken's salary, which is within the range far general manager of Greater Glasgow health board—£66,949 to £83,681 from 1 September 1993—and will be met centrally.

  Arable Area Scheme
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department first informed the National Farmers Union of Scotland that there was the possibility of an overshoot of the base area in the non-less favoured area region of Scotland under the arable area payment scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department officials first informed the National Farmers Union of Scotland in August of the possibility of an overshoot having occurred this year in the Scottish non-less favoured area arable base area.

  A77-M77 Link
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to make an announcement about the A77-M77 link road.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Discussions are taking place between the Scottish Office and Strathclyde regional council about this joint project and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Appointments
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the occasions on which he has appointed a person to a post in the national health service which has not been advertised.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Most NHS appointments are the responsibility of individual health boards and trusts. Some staff of the management executive are employees of the Common Services Agency and a number of such staff have been seconded to that body from another NHS employer without their posts being advertised.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on recruitment of persons to posts in the NHS which have not been advertised.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Posts in the NHS are in general filled by open advertisement or by secondment from another employer.

  Health Service Management
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the management structure of the NHS in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: The management structure is published in the Civil Service Year Book 1993, a copy of which is in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) children's and (b) adult intensive care units have four or more whole time equivalent nurses per 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 50 per cent. of children's intensive therapy units and 61 per cent. of adult intensive therapy units have on average four or more nursing staff per occupied bed.

  Smoke Detectors
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring regulations he has introduced in relation to the installation of mains-operated smoke detectors in new-build houses in(a) the public housing sector and (b) the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  With effect from 23 July 1993, applications for warrant to construct new dwellings must provide for smoke alarms to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations Technical Standards. The local authority will not issue a completion certificate unless the dwellings have been constructed in accordance with those standards.

  The fact that smoke alarms now need to be wired to a main electricity supply should to a large extent remove any need to monitor the power supply as is the case with battery operated alarms.

  There is no provision in the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 for the monitoring of the maintenance of systems but
  184
  The Scottish Office Environment Department receives information about the effectiveness of the Building Standards Regulations through contacts with building control and fire authorities.

  Early indications are that the new smoke alarm provisions have been well received by authorities, builders and house purchasers.

  Hospital Building
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital allocation for the new hospital building programme announced in November 1992; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The capital allocation figure announced in December 1992 was £180 million.

  A further £5 million has become available from the current financial year for redistribution amongst health boards and trusts.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts awarded by Ayrshire and Arran health board during the last 18 months; what was the nature of the contracts awarded; which organisations bid for each contract; what were the organisations holding each contract prior to them being re-awarded; when the contracts were awarded; and what periods were covered by the contracts.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]: Details of the contracts negotiated by Ayrshire and Arran health board for the year to 31 March 1994 and their nature are provided in the table below.

  In the last 18 months, only urology services have been the subject of a bidding process: that process involved the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust and the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust with the contract being awarded to the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which already held that contract, for a period to 31 March 1996.

  Other changes in service provision within Ayrshire during the last 18 months were the centralisation from 1 April 1993 of ear, nose and throat and oral surgery at Crosshouse hospital under the control of the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust. These services were previously provided by North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust and South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust. These changes formed part of the board's local health strategy and had been endorsed by both trusts. These contracts were also awarded for the period to 31 March 1996.

  Provider

  Nature of service

  Ayrshire and Arran Providers

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Acute, Care for the Elderly

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Acute, Care for the Elderly

  Ayrshire and Arran Community

  Non-Acute, Mental Health,

  Healthcare NHS Trust

  Care for the Elderly

  Takare

  Care for the Elderly

  Providers outwith Ayrshire and Arran

  Dykebar

  Mental Health

  Inverclyde Royal

  Acute

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Acute

  Dumfries and Galloway Mental Health Unit

  Mental Health

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute Unit

  Acute

  185

  Provider

  Nature of service

  Royal Scottish National Hospital and community NHS Trust

  Mental Health

  Stobhill

  Acute

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  Acute

  Western Infirmary

  Acute

  Greater Glasgow Mental Health Unit

  Mental Health

  Yorkhill

  Acute

  Glasgow Care for the Elderly Unit

  Care for the Elderly

  Southern General

  Acute

  Victoria Infirmary

  Acute

  Stonehouse and Hairmyres

  Acute

  Ayr Hospice

  Hospice

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provisions he has made in his public expenditure plans for Government-supported expenditure and aggregate external finance in 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Lang
  To assist local authorities in their financial planning, I have decided this year to publish planned figures for both Government supported expenditure (GSE) and aggregate external finance (AEF) for the two forward years of the Public Expenditure Survey. The figures for all three years of the survey are as follows:

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 £ million

  GSE

  6,013·6

  6,175·4

  6,321·1

  AEF

  5,272·0

  5,378·1

  5,494·9

  The above amounts of GSE and AEF are inclusive of the following sums which relate to the transfer of resources to local authorities in respect of care in the community and the independent living fund:

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 £ million

  115·1

  172·1

  211·6

  The underlying percentage increases in GSE and AEF, excluding the above amounts in respect of care in the community and the independent living fund, over the same three years are as follows:

  1994–95 Per cent.

  1995–96 Per cent.

  1996–97 Per cent.

  GSE

  2·25

  1·79

  1·77

  AEF

  0·97

  0·97

  1·48

  At those levels of GSE and AEF, the average band D council tax need not increase in 1995–96 by more than the forecast inflation rate plus £10, and in 1996–97 by more than the forecast inflation rate alone.

  Pending parliamentary approval to changes in organisation, GSE for 1996–97, conventionally, includes provision for local authorities' expenditure on domestic sewerage.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provision he has made in his public expenditure plans for the costs of local government reform.

  Mr. Lang
  In determining the level of Government-supported expenditure (GSE) for 1994–95, which I announced on 30 November, I have included £5 million to cover costs which I expect local authorities will incur next year in preparing for local government reform. A separate grant aided expenditure (GAE) assessment will be created for this amount, which I intend will be distributed to all mainland authorities according to a standard formula. Each authority will receive a flat rate sum of £35,000 and the balance of the million will be distributed amongst authorities on a per capita basis.

  The precise level of the extra costs which will face authorities as a consequence of reform in 1995–96 and 1996–97 remains uncertain, and will depend on decisions taken by the new authorities. I do not expect the net costs to exceed £30 to £35 million in either year. In determining the planned level of GSE for these years I have assumed that the existing local authorities will incur local government reform costs of £25 million in 1995–96 and £55 million in 1996–97, and that in the latter year there will also be savings of £40 million. The proposed new authorities would therefore incur net reform costs of £15 million in 1996–97. In subsequent years there would be significant net savings. I shall of course continue to consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities each year before determining the local government finance settlement.

  Entirely outside the settlement I am providing a total of £1·5 million over the three years to cover the costs of the Staff Commission which I intend to establish to assist the reform process, and a further £23 million in 1995–96 to cover the estimated costs of the proposed new authorities during their shadow period.

  I believe that these plans make realistic provision for the transitional costs of local government reform, and demonstrate that allegations that the cost of reform will fall entirely on the council tax are completely without foundation.

HEALTH

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding the merger of community health councils.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales recently met the deputy chief executive of the National Health Service Management Executive and, among other things, raised the issue of CHC mergers. We also received a letter from the association which touched on this subject, among others.

  Hospital Closures, Birmingham
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received in the last three months regarding hospital closures in Birmingham.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received correspondence from a number of people in the west midlands about this issue.

  Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospitals
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proposals from the trust board of Guy's and St. Thomas's to remain on two sites.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The trust board's outline business case is being assessed by the south NHS Management Executive outpost on behalf of the London implementation group and it would be premature to make a statement before this assessment work is concluded.

  "Making London Worse"
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the recommendations laid out in the report, "Making London Worse", produced by the Greater London Association of Community Health Councils, a copy of which has been sent to her.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We welcome the views of any informed contributor such as the Greater London Association of Community Health Councils on the process of developing London's health services through positive change. We have no plans to make any specific response to this report, but will of course consider it carefully, against the Government's strategy which is set out in "Making London Better".

  Adoption Panels
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she intends to strengthen adoption panels.

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall consult on this in the new year. We propose to introduce more independent panel members, including adoptive parents and representatives from local interests, such as magistrates committees.

  Private Care Homes
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the deregulation of private care and nursing homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the interests of residents of residential care and nursing homes are protected and that they receive the care they need in well-run homes.

  We have no doubt that regulation to underpin this objective will continue to be necessary, but we are seeking to remove unnecessary controls and to improve the way in which essential regulation is applied and enforced. Any proposed changes would be subject to consultation.

  Deaths
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths there were in(a) the first and (b) third quarter of 1992 for (i) Britain and (ii) the Northern region.

  Mr. Bowls
  In the quarter to March 1992, there were 156,060 deaths in England and Wales of which 10,583 occurred in the northern region. The comparative figures for the September quarter were 125,301 deaths and 8,246 deaths respectively.

  Queen Elizabeth II Hospital
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has made a decision on the future of the Queen Elizabeth II hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The future provision of childrens' services in east London will be considered in the light of the findings of a study of these services currently being carried out by the East London and City health authority. This will be completed by the end of January 1994.

  NHS Purchasing
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor contracts between purchasers and provider units and to ensure that adequate funds are available for the remainder of the financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service Management Executive issued guidance on monitoring contracts earlier this year. Recent evidence indicates that generally hospitals are managing their workload smoothly. Local managers are taking the necessary action to ensure activity remains within contract.

  Dermatology Provision, Sheffield
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on dermatology provision in Sheffield.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between April and October, dermatologists in Sheffield treated in excess of 16,800 out-patients. In line with patients charter standards, there are no patients waiting more than 18 months for dermatology treatment.

  Female Consultants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the 1994 target for female consultants within the NHS; how many there are at present; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Goal 3 of the National Health Service Opportunity 2000 initiative is that by 1994 the percentage of women consultants in England should be 20 per cent. Figures for September 1992 show 2,739 female hospital consultants in England, representing 16·3 per cent. of all hospital consultants.

  Clinical Audit
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on establishing clinical audit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Over the past four years considerable work has been done on developing medical, nursing and therapy and primary care audit programmes. Multi-professional clinical audit programmes will contribute greatly to continuing improvement in the quality of patient care.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently waiting for hospital treatment.
  189
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional figures for the quarter ending 30 September are available in the Library. These show that regions are meeting the patients charter guarantee that all patients will be seen within a maximum of two years. In addition, no patient has to wait longer than 18 months for hip or knee replacements or cataract surgery.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what alternatives to general practice fund-holding her Department has costed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All general practitioner practices should be involved in purchasing decisions through their district health authorities, but this is no substitute for fundholding which enables GPs to improve services for their patients by directly managing resources. That is why ever-increasing numbers of GPs are joining the scheme.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population of Derbyshire is covered by fund-holding doctors' practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, chairman of Trent regional health authority, for details.

  Nurses
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are employed in NHS hospitals within the Liverpool area health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 5,030 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff, excluding agency staff, employed by the national health service within the Liverpool district health authority area at 30 September 1992, the latest figures available.

  Transitional Community Care Grant
  Mr. McKelvey
  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. Bowls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on 6 December.

  London NHS (Debts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance she is giving to London NHS trust and district health authorities to help them resolve their debt problems.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As part of the overall resources required for the implementation of "Making London Better", transitional funds have been made available to support London hospitals who have lost contract income from purchasers and to meet the costs of staff redeployment or unavoidable redundancies.

  Health Care (North West Thames)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in improving primary and community health care in the North West Thames region.
  190
  Dr. Mawhinney
  North West Thames regional health authority has committed £9 million this year to developing primary care and community services. In addition, £5 million has been provided from central sources to fund new primary care developments in their part of the London initiative zone. The regional health authority has also recently agreed a comprehensive programme to close all its large mental illness and learning disability hospitals by the year 2000, and to replace them with a full range of local community-based services.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to revise "The Health of the Nation" targets.

  Mr. Sackville
  "The Health of the Nation" is a long-term strategy, with targets up to 17 years ahead, and we have made good progress in the first year. There is no need to revise the targets; they remain the right ones.

  NHS Complaints Procedures
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the report of the review committee into NHS complaints procedures.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that Professor Wilson and his colleagues plan to submit their recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of February. Decisions on publication will be made at that time.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing(a) the number of prescriptions, (b) total expenditure and (c) expenditure per head of population served for (i) sunscreens and similar protection and (ii) vitamins and dietary supplements for 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is shown in the table.

  England 1992 figures

  Prescriptions (thousands)

  Net ingredient cost

  Net ingredient cost per head of population

  (£ thousands)

  (£)

  Sunscreening preparations

  81·1

  395£0

  8£16

  Vitamins and dietary supplements

  5,833·3

  51,009·2

  1·05

  Notes:

  1. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2. The data are based on September 1991 British National Formulary section 13.8.1.

  3. For net ingredient cost per head Office Population of Censuses and Surveys 1991 mid year resident population projections for 1992 have been used.

  Medical Cards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to change the numbers of any NHS medical cards; and what will be the cost of the changes.
  191
  Mr. Sackville
  By July 1995, we will have started to replace the present national health service number where it is currently in use with one with a more suitable format. Medical cards will record the replacement number when they are reissued after this date.

  The number is being replaced as part of a wider programme to make the new format number the common patient identifier for the NHS. The costs of this programme are estimated at £22 million at today's prices, over the period 1992 to 1995.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  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 and baseline security for IT systems risk analysis methods, by the communications electronic security group memorandum No. 10 where appropriate 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.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 1993,Official Report, column 307, if she will list those district health authorities that (a) gain and (b) lose under the mortality weighted population projections for 1991 to 1996.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The district health authority weighted capitation shares were obtained from the regional health authorities. Each region has its own weighted capitation formula for determining the shares of its districts. We do not hold centrally all of the information which would be required to model the effects of population changes on individual DHA shares.

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress she is making towards achieving a comprehensive network of women's refuge provision; in which borough areas such a provision currently does not exist; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Earlier this year, the Government published their response—HC 245—to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on domestic violence. The Select Committee did not recommend that central Government should make more funds available to local refuges. Funding at a local level is a consideration for local authorities and other agencies who are best placed to make decisions on local need and provision.
  192
  The need for improved co-ordination of refuge provision is an area which will be given early consideration by members of the ministerial group on domestic violence at its forthcoming inaugural meeting.

  Information relating to local refuge provision is not available centrally.

  Herbs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the publication by the European Community Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products of a list of herbs which have been banned in other European countries; if she will make it her policy to oppose any such ban on products containing these common herbs in this country; and to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members are kept informed of such proposals emanating from the different agencies of the European Community.

  Mr. Sackville
  No response was called for, and none has been made. The list is simply a factual record, for information, of herbs that have already been withdrawn from medicinal products for safety reasons in one or more member states. We are not aware of any current proposals for further action in the European Community.

  The Government's policy on the licensing of medicinal products is that they must demonstrate acceptable standards of safety, quality and efficacy. This will continue to be applied.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) have and (b) do not have private medical insurance by age group, social class and gender.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  "Changing Childbirth"
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research and audit projects her Department has commissioned, and from whom, to evaluate the recommendations made by the expert maternity group in its report "Changing Childbirth"; and what role the national perinatal epidemiology unit will take in the evaluation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The consultation period for "Changing Childbirth", the report of the expert maternity group, ended on 29 October. Ministers are currently considering the comments received before deciding on future action. Decisions on any evaluation projects to be undertaken will be made as part of this process.

  Copies of "Changing Childbirth" are available in the Library.

  Sensitive Documents Unit
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. Sackville
  The Department of Health does not operate a sensitive documents unit. All documents raised
  193
  within the Department are public records under the terms of the Public Record Acts 1958 and 1967, and have varying degrees of sensitivity.

  The Department has a departmental records officer who is responsible for systems for the control of all documents from the time of their creation to final disposal.

  In the course of the Department's business, hundreds of thousands of records come within the departmental records officer's purview each year.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra-contractual referrals were refused by each health authority in 1990–91 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mental Health Care
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in relation to each regional health authority area in England how many mentally ill patients from that region were in low security places on 30 June; how many of those patients were in private sector facilities; how many patients were waiting for a community place; and how many of the patients were, in the opinion of their responsible medical officer, fit to move to a community place;

  (2) in relation to each regional health authority area in England how many people with learning disabilities are assessed as (a) requiring treatment or care in high security, (b) requiring treatment or care in medium security and (c) requiring treatment or care in low security; how many such people are currently detained in (d) high security, (e) medium security and (f) low security, in relation to those currently detained in secure facilities; how many are currently considered to be in unsuitable facilities; and how many are being cared for in secure private facilities;

  (3) in relation to each regional health authority area in England what is the estimated number of people in the region assessed as needing treatment for psychopathic disorder; how many of these detained in secure NHS psychiatric facilities, or in other NHS psychiatric facilities as in-patients, are in touch with other NHS psychiatric facilities as outpatients, or are in local social services authority facilities; how many are in prison; and how many are in private sector health care or other facilities;

  (4) in relation to each regional health authority area in England how many mentally ill patients from each region were in medium secure provision on 30 June; how many were in private sector facilities; how many were waiting for admission to less secure accommodation and how many waiting to be discharged to a community place; and how many were, in the opinion of their responsible medical officer, fit to move to less secure accommodation;

  (5) in relation to each regional health authority area in England, how many mentally ill patients from each region were in special hospitals on 30 June and which special hospitals they were in; how many of the patients detained in special hospitals were, in the opinion of their responsible medical officer, ready to move to less secure accommodation; how many patients from each region were authorised for discharge but remained in the special hospital; how long each of these patients had been waiting for discharge; what had prevented discharge in each case; what
  194
  arrangements are in place to ensure that patients in special hospitals are able to be discharged within a year of discharge being authorised; and how these arrangements will be developed to meet the six month maximum waiting time referred to in the NHS planning guidance for 1994–95.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not collected on a routine basis but regional directors of public health were asked in the Department of Health's letter, EL(93)68, to undertake an assessment of needs in their regions, including the numbers of patients needing mental health care at the different levels of security. We are awaiting the full results of this exercise. Copies of the letter (EL(93)68) are available in the Library.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce(a) changes to prescription charges and (b) changes in the proportion of costs paid by dental patients for 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 December at column 805.

  Hospices
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of hospice beds in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of hospice in-patient beds in each of the last five years in England is shown in the table.

  Year1

  Number of hospice beds2

  1989

  1,863

  1990

  2,093

  1991

  2,171

  1992

  2,321

  1993

  2,409

  1Figures collected in January of each year.

  2In-patient, England.

  Source: St. Christopher's Hospice Information Service.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 December,Official Report, columns 583-84, if she will list the remuneration of the chairman of each NHS trust in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  National health service trust chairmen's remuneration is paid on the basis of the following bands:

  Unit turnover 1988–89

  Band

  Rates per annum (£)

  In excess of £50 million

  Band 1

  19,285

  Between £20 million and £50 million

  Band 2

  17,145

  Less than £20 million

  Band 3

  15,125

  Administrators
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new management posts have been created since the NHS reforms; and what they cost.
  195
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Surgical Operations
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have now been waiting for more than a year for their operation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", which is published twice yearly. The latest published figures are for March 1993. In addition provisional figures for the quarter ending 30 September 1993 were published on 1 November, in press release H93/1036. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many routine operations have now been suspended until the next financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice her Department issues on methods to be adopted in carrying out cervical smear tests;

  (2) what action she proposes to take following the findings of the report of the Northern regional health authority on the recall of Dr. Lustman's patients for repeat cervical smears that methods varied according to socio-economic group.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1988 the Department of Health circulated to all health authorities the report of an intercollegiate working party on cervical cytology screening which includes guidance on the taking of cervical smears. HSG(93)41 issued in August 1993 updates earlier guidance on the cervical cancer screening programme. This refers both to accepted clinical guidance issued by the British Society for Clinical Cytology on the taking of cervical smears and fail-safe mechanisms for their follow-up. Copies of both documents are available in the Library. All women should have access to the same high standard of service regardless of socio-economic group. It is unacceptable to use an inferior method on such grounds. Variations from the standard method for taking cervical smears are acceptable only on clinical grounds, or where the patient makes an informed choice, in full possession of the clinical facts.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to take following the publication of the report of the Northern regional health authority on the recall of Dr. Lustman's patients for repeat cervical smears; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Northern regional health authority and Gateshead family health services authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen for details.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she intends to issue to consultants on the importance of absolute accuracy and clarity in their advice and/or comments relating to methods adopted by general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she intends to issue to family health services authorities on the importance of verifying verbal assurances from general practitioners that their methods are supported by consultants.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Family Health Services Authorities (Training)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what training provision in techniques for thoroughness she intends to provide for family health services authority members engaged in practice visits;

  (2) what advice she intends to issue to family health services authorities on the importance of keeping accurate records of findings following FHSA practice visits.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Immunisation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what immunisations her Department recommends for children under five travelling to Nigeria.

  Mr. Sackville
  A United Kingdom resident child should have been immunised routinely against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella and haemophilus influenzae b. Recommendations for travel, in addition to the above immunisations, will depend on factors such as purpose of visit—holiday or parents' occupation—length of stay, area to be visited and season of the year. They include, for Nigeria, hepatitis A human normal immunoglobulin, or hepatitis A vaccine where prolonged protection is required, typhoid —but not for infants under 12 months of age—yellow fever—but not for infants under nine months of age—and meningococcal meningitis. Advice in specific cases should be sought from a general practitioner or travel clinic.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Health what financial allocations each regional health authority will receive in 1994–95.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am today sending each regional health authority details of their main revenue allocations for resident population. These are set out in table 1. They are provisional until Parliament approves the relevant supply estimate.

  Regions are to receive an average cash increase of 5·4 per cent., and I have decided that all regions should get a minimum increase of 0·7 per cent. above forecast inflation.

  This will enable all regions to make faster progress towards equalisation of resources at district health authority level.

  Table 2 sets out the main capital planning totals for each region. Regional health authorities and National Health

  197
  Service Management Executive outposts will be giving me agreed proposals for how much of these planning totals should be spent by trusts and how much by health authorities. These will form the basis of external financing limits for trusts and capital cash limits for regional health authorities.

  Table 3 sets out the cash-limited resources being made available to fund general practice expenditure. This will fund practice staff in fund-holding and non-fund-holding practices, premises improvements costs, and non-fundholding computer costs. This represents a cash increase of 5·9 per cent.

  Table 1

  Regional health authority allocations 1994–95

  Revenue allocations for resident populations

  Allocation for resident populations

  Percentage cash increase

  £'000s

  Per cent.

  Northern

  1,219,112

  5·10

  Yorkshire

  1,406,336

  5·32

  Trent

  1,767,925

  5·65

  East Anglian

  748,471

  6·17

  North West Thames

  1,352,165

  4·74

  North East Thames

  1,561,379

  4·74

  South East Thames

  1,519,821

  5·58

  South West Thames

  1,163,130

  4·74

  Wessex

  1,136,485

  6·43

  Oxford

  843,071

  6·05

  South Western

  1,253,144

  5·67

  West Midlands

  1,960,156

  5·64

  Mersey

  932,826

  4·87

  North Western

  1,583,160

  5·14

  ENGLAND

  18,447,181

  5·38

  Table 2

  NHS regional main capital planning totals for 1994–95

  Region (both trusts and RHAs)

  Capital planning Total £000s

  Northern

  100,462

  Yorkshire

  117,127

  Trent

  147,872

  East Anglian

  64,514

  North West Thames

  97,719

  North East Thames

  111,800

  South East Thames

  115,243

  South West Thames

  86,069

  Wessex

  96,881

  Oxford

  73,650

  South Western

  106,657

  West Midlands

  162,940

  Mersey

  76,509

  North Western

  129,970

  ENGLAND

  1,487,413

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  All

  All singles over 75

  Per cent. increase in median per year

  1·0

  1·7

  2·1

  2·8

  5·1

  2·1

  Per cent. increase in mean per year

  0·2

  1·2

  1·9

  2·4

  3·9

  3·0

  Couples1 under 75

  Per cent. increase in median per year

  1·1

  1·8

  2·6

  3·2

  3·6

  2·6

  Per cent. increase in mean per year

  2·4

  1·5

  2·2

  2·9

  2·9

  3·0

  All singles under 75

  Per cent. increase in median per year

  1·2

  2·0

  2·2

  3·0

  4·6

  2·2

  Per cent. increase in mean per year

  0·2

  1·8

  2·1

  2·5

  3·7

  3·3

  198

  Table 3

  General medical services cash limited allocations for 1994–95

  Regions

  Allocation at 1994–95 prices (£000s)

  Increase over 1993–94 cash Percentage

  Northern

  39,415

  7·4

  Yorkshire

  49,372

  4·4

  Trent

  63,125

  6·2

  East Anglian

  36,558

  4·0

  North West Thames

  51,342

  4·0

  North East Thames

  53,862

  7·3

  South East Thames

  55,404

  5·9

  South West Thames

  43,632

  7·0

  Wessex

  43,478

  4·0

  Oxford

  38,215

  4·0

  South Western

  55,385

  4·0

  West Midlands

  64,533

  7·3

  Mersey

  31,814

  5·9

  North Western

  48,261

  10·2

  ENGLAND

  674,396

  5·9

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been(a) the mean and (b) the median increase each year from 1979 to 1990–91 in the incomes of (i) single male pensioners aged 65-74, (ii) single female pensioners aged 60-74, (iii) all single pensioners under 75, (iv) pensioner couples under 75, (v) single male pensioners aged 75 and over, (vi) single female pensioners aged 75 and over, (vii) all single pensioners aged 75 and over and (viii) pensioner couples aged 75 years and over; and in each case for which the figures are available if he will break the figures down by quintile groups.

  Mr. Hague
  The answer is in the tables.

  Change in pensioner incomes from 1979 to 1990–1

  Per cent. increase in median per year

  Per cent. increase in mean per year

  Single men aged 65-74

  2·4

  2·9

  Single men over 75

  2·1

  3·0

  Single women over 75

  1·6

  2·2

  Couples over 751

  2·5

  3·8

  199

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  All

  Single women aged 60-74

  Per cent. increase in median per year

  1·1

  2·0

  2·1

  2·7

  4·3

  2·1

  Per cent. increase in mean per year

  1·0

  1·8

  2·1

  2·4

  3·6

  3·2

  Note: Income is net before housing costs income. Because of small sample size, it has not been possible to provide all of the information in the form requested. Such information as is provided is liable to error due to small sample groups.

  1Husband's age specified

  Source: Family Expenditure Surveys 1979 and 1990–91

  Benefit Statistics
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will disaggregate the total expenditure figures in table 1 of "The Growth of Social Security," in order to show the different growth rates of(a) national insurance basic retirement pension, (b) national insurance unemployment benefit, (c) naational insurance invalidity benefit, (d) family allowance/child benefit, (e) national assistance/supplementary benefit/income support, (f) one-parent benefit, (g) housing benefits and (h) rate rebates/community charge benefit.

  Real growth in social security benefit expenditure

  £ billion (1992·93 prices)

  1949–501

  1959–601

  1969–701

  1979–80

  1989–90

  1992–932

  Total expenditure of which

  10·3

  15·4

  27·2

  44·9

  59·7

  74·1

  basic retirement pension

  4·4

  7·9

  13·3

  21·1

  24·1

  25·5

  unemployment benefit

  0·3

  0·6

  1·1

  1·6

  0·9

  1·8

  family allowance/child benefit

  1·1

  1·6

  2·9

  6·7

  5·4

  5·8

  Index of expenditure in real terms (1949–50=100) total

  100

  150

  264

  436

  580

  719

  basic retirement pension

  100

  180

  302

  480

  548

  580

  unemployment benefit

  100

  200

  367

  533

  300

  600

  family allowance/child benefit

  100

  145

  264

  609

  491

  527

  Expenditure as a percentage of GDP total

  4·7

  5·3

  7·0

  9·0

  9·5

  12·3

  basic retirement pension

  2·0

  2·7

  3·4

  4·2

  3·8

  4·2

  unemployment benefit

  0·1

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·1

  0·3

  family allowance/child benefit

  0·5

  0·6

  0·7

  1·3

  0·9

  1·0

  1Benefit expenditure data refers to 1949, 1959 and 1969 respectively.

  2Provisional.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding financial difficulties facing people who have been in private care or nursing homes since before 1 April.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 6 December.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. Hague
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government departments are
  200
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested in relation to national insurance basic retirement pension, national insurance unemployment benefit and family allowance/ child benefit is in the table. Invalidity benefit and one-parent benefit were introduced in 1971 and 1980 respectively and information about growth in expenditure on these is in table 9a of "The Growth of Social Security." Meaningful comparisons of the growth rates since 1949 in national assistance/supplementary benefit/income support, housing benefit and rate rebates/community charge benefit are not possible because of changes in the structure of provision in the benefit system.

  stated in the Government 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 Government IT security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice and have been developed specifically for use within Government and have been in operation for some time. The Department of Social Security's IT security standards have been devised in accordance with the above, and the need for compliance with them is being referenced in relevant contracts.

  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 Social Security 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.
  201
  Mr. Hague
  The Department of Social Security does not operate a sensitive documents unit. However, all documents raised within the Department are public records under the terms of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, and have varying degrees of sensitivity. The Department has a departmental records officer, who is responsible for systems for the control of all documents from the time of their creation to final disposal. In the course of the Department's business, millions of records come within the departmental records officer's purview each year.

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

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers are:

  Headquarters—22

  Benefits Agency—21

  Child Support Agency—3

  Contributions Agency—1

  Before 1988 the Department was part of DHSS and separate figures for Social Security are not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many homeless people, who are living in hostels on a temporary basis, have applied for but have been refused a social fund community care grant or loan; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many refugees have, following an offer of permanent accommodation, applied for but been refused social fund start-up grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Michael Bichard, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Credit
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents currently receive family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of lone parents in receipt of family credit was 206,000 at the latest available date.

  Source: 5 per cent. sample of family credit recipients at 30 April 1993.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the proposed family credit ceilings in 1994–95 for each of(a) a married couple with one child aged under five years, (b) a married couple with two children aged under 11 years, (c) a married couple with two children aged over 11 years, (d) a married couple with three children aged under 11 years, (e) a married couple with three children aged over 11 years and (f) a married couple with two children aged under 11 years and two children aged over 11 years.

  Mr. Burt
  At the new benefit levels proposed for April 1994, the family credit ceilings represented by the highest amount of net earnings and other relevant income a family can have and still qualify for family credit at the minimum payment of 50p will be as follows:202

  £

  Married couple with one child under 5 years

  150·27

  Married couple with two children under 11

  166·27

  Married couple with two children over 11 (but under 16)

  187·27

  Married couple with three children under 11

  182·27

  Married couple with three children over 11 (but under 16)

  213·77

  Married couple with two children under 11 and two children over 11 (but under 16)

  219·27

  Relevant income excludes child benefit, which is disregarded for family credit purposes. Therefore, in addition to the amounts above, a one-child family will have £10£25 child benefit, a two-child family £18.45, a three-child family £26.70 and a four-child family £34.95. Relevant income also excludes the first £15 of any maintenance payable.

  From October 1994, up to £40 a week will be disregarded in the calculation of net earnings in respect of formal childcare costs incurred where there is a child under 11 in the family of a couple where both are working, or where one is working and the other is incapacitated, increasing the potential ceilings still further. The disregard will also apply to lone parent families.

  Lone Parent Families
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parent families, headed by a mother under the age of 21 years are currently in receipt of(a) family credit, (b) housing benefit and (c) disability working allowance.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Lone parent mothers under the age of 21

  Type of benefit

  Numbers

  Date

  Family Credit

  1,240

  30 April 1993

  Housing Benefit

  36,000

  May 19921

  Disability Working Allowance

  Nil

  30 June 1993

  1Sample taken May 1992.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parent families are currently headed by a mother in receipt of disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  There are 266 such families.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parent families currently receive housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of lone parents in receipt of housing benefit in Great Britain in May 1992—the latest date for which figures are available—was approximately 816,000.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) at what level, in current prices, he intends to set the rates of the recently announced job seekers allowance for an unemployed person under 25 years of age who(a) would currently qualify for unemployment benefit and (b) would currently only qualify for income support;
  203
  (2) what is the current payment to a single, unemployed person under 25 years of age if he or she (a) qualifies for unemployment benefit and (b) is able to claim only income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The rates for job seeker's allowance for those under 25 years of age will be announced at the appropriate time before April 1996. It is intended that these will be based upon income support levels. The current levels of benefit are given, with the rates that will apply from April 1994 shown in parentheses.

  An unemployed person under 25 years who qualifies solely for unemployment benefit and has no overlapping social security benefit is paid £44.65 (£45.45) a week.

  If entitled to income support, the rate of personal allowance would be £34.80 (£36.15) if aged between 18 and 24, or £26.45 (£27.50) if aged 16 or 17. The higher rate of £34.80 (£36.15) also applies to people aged 16 or 17 who are of necessity living independently.

  Disability
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the number of people in receipt of disability living allowance, for each component and attendance allowance, for each component in(a) the London borough of Newham, (b) the Wembley disability benefits centre and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance and attendance allowance are matters for Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what are the number of people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DL.A), for each component and Attendance Allowance (AA), for each component in (a) the London Borough of Newham, (b) the Wembley Disability Benefits Centre (DBC) and (c) nationally.
  The information that you have requested for people in the London Borough of Newham and also for DLA payments in the area covered by Wembley DBC are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the information in the following table answers a part of your question. The latest available figures are for quarter ending 31 March 1993.

  DLA

  National

  Care Component

  Higher rate care

  206,000

  Middle rate care

  293,000

  Lower rate care

  154,000

  Total

  653,000

  Mobility Component

  Higher rate mobility

  887,000

  Lower rate mobility

  145,000

  Total

  1,032,000

  For AA there is only one component which is care, although there are two rates for which I have provided details.
  204

  National

  Wembley DBC

  Higher rate

  368,000

  51,000

  Lower rate

  522,000

  78,000

  Total

  890,000

  129,000

  All figures are provisional and are rounded to the nearest thousand.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has formed of the effect of the change in weather stations used for the calculation of the cold weather payments for Ayrshire during the recent cold spell.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. George Foulkes, dated 6 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the effect of the change in weather stations used for the calculation of Cold Weather Payments for Ayrshire.
  The reason for the change of weather station for Ayrshire was the closure of the station at Prestwick. Prestwick station no longer provides any data to the Meteorological Office and it is therefore not possible to say if Prestwick would have triggered any Cold Weather Payments in the recent cold weather.
  The replacement station for that part of the mainland affected by the change (Postcodes KA1-26 and KA28-30) is Glasgow Airport. This weather station has triggered cold weather payments for the period 19 November to 25 November, when the running seven-day mean temperature was –0.3 degrees Centigrade. These payments have now been issued.
  The only part of Prestwick's old area not covered by the Glasgow weather station is the Isle of Arran (Postcode KA27), which was reassigned to the weather station at Macrihanish. Macrihanish station has not triggered any payments yet this winter. The running seven-day mean temperature ending 25 November 1993, was 3.4 degrees Centigrade.
  Information provided by the Meteorological Office is that the Glasgow station historically records lower temperatures than Prestwick and is, therefore, more likely to trigger payments. The Meteorological Office have also informed us that the weather station at Macrihanish best reflects the weather on the Isle of Arran.
  I hope that this reply has been helpful.

  "Quarterly" and "Challenge"
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the annual cost of the publication of(a) "Quarterly" and (b) "Challenge" magazines.

  Mr. Hague
  The cost of "Quarterly" magazine for the last full financial year was: £125,528.75. The estimated cost in 1993–94 is: £119,783.60.

  There has been only one issue of "Challenge" magazine, which was published at a cost of £9,500.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce the outcome of his review of the workings of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency was set up to secure more maintenance, more reliably, for more children
  205
  and that is what it is doing. We have been examining the comments and concerns being raised about some of the aspects of the scheme and will consider carefully the recommendations of the Social Security Select Committee, to which a response will be given in due course.

  Income Support
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by each parliamentary constituency in the city of Birmingham the number of persons without accommodation claiming income support at the latest convenient date and 12 and 24 months earlier.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many industrial disablement claims for asbestos-related diseases referred to special medical boards, and the numbers in which the diseases were diagnosed in each year since 1991 in the same format as tables given in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) of 28 January 1992,Official Report, columns 514-16.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 November 1993, column 174]: The information given contained a typographical error. The figure in the 1992 table for Newcastle under "References" column Dl should read 285, not 205 as shown. This does not affect the totals.

EMPLOYMENT

  Deregulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has made to the report on deregulation, produced by the GMB trade union, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have seen and read the report, and have written to Mr. Edmonds, General Secretary of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers Union—GMB—in the following terms:Your letter of 18 November to the Secretary of State enclosed a copy of your document "Freedom to Kill? The Case Against Deregulation". I understand that your colleague Mr. Nigel Bryson has already received comments on your document from Frank Davies, Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and Mr. John Rimington, Director-General of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
  As you know, the review arises from an invitation from me to the HSC earlier this year, asking them to look at health and safety regulation with the aim of reducing any undue burdens which it may impose on business, especially small firms. As you said in your letter, the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act has provided a sensible framework for improvements to safety in the workplace. HSC accepted my invitation in the context of its mandate under section 1 of the Act to remove outdated, unnecessary and technologically redundant legislation from the statute book. The review builds upon and continues that work.
  I was therefore astounded to read your report's confused account of the HSC Review of Regulations. I find it surprising that the GMB should wish to mislead the public on such important work, the aim of which is to develop an even more effective health and safety legislative framework. More surprisingly still, the report makes a barely concealed attack upon the integrity of the HSC, an independent tripartite body.
  206
  I should not need to remind you that the seven Sector Task Groups, which are helping the HSC take the work of the review forward, have trade union members (including one from the GMB); and the Steering Group for the Review, under the Chairmanship of Miss Jenny Bacon, one of the HSE's Deputy Directors General, contains representatives from the TUC. It says little for your confidence in your colleagues if you endorse the conclusions of the report that there is a "hidden agenda" or "predetermined outcome."
  There is certainly no intention of increasing "freedom for employers to go back to 19th century working conditions" now, or at any time in the future. Two Press Notices were issued recently, in response to garbled Press accounts of what was supposedly in the Deregulation Bill, which made this perfectly clear.
  Indeed I believe that if people find it easier to understand their legal obligations as a result of the review of regulations currently being undertaken by HSC, they will be better able to comply —and that has to result in better health and safety standards for workers. Some employers have argued that section 1 (2) of the 1974 Act inhibits sensible legislative change. The HSC review is looking at this, and the Government will decide what if anything to do in the light of this and any other evidence. In the meantime, I await the advice of the HSC.
  HSC has already emphasised that the review needs to look not only at the substance of individual regulations but at the broader aspects of the regulatory regime. This includes: how to reduce the burden of paperwork imposed on business by health and safety regulations; the enforcement practices of HSE and local authority inspectors; and the further consolidation of all health and safety legislation to produce a simpler legislative framework designed to maintain or improve the standards of health and safety.
  Any proposals for legislative change arising from the review will themselves be subject to the usual consultation procedures. Good standards of health and safety save business money in terms of less lost production due to accidents and so on. They also prevent illness, death and injury which costs individuals and the community dear. In simplifying and clarifying the requirements of the law, a system of regulation will be created which is easier for everyone to understand and easier for employers in particular to comply with. I am disappointed that the GMB does not appear to be able to agree with that aim.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplace nursery facilities have been financially assisted from Government resources; and if he will list where each is located.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 1990 the Government have granted tax exemption to workplace nurseries as a benefit in kind. No figures are held as to the number of facilities thereby assisted.

  The civil service runs 40 nurseries for its employers, several joint ventures with other employers, and over 120 holiday play schemes. They are listed in the Cabinet Office's Childcare Bulletin for October 1993 which is available in the Library.

  Disabled People (Sheffield)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what has been spent on disabled individuals in the Sheffield area over the last five years on assistance towards(a) special aids to employment, (b) adaptations to premises, (c) fares to work and (d) the personal reader scheme;

  (2) how many disabled individuals in the Sheffield area have benefited from the Government's present provision of assistance towards (a) special aids to employment, (b) adaptions to premises (c) fares to work and (d) personal reader service over the last five years.
  207
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 7 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions to him about what has been spent on disabled individuals in the Sheffield area, and how many disabled individuals in the Sheffield area have benefitted from the Government's present provision of assistance over the last five years on assistance towards (a) special aids to employment, (b) adaptations to premises, (c) fares to work and (d) the personal reader service.
  The information you have asked for is not held centrally and I have asked my people to investigate the availability of the details you request. I will send details to you as soon as they are available.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Disabled People (Employment Symbol)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has carried out as to the degree to which companies who display the two-tick symbol denoting them as positive about disabled people are complying with the criteria required.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 7 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about what assessment his Department has carried out into the degree to which companies who display the disability symbol are meeting the commitments expected of symbol users. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Use of the disability symbol is a voluntary step taken by an organisation which considers that its employment practices are consistent with the commitments required of symbol users, and which wants to ensure that disabled people know this. Users must accept five commitments:
  to interview all job applicants with a disability who meet the minimum criteria for a job vacancy;
  to consult disabled employees to ensure that they can develop their abilities at work;
  to take steps to retain employees who become disabled to make sure they stay in employment;
  to ensure that key employees develop the awareness of disability needed to make employers' commitments work;
  and each year, to reviewing achievements and planning improvements.
  The first four commitments are intended as a starting point for good practice, the fifth to help them monitor progress and make sure that their commitments are working in practice.
  Employers preparing to adopt the symbol are encouraged to first discuss the symbol commitments in detail with a representative of my local Employment Service Placing, Assessment and Counselling Team (PACT). The PACT will advise on ways to meet the commitments within the particular organisation and, if necessary, suggest steps to be taken before
  208
  the organisation formally adopts the symbol. Although it will be most useful for employers to call on their PACT when first preparing to adopt the symbol they may seek advice at any stage. The PACT role in monitoring employers' use of the symbol is thus one of helping rather than policing.
  As far as possible the commitments involve specific, observable actions and will be self-policing. We believe that employers are unlikely to sign up unless they intend to take them seriously. We would of course take up with a symbol user any complaint received from disabled people that the commitments were not being met in their case and if, exceptionally, it became clear that the symbol was being abused, we would ask the firm to stop using it. In the main, however, we expect to resolve difficulties through discussion to resolve any misunderstandings about what the commitments involve in practice.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many health and safety inspectors there are in Wales; and from which locations they work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of inspectors permanently employed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and based in Wales at 1 November 1993 was 63. The locations from which they work are HSE field operations division area and local offices in Cardiff, Wrexham, and Carmarthen.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to strengthen health and safety regulations at car boot sales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Workstart Project
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each workstart pilot project, what is the number of places available for unemployed people and the number actually taken up.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: Each of the four workstart pilots has funding to place up to 250 long-term unemployed people into employment.

  On 23 November the number of people in employment supported under workstart in each pilot area was as follows:

  Number

  South London

  40

  East Kent

  35

  Tyneside

  30

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  The rate of take up in workstart is increasing. The Tyneside training and enterprise council (TEC) is working closely with the local employment service to match individual unemployed people to specific vacancies. The other TEC-run pilot, in Devon and Cornwall, is now adopting a similar approach to improve performance.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time(a) males over 35 years, (b) males over 16 and under 35 years, (c) women over 16 and under 35 years and (d) women over 35 years remain unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: Analysis of the computerised records relating to claimants whose spell of unemployment was completed in the period between 10 September and 14 October gives the following median durations of unemployment: those aged between 16 and 35; males—15.7 weeks, females—11.2 weeks: those aged 35 and over; males—21.9 weeks, females—15.9 weeks.

  Analysis of a 5 per cent. sample of these same claimants shows that their mean duration of unemployment was as follows: those aged between 16 and 35; males—32 weeks, females —22.7 weeks: those aged 35 and over; males—39£9 weeks, females—29.3 weeks.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing the number of vacancies in jobcentres that were(a) temporary and (b) permanent in each quarter from April 1987 in each region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has

  Details of permanent and temporary notified vacancies 5 April to 8 October 1993

  Period

  5 April 1993 to 2 July 1993

  5 July 1993 to 8 October 1993

  Region

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Northern region

  17,956

  4,444

  21,851

  6,457

  Yorkshire and Humberside regïon

  34,516

  6,878

  40,299

  10,857

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  40,484

  12,212

  48,768

  14,586

  London and South East region

  114,773

  25,423

  132,283

  32,726

  South West region

  36,680

  10,304

  41,138

  10,672

  Office for Wales

  26,532

  10,129

  29,583

  14,246

  West Midlands region

  34,234

  7,003

  42,991

  8,669

  North West region

  64,203

  19,902

  74,754

  26,070

  Office for Scotland

  53,278

  14,781

  58,804

  17,397

  NATIONAL TOTAL

  422,656

  111,076

  490,471

  141,680

  Details of permanent and temporary notified vacancies 6 April 1992 to 2 April 1993

  Period

  6 April 1992 to 3 July 1992

  6 July 1992 to 2 October 1992

  5 October 1992 to 8 January 1993

  11 January 1993 to 2 April 1993

  Region

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Northern region

  20,062

  3,953

  19,851

  6,431

  15,620

  4,760

  16,433

  3,631

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  31,472

  5,039

  34,126

  6,474

  27,666

  5,555

  29,782

  4,785

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  39,191

  10,711

  41,668

  10,647

  33,762

  10,402

  35,206

  7,720

  London and South East region

  113,916

  21,371

  112,996

  24,329

  96,795

  26,871

  100,593

  21,330

  South West region

  34,577

  7,580

  32,649

  7,536

  26,009

  6,915

  31,449

  6,397

  Office for Wales

  25,888

  9,086

  25,912

  9,410

  20,419

  10,077

  22,000

  7,497

  West Midlands region

  29,982

  4,496

  33,118

  6,211

  28,113

  6,421

  30,816

  4,781

  North West region

  59,776

  15,205

  61,847

  20,745

  51,670

  18,115

  53,792

  13,674

  Office for Scotland

  51,424

  13,972

  52,808

  14,662

  44,669

  14,212

  48,053

  11,961

  National total

  406,288

  91,413

  414,975

  106,445

  334,723

  103,328

  368,124

  81,776

  210
  been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 6 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him asking about the number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres since April 1987. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  On 30 July, in response to an earlier question from you on this subject, I sent you details of permanent and temporary notified vacancies from April 1987 until 2 July 1993. For ease of reference this information has been repeated again in the attached tables. In addition, information has been added to cover the period 3 July 1993 to 8 October 1993.
  As I explained in my earlier letter, changes to the ES area and regional structure means that information is not available in the form requested in respect of the period April 1987 to March 1990. To obtain this information would require direct approaches to my local offices. Given the size of the ES network this would be a disproportionate cost and I am sorry I am unable to supply the detailed information for the earlier period. However, information covering Great Britain as a whole is available and this is also attached.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the library of the House.
  211

  Details of permanent and temporary notified vacancies 5 April 1991 to 3 April 1992

  Period

  8 April 1991 to 5 July 1991

  8 July 1991 to 4 October 1991

  7 October 1991 to 3 January 1992

  6 January 1992to 3 April 1992

  Region

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Northern region

  21,480

  5,064

  21,244

  5,233

  17,089

  4,407

  19,962

  3,361

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  32,479

  7,765

  33,383

  7,516

  25,247

  6,459

  29,559

  4,748

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  41,167

  15,916

  43,408

  13,307

  31,718

  11,084

  37,950

  7,962

  London and South East region

  109,042

  38,093

  117,659

  37,172

  89,972

  34,950

  103,478

  30,479

  South West region

  31,754

  8,847

  36,016

  8,380

  25,963

  7,141

  34,035

  7,762

  Office for Wales

  22,819

  10,893

  22,571

  13,738

  17,696

  10,071

  19,983

  11,646

  West Midlands region

  33,303

  8,258

  32,764

  8,198

  25,786

  5,698

  30,348

  4,603

  North West region

  60,575

  21,717

  62,565

  21,617

  46,056

  19,878

  55,662

  16,060

  Office for Scotland

  51,687

  15,753

  54,374

  15,543

  38,520

  14,040

  45,601

  17,818

  National total

  404,306

  132,306

  423,984

  130,704

  318,047

  113,728

  376,578

  104,439

  Details of permanent and temporary notified vacancies 9 April 1990 to 5 April 1991

  Period

  6 April 1990 to 6 July 1990

  9 July 1990 to 5 October 1990

  8 October 1991 to 4 January 1991

  7 January 1991 to 5 April 1991

  Region

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Northern region

  28,341

  5,436

  28,945

  6,606

  19,605

  5,907

  20,236

  5,724

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  43,905

  8,338

  45,504

  9,310

  30,055

  7,585

  30,321

  5,342

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  47,021

  11,527

  46,726

  11,893

  34,155

  9,223

  36,328

  8,013

  London and South East region

  127,503

  39,632

  119,005

  45,548

  90,485

  38,157

  96,219

  34,093

  South West region

  41,596

  10,256

  38,658

  8,266

  25,491

  6,594

  27,621

  8,976

  Office for Wales

  29,314

  10,782

  27,317

  12,694

  19,672

  9,446

  20,785

  8,646

  West Midlands region

  44,305

  5,599

  43,559

  7,999

  30,683

  6,475

  30,565

  5,388

  North West region

  76,003

  18,324

  77,683

  24,035

  55,887

  24,344

  58,109

  19,896

  Office for Scotland

  53,025

  19,769

  71,179

  2,653

  40,445

  15,932

  47,068

  17,624

  NATIONAL TOTAL

  491,103

  129,663

  498,576

  129,004

  346,478

  123,663

  367,252

  113,702

  Permanent and temporary vacancies Great Britain 3 April 1987 to 6 April 1990

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  1987–88

  3 April 1987 to 3 July 1987

  468,996

  210,708

  6 July 1987 to 2 October 1987

  501,197

  227,078

  5 October 1987 to 8 January 1988

  369,122

  197,996

  11 January 1988 to 8 April 1988

  483,308

  159,501

  1988–89

  11 April 1988 to 8 July 1988

  536,813

  188,610

  11 July 1988 to 7 October 1988

  551,792

  183,931

  10 October 1988 to 6 January 1989

  431,515

  159,602

  9 January 1989 to 7 April 1989

  519,323

  129,831

  1989–90

  10 April 1989 to 7 July 1989

  1502,329

  1205,176

  10 July 1989 to 6 October 1989

  1526,374

  1204,701

  9 October 1989 to 5 January 1990

  1402,654

  1164,464

  8 January 1990 to 6 April 1990

  1475,679

  1167,130

  1Estimated.

  Giro Delivery
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what irregularities there have been in the delivery of unemployment benefit giros in the Clydebank and Milngavie area in the past month; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M Fogden to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 7 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about irregularities in the delivery of Unemployment Benefit giros in the Clydebank and Milngavie area in the past month. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  There have been two delays in the delivery of Unemployment Benefit giros to the Clydebank and Milngavie area in the past month. The first occurrence was on Friday 19 November and was caused by the failure of Royal Mail to ensure that the giro mail bag was loaded onto the appropriate evening flight from Heathrow Airport. This mail was delivered by first post on Monday 22 November.

  213
  The second failure was on Friday 26 November and was due to adverse weather conditions (fog) at Heathrow. There were many flight delays on that Friday evening due to the fog. Mail as a consequence had to be transferred onto the Saturday morning flight.
  As both delays occurred on a Friday, when mail arrived at the sorting/delivery offices on Saturday morning it has missed the first and only delivery of the day.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what method unemployment benefit giros are delivered to the Clydebank and Milngavie area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 7 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the method of delivery of Unemployment Benefit giros in the Clydebank and Milngavie area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unemployment Benefit giros are delivered by Royal Mail via the first class postal system. UB giros are handed to Royal Mail ready for sorting and despatch from the Computer Centre in Reading by noon on the day prior to delivery to the client.
  From this point on the responsibility for the delivery of Unemployment Benefit giros lies with Royal Mail.
  Any failure on their part to deliver the girocheques on time are the subject of immediate representation on our part for an investigation as to the clause.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive Replies to Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the delivery of giros to the Clydebank and Milngavie area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  214
  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 7 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write direct to you to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the steps taken to improve the delivery of unemployment benefit giros in Clydebank and Milngavie area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Strong representations have been made to Royal Mail and through them to their third parties, British Airways and British Midland to ascertain what steps needed to be taken to ensure consistent delivery of girocheques to our Scottish clients. As a consequence, an agreement has been reached with Royal Mail and British Airways for girocheques to be treated as priority security mail. This means that they will be placed on the first available flight out of Heathrow to Scotland rather than await the regular scheduled 18.00 hours flight as had previously been the case.
  We will be monitoring this new arrangement closely to ensure girocheques are delivered on time to our clients in Scotland.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what rights are conveyed by the citizens charter in respect of the late or unpredictable payment of benefits.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 7 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about what rights are conveyed by the Citizen's Charter in respect of the late or unpredictable payment of benefits. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may be helpful if I explain that the policy of the Employment Service is to issue a prompt replacement whenever a girocheque is reported not received, lost, stolen, or destroyed unless there is reason to doubt the report is genuine.
  The ES is currently in the process of updating the Jobseeker's Charter, and the above girocheque replacement policy will be reflected within it.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will place a copy of this letter in the library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

BBC World Service: Funding
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the future funding of the BBC World Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we will continue our support and funding for the World Service to help it to maintain its position as the leading international broadcaster.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the post-Cold War world, with all its chaos and confusion, the role of the BBC World Service is more important than it has ever been? It is one of the best ways in which British reputation and influence are registered around the world. Against that background, is the Minister aware that the £5 million baseline cut in the funding of the BBC World Service earlier this year, which was set for a three-year period, is a short sighted economic policy? If the British economy improves in prosperity, as the Government hope, will they return to a larger funding figure to allow the BBC World Service to do its job properly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord says about the World Service. The Government believe that it performs a valuable role. That is why we have continued to fund the service at the very high levels of past years. That is why funding since 1980 has increased by some 40 per cent. Since 1978–79 the figure has increased by about 60 per cent. Obviously I can give no long-term guarantees for the future. However, the noble Lord will be aware that funding for the next three years is due to increase. Over the past few years we have increased the number of hours broadcast and the number of language services covered.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government confirm that the grant-in-aid to the BBC's French African service will be continued? Are they aware that the service has over a million listeners? In several of the Francophone countries it is the only British presence since the Government closed so many embassies and British Council offices in those countries.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would rather not go into details of specific language coverage in different parts of the world. I can confirm that we now cover about 38 different languages, plus English. We are due to increase that figure to 40 over the next couple of years. We shall certainly try to improve coverage so far as
810
possible. That is why we have increased expenditure on the World Service over the past 10 or 15 years by some 40 per cent., as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the current method of funding the external services of the BBC is wholly unsatisfactory? There resides therein a fundamental conflict of interests. Will my noble friend consider funding the external service of the BBC in a materially different way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. However, he does not suggest what the different manner for the funding of the BBC World Service should be. The relationship between the FCO and the World Service is under review. The new relationship between the two is still under discussion and subject to final decisions. We should like to allow the World Service to decide for itself how to deploy its resources to achieve levels of performance and targets agreed annually with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that direct funding has worked surprisingly well so far as concerns the World Service. As noble Lords will be aware, that funding is entirely different from that of the remainder of the BBC. However, the BBC World Service misses that £5 million. If the service falls behind the present pre-eminent position which it occupies in world broadcasting, will the Government consider the possibility of coming to its assistance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that in the 1993 survey no cuts have been made from previously agreed plans. In the present financial year, the World Service is receiving every penny of its planned increase over 1992–93. The outcome of the 1992 public expenditure survey involved the reduction of £5 million in planning figures for World Service grant-in-aid for 1994–95 and 1995–96. Those have been taken into account in the funding levels agreed for the next three years.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, given the fact that television is considered to be a far more powerful medium than radio, have the Government considered funding the BBC World Service Television or assisting its penetration round the world?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we decided in 1988 that it would not be right to fund the BBC to start an international television news service when there was an existing British service—that is ITN's—operating without official subvention. We applaud the success which World Service Television has achieved as a commercial operation since its launch in 1991. It receives full co-operation in overseas markets from our official information and commercial services.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, first, is the noble Lord aware that what puzzles me about the Government's attitude is that we all say nice, pleasant things about the BBC World Service, a great symbol of

811
all that is fine and good in Britain yet the Government are genuinely cutting its income by £5 million? There is no doubt whatever about that. Will the Minister please reconsider his approach and not just speak kind words? Will he avoid cutting the amount by £5 million?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I made it clear to all Members of the House, and if I did not then I make it clear now to the noble Lord, that we are not talking about cuts of £5 million. What we are talking about is steadily increasing funding of the World Service over the years. We have seen it increase, as I said earlier, by some 60 per cent. since 1978–79. That was following years when it actually fell in real terms under the Labour Government. We will continue to fund the World Service to achieve the best possible service that we can. I should also like to repeat what I made quite clear in one of my earlier answers, that we have seen the number of hours broadcast increase dramatically over the 1980s and early 1990s and an increase in the number of language services covered.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, would it not be better to try to bring the whole issue up to a considerably higher plane and admit that our experience across the world with the overseas service of the BBC and the BBC in general is that it is accepted everywhere in most dire circumstances? We are now moving into a new era in the world, with Russia having some responsibility for our affairs and, in addition, other countries. Would it not be better, therefore, to accept the fact that we should plan something greater in the future than we have had in the past, to carry on some of the things that have been done so well and which we are capable of doing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to praise the services that the World Service provides. That is why the Government are committed to the World Service and why the Government fund the World Service in the manner they do and to the extent they do. That is why the funding has increased quite as much as it has since 1979.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the Government have announced that they will review the capital programme of the BBC World Service, given that there is already a rolling capital programme agreed between the Government and the BBC?
Further, given the importance of audibility and continuing improvements in audibility, can the Minister assure the House that there will be no cuts in the agreed programme and that it will not be altered?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there has been considerable capital expenditure over the past few years, as the noble Baroness will be the first to know. We believe—and this is the reason why we believe the matter should be reviewed—that in the light of the evolution of broadcasting technology this would be an appropriate moment to review, with the World Service, its capital expenditure plans for the triennium which will start in April 1994. The exact pattern of capital expenditure will obviously follow that review. Before that review
812
between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the BBC I cannot give the noble Baroness the guarantees or assurances that she desires.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister realises that what matters to the World Service is that it has had an agreed and accepted figure for the next three years. It is vitally important that the World Service realises that those figures will not be tampered with.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, the figures for the next three years have been announced. Perhaps I may quote from the managing director of the BBC World Service, commenting on the figures for the next three years. He described them as,
"the best outcome we could have expected, given the current economic climate".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord must be aware, as a result of this exchange, that there is considerable unease in the House about the real or apparent cutting back in the budget of the World Service. In view of the massive political changes going on in the world, with the need to increase competitiveness and attractiveness of British goods and services abroad, is it not now a time when, far from cutting back, the Government should increase the potential of the World Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are increasing it. If there is unease about the cutting back in the past I can only say that our record should speak for itself. Since 1979 we have seen what I have described as quite a dramatic increase. Between 1974 and 1979 we saw no increase at all.

British Rail Pensions
2.47 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the outstanding issues between the Department of Transport and the British Rail Pension Fund trustees have been satisfactorily settled in accordance with the terms of the memorandum of understanding signed by a Minister of the Crown and the chairman of the pension fund trustee company.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, discussions on these complex matters are continuing with the British Rail Pension Trustee Company and the British Rail board. The latest meeting took place on Friday last. The Government intend to honour the terms of the memorandum of understanding.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my first reaction is to inquire and to wonder what offence my noble friend committed in order to find himself in the unhappy position of having to answer for the sins and shortcomings of others. However, will he be good enough to convey to his right honourable friends a reminder that the chairman of the trustees would never and could never have signed the memorandum of

813
understanding had it not contained a requirement of the trustees' agreement to any re-phasing of the payments into the closed fund? Even less could he have done so had he realised at the time that the Government had in mind to postpone all capital payments into the fund until the year 2000?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important to note that rail pensioners have secured a very good deal indeed. Not only will they have the absolute security of an index-linked guarantee, but they will also be able to enjoy a distribution resulting from any available surplus. The memorandum of understanding made it clear that there might be a case for rescheduling government support payments once that guarantee was in place.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, as a former trustee of the fund perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that the pensioners are deeply indebted, as is this House, for the concern shown by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. In the light of our experience in dealing with this matter—it consumed a great deal of time and involved the House in intricate discussions—are any lessons being learnt by the Government in regard to the proposed privatisation of British Coal where the pension fund situation is somewhat similar?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's comments that the rail pensioners have come out with a very good deal indeed—and through the normal parliamentary process.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister confirm, since the discussions are continuing, that the trustees remain deeply concerned? Otherwise, there would be no point in continuing the discussions. Can he summarise the nature of those current concerns on the part of the trustees'?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, progress has been made in the discussions through the agreement of principles that should be satisfied in any new payment arrangements. The Government must safeguard the taxpayers' interest. It would not be right to put money into the closed scheme if it is not needed. On the other hand, the trustees have a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the pension scheme members. That is the point that the negotiations have reached.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with the greatest respect in the world, the Minister has not answered my question. Will he summarise the nature of the concerns being expressed by the trustees? That is a matter of some concern to the House, but most particularly to the trustees and the pensioners.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I did summarise the present situation and what was happening in regard to the discussions. The discussions are going on. It is in the interests of both sides to reach agreement as soon as possible.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, whatever may have happened in the past, is it not a fact that the existing pensioners are well satisfied with the Government's
814
arrangements and that the concern is for future pensioners? Does the Minister agree that that concern forms the basis for the discussions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the discussions are concerned with the Government's support payments to the closed pension fund, which takes care of existing rail pensioners rather than future ones.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, thanks to the noble Lord we have now got down to the main issue. The matter was discussed in this House. As the noble Viscount will remember, at the end of the discussion we took the advice and the assurances of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. When conclusions have been reached between the Government and the trustees, will the Government come forward with a paper so that we can then see exactly what those conclusions are? We shall then be able to make a judgment as to whether the noble Lord is right when he says that the pensioners have had a good deal.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the comments of the noble Lord. I shall refer his constructive suggestion to my right honourable friend.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, paid tribute to the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in raising this issue and in pursuing it so vigorously. I echo that tribute from these Benches. Whether or not that will help the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in his future political career I do not know. In respect of the debates that we are due to have on the coal industry—a matter also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—have approaches been made to the trustees of the coal industry pension fund and is the intention to try to reach a suitable agreement with them so that we can be informed of it in good time for our debates?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is a different question. No doubt appropriate discussions will take place.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, how can the Government maintain that they will honour the terms of the memorandum of understanding when they have refused to be bound by the requirement that the trustees' agreement should be obtained to any re-phasing of payments? It is a simple question, but others besides the noble Viscount are finding it very difficult to answer. Perhaps he can get them to do so.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we fully intend to comply with the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Consequently, we are engaged in discussions with the trustee company board to seek to reach agreement on all outstanding issues.

Trading Standards Departments
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that trading standards departments are not so numerous and consequently reduced in size as to impair their effectiveness in the forthcoming reorganisation of local government in England, Scotland and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, in making decisions on local government reorganisation, the Government will take fully into account the need for effectiveness in service provision.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for that welcome reply. While the sizes of the future new units of local government must be governed by other factors, perhaps I may ask whether the option of joint authorities, as already used in the cases of the police and the fire service, is being considered in order to provide effective bodies assisting both traders and consumers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I very much recognise the point that my noble friend makes. At the moment it is felt that for reasons of local accountability it should be local authorities that operate the services provided by trading standards authorities. But there is nothing to stop local authorities getting together voluntarily, as they do in West Yorkshire, to provide that service on a wider scale.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government also bear in mind that many of our cities, such as the city of Portsmouth, are well capable of having an adequate trading standards department without the need for a second tier of local government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is very much in tune with what the Government are saying. Certainly, when the local government review looks at Portsmouth it will take the noble Lord's comments into account.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister agree that enforcement which is carried out by trading standards officers represents a very great matter of concern in safeguarding consumers? Will he further agree that any proposal for local government reorganisation which does not provide for an effective continuation of that provision would be wrong and, indeed, injurious to the interests of those consumers? Will he therefore look again at this particular point in relation to local government reorganisation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course trading standards officers not only help consumers; they help industry and guide industry on how to deal with consumer affairs problems. It is the Labour Party that is continually keen on local democracy, so I find it strange that the noble Lord seems to be asking for the kind of joint authority scheme run by committees and quangos which his party is so often against.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister should not talk rot about quangos!
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that virtually all the organisations representing trade and industry are worried that this service may become submerged, lost and fragmented by being overlooked in the new reorganisation? Will he therefore, in addition to his encouraging remarks in this House, make sure that his department allays the apprehensions of the CBI and other organisations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I very recently had a meeting with the professional body that represents trading standards authorities. It was a constructive meeting, at which of course these issues were discussed. I accept what my noble friend said. The DTI is very concerned that the provision of services should be as professional as it has been in the past. To that end we are working with other government departments and the local government review to make sure that that is what happens.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the trading standards operation is supported by more and more specialist skills and equipment and would be very difficult to manage and operate if it were fragmented? Furthermore, in regard to voluntary arrangements, is he aware that there have been a large number of such arrangements and the only case in which they have survived is that of West Yorkshire, to which he referred—and that the arrangements there are very uncertain? Therefore does he agree that something of a more mandatory nature is necessary?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a sadness that voluntary arrangements have not been more successful. But at least West Yorkshire has been able to manage its affairs in such a way that the voluntary arrangements have been successful. I accept what the noble Lord said about the difficulties of trading standards authorities. Those are precisely the issues that are being discussed.

"London-Making the Best Better"
3 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the cost of publication of London—Making the Best Better; and what was the purpose of the publication.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the cost of producing the document and associated questionnaire, including distribution and publicity, is estimated at £168,000. The document aims to promote the best aspects of London—the achievements and successes of all in the capital—and to seek views on what people appreciate in London and their ideas for improvement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why £168,000 of taxpayers' money is being asked for to deal with that document, when I and millions of Londoners can give that information to the

817
Government for nothing? Londoners do not want to be imprisoned under their capital in dangerous, clapped-out, under-funded tube trains. We do not want our hospitals closed down or mutilated and we do not want anybody sleeping on the pavements of London. If I can know that for nothing, why did the Government not find it out?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that there are many areas for which the Government have concern and are taking action. As the noble Baroness knows, there is the Rough Sleepers Initiative which was given £96 million and reduced by two-thirds the number of people sleeping rough. Another £86 million has been put into that project. The Government's total support for London transport will be nearly £3 billion over the next three years. I am sure that the noble Baroness is not suggesting that before making our decisions we should not ask for the views of those who live and work in London.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the cost is chicken-feed compared with the great importance of London as a tourist and financial centre, with the large amount of foreign currency that is earned thereby? That creates the wealth to pay for alleviating the problems mentioned by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caldecote for that question. It is important that the strength of London as an economic centre is recognised and built upon. Of the Financial Times top 500 companies, 121 have chosen to put their headquarters in London. A survey of overseas businessmen found that 88 per cent. of them wanted to be based in London. Very few of them seemed to want to go home.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that that suggests that London requires its own authority instead of relying on 32 different boroughs?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that the local London boroughs are most accountable. Had we continued with the GLC, over the past six years it would have cost £1.3 billion. That suggests to me that Londoners might not want it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as president of the London Boroughs Association and a member of London First, I welcome this publication as evidence of recognition by the Government of the enormous importance of London as one of the three global cities in the world. Does my noble friend agree that it comes a little oddly from the party opposite to complain about £168,000 expenditure when the GLC spent £45 million on trying to save itself?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend puts the whole issue well and truly into perspective.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the figures given by the noble Lord just now are totally fictitious and have no basis in fact whatsoever? Is she further aware that if she wants to ascertain the opinion of Londoners, the best possible way to do so is to restore to them the power to elect their own government? Why does she not do that, or is she afraid that the result might not be in accordance with her wishes on the matter?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord looks at the matter from a different point of view. We are not talking about another level of bureaucracy. We are talking about what people want and what they are proudest of in London and asking for their suggestions. We are in fact looking forward.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have not heard either from volunteers (such as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and many other noble Lords) or indeed from Londoners and the London boroughs? What efforts are being made to ensure a proper demographic and geographic spread of responses to the questionnaire, given that the main vehicle appears to have been the Evening Standard, which I imagine is read more by commuters than, for instance, people living in poorer parts of London? Can she also tell the House how a sensible analysis can be made of the questionnaire when five of the six questions are entirely open-ended?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we are looking for views, ideas and input from the people who live and work in London and who do not come with prejudices but simply with concern for the community.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that on the questionnaire in addition to question 1 ("What do you most appreciate about London?"), there should be a second question: "What do you least appreciate about London?"? If the noble Baroness is short of a list, like the one containing the 63 items under the first question, would she bear in mind the questions raised by my noble friends and add perhaps: rubbish piled up in doorways, rats running in the streets, traffic snarled up, crime on the rampage, pollution of the environment and homeless people begging from doorways?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I suggest that the publication takes exactly the opposite view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is positive, forward looking and not running down London.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, my noble friend spoke about suggestions from the people of London. Can she inform the House how many letters have been received by her department since this initiative was launched?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that since it was published we have received almost 6,000 replies. We have deliberately kept the subject open-ended so that we can keep collecting information from Londoners

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before us gives effect to the proposals set out in consultation papers on students' union reform published in July; and in respect of teacher training in a paper published in September. It rests on fundamental principles which have inspired so many of our reforms: quality, efficiency, choice and accountability.
Part I of the Bill provides for the establishment of a teacher training agency in England and for an extension of the existing functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. These are institutional changes. They underpin the essential teacher training reforms. And they are the means by which we shall ensure that funds are well targeted and that lines of accountability are clear.
We have already taken considerable strides in reforming teacher training. We have set out new standards for all courses of initial training, which define the knowledge and skills that all schoolteachers require. Student teachers are required to spend more time in schools, and serving teachers will be able to play a full part in designing and running courses. We have said that training for primary teachers must include more time on the core subjects of maths, English and science, and, within that core, on teaching the basic skills of reading and number. We are allowing groups of schools to run their own courses, involving higher education, if they so wish.
Excellent progress is being made with all these reforms. Training courses are already being adjusted. All secondary courses must meet the new criteria by September 1994 and all primary courses by September 1996. The first school-centred courses started this September, and we have bids for more to start next year.
For the future, we emphasised the need for wider access for good, mature candidates who may not possess A-levels but whose knowledge and skills and experience—gained through a career in industry or in nursing perhaps—mean that they would be a great asset to the profession. Just two weeks ago we announced our plans to help primary teachers with their vital task of giving pupils a good grounding in reading, writing and arithmetic—rigorous courses for classroom assistants allowing them to offer more effective support to teachers—and we encouraged the development of new course models for initial teacher training, in particular a six-subject undergraduate course for primary teachers who need strength across the curriculum.
All of those reforms are already the subject of existing circulars from the department. This Bill introduces a new teacher training agency. The time is ripe for the creation of this new body. We need it in order to create a new and independent framework to support our other reforms. At the moment we have a number of diverse bodies, all doing useful things: the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, the
820
Department for Education and the Teaching as a Career Unit. But what is needed now is a vigorous and independent body dedicated to teacher training and able to address it in all its aspects. That is the most effective way to achieve the necessary gains in clarity, accountability and effectiveness.
The importance of having such a body is evident from the objectives we set for the agency in Clause 1 of the Bill. Those are: to contribute to raising the standards of teaching; to promote teaching as a career; to improve the quality and efficiency of all routes into teaching; and to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes for the initial training of school teachers. Those objectives are deliberately ambitious. They will focus the work of the agency. They will demand from it high levels of achievement. Teachers, and their training, are too important for it to be otherwise.
The creation of the agency represents an enhanced status for teacher training, not a sidelining or relegation. I am sure several speakers today will make much of the fact that a different path is being taken in Wales. There, the powers of the Welsh funding council will be extended to allow it to fund initial teacher training in schools in Wales. That path is entirely right for Wales for reasons of size. But the Welsh will be able to use the teacher training agency as a central resource; for example, to provide information about courses and career prospects in Wales as well as England. I have every confidence that the English and Welsh paths will meet at the goal of high quality training.
The agency will support the aim of high quality teaching through funding; and it will support it through providing accurate and helpful information. In the latter respect it will inherit the mantle of the Teaching as a Career Unit—TASC. The TASC Unit has been a success. It encouraged recruitment to teacher training, career switching and the return to the profession of already qualified teachers. Irrespective of the teacher supply position in future, individuals will need information about the profession if they are to consider it as a serious career option; and it will be central to the agency's funding allocation work that it keeps abreast of supply issues and reflects its knowledge through support for initial training courses and the provision of information.
The agency will encourage diversity by supporting courses run by schools as well as by higher education, as long as they meet the criteria set by the Secretary of State. The agency will also be able to ensure that there is increasing choice among courses of different lengths and design, as well as those provided by different bodies. We look forward to a steady increase in school-centred training. Numbers will certainly grow beyond the current pioneers, in secondary schools in particular. But neither the Government nor the agency will be forcing schools to take on extra responsibilities. It will remain a voluntary activity on the part of schools.
I draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 13. This reflects that we intend to give the new agency a statutory role in the accreditation of institutions. It will have to satisfy itself that universities, colleges and schools that wish to offer teacher training have the necessary commitment to the Secretary of State's criteria, and the

821
systems in place to deliver quality courses. All courses will as now be subject to inspection by Ofsted and the agency will be able to withdraw accreditation if courses fail to meet the criteria. It was not one of the models we put forward in the consultation paper containing our original proposals. It was an option proposed to us during the consultation period by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. We accepted it because it meets the key objectives of clear lines of accountability, and high quality without bureaucracy.
I said that the agency will accredit courses provided by universities and colleges, as well as schools. It is worth repeating, because I wish to make clear that we expect higher education to continue to provide teacher training and for teacher training to remain part of higher education. Our consultation paper made clear our view that there is a continuing role for higher education. We do believe that that role needs to evolve into one of genuine partnership; and I believe it is now widely accepted, as our circulars on partnership encouraged, that universities and colleges should make more use of schools' expertise and be more sensitive to their concerns.
Also on higher education, I refer your Lordships to Clause 7 of the Bill. Here, I hope noble Lords will recognise the safeguards for academic freedom which this House built into the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. We attach great importance to that, as I know your Lordships do.
Of course, initial teacher training courses have long been different from others. In this area, because of his overarching responsibilities for the education service, the Secretary of State has set, and will continue to set, national criteria. But the creation of the agency will actually remove certain decision-making powers from the Secretary of State; and the powers of the agency are as limited under this Bill as those of the higher education funding councils under the 1992 legislation.
I know that, traditionally, teaching and research generally travelled together in higher education. That is why we propose that they remain companions within the agency. Under the current arrangements of the Higher Education Funding Council for England the great majority of research funds are allocated on a formula basis. Projects do not compete for funds and researchers choose their own topics, without interference. There are quality assessment procedures, but those contain safeguards against invasion of academic freedom.
Our proposals for agency-funded research follow those current arrangements exactly. It is only proper for the agency to be able to commission a small amount of research in respect of its responsibilities. But the great bulk of research funds will be allocated by formula, as at present, and there will be the same approach to issues of quality assessment and academic freedom as now. Moreover, other funding sources, such as the Economic and Social Research Council, will have the same ability to commission education research as now.
In the context of research, I would add that this is one of a number of areas where we propose that the agency should work closely with the existing Higher Education Funding Council for England. Indeed, we may conclude it is appropriate, as we consider this in greater detail
822
with the council, that education research should remain within the council's current assessment system, even though the funds are channelled through the agency. There will be time for just that sort of point to be considered in detail in the course of the Bill's passage.
I am confident that the council and the agency will work closely and effectively together in that and in other areas. Noble Lords will see that Clause 9 provides expressly for the funding bodies to work together in exercising their functions. Another area where I believe joint working would be desirable concerns the Church colleges. It is clearly right that the agency should acknowledge and support the part that can be played by the specialist providers of training. Clause 6 already replicates the funding safeguard for denominational colleges built in to the 1992 legislation. The current funding council has an advisory committee for the Church colleges and has said that it might be appropriate for the committee also to be advisory to the agency. I see considerable merit in that kind of co-operative development and I hope that it finds the support of noble Lords.
Finally, on Part I of the Bill, I should like to talk briefly about in-service training for teachers. We believe there is a continuum from initial training, through induction to in-service training. We propose that the agency should, under Clause 4, be able to offer some funds to support in-service training. The intention is that the agency should support those courses, such as masters degrees for serving teachers, which are currently funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
We also propose that the agency should fund the current schemes for licensed and overseas trained teachers. It is logical that the funds for these schemes, which are essentially supporting initial teacher training, should in future be paid direct to schools by the agency, as provided for in Clause 13. I should, however, make clear that we are not proposing a general transfer to the agency of the specific grant funds that now support in-service training. Decisions about how best to deploy the majority of those funds will continue to be taken locally, by local education authorities and schools themselves.
I turn now to our plans for the reform of student unions. They are the product of extended discussions and formal consultations that started in November 1990. I hope it will help your Lordships if I remind the House of the objectives of our reforms and set out briefly how the Bill will secure them.
Our objectives are based on three basic principles: personal choice, democracy and accountability. The reforms are intended to ensure that these principles are universally observed in the activities of student unions. At present, as your Lordships know, students have no choice over their involvement in the collective actions of the student union at their university or college. However much a student may wish to be dissociated from the actions or policies of the student union, those actions and policies are undertaken in the name of all students. We wish to address this issue by allowing for the voluntary principle to apply. The Bill gives students

823
personal choice by placing as many as possible of the wide range of student union activities on a voluntary, opt-in basis.
At the same time we recognise that, in many universities and colleges, student unions are the channel for providing services to which all students should have access. The Bill will allow these core services to continue to be provided by student unions with public funding where the university or college sees that method of provision as appropriate. The Bill also stipulates that where these services are provided through a student union with public funding all students should have access to them. These provisions for core services are contained in Clause 20.
Outside the area of the core services the voluntary principle will apply. Student clubs, societies and other activities will, of course, continue: students will need to opt into them. They will also need to find ways to cover any costs. They may do this from their own resources or other funds that they can raise. They may also seek sponsorship. For these voluntary activities there is nothing to stop them seeking sponsorship from their university or college. The university or college will be able to support student activities outside the core, using private funds, or indeed using public funds if the student union channel is not involved. These arrangements for activities outside the core are not set out in Clause 20. In the Bill it is necessary only to confine the public funding of student unions to the core services. The Bill does not provide specifically for other activities that students may undertake on a voluntary basis, precisely because they are voluntary.
Your Lordships may know that some have argued that the Government should have gone much further. The suggestion has been made that we should secure voluntary membership for the whole range of student union activities. We did look at this approach. We decided against it for two main reasons. First, the universities and colleges argued very strongly that some student union services were essential and that universal access to them must be assured. Secondly, there was too great a risk that, if core services were dependent entirely on opting-in and funding by subscriptions, many students would be tempted to try to get by without them, with the result that they would cease to be viable. Our policy, therefore, is to provide students with a guarantee of access to core services provided with public funding through student unions, where universities and colleges choose to provide these services that way. Outside the core, the voluntary principle will operate, and students will have no automatic access or commitments, nor of course automatic membership in any real sense. They will have only those involvements that they each individually choose, and for which, as I have already explained, they pay or find sponsorship.
I should clarify what we believe should be included in the core. The most recent stage of consultations, starting on 1st July, covered the identity of the core services. We proposed that the representation of students within the university or college, welfare, catering and sport were all student union activities to which all students should have access and for Which
824
public funding should remain available. For other activities, the voluntary principle should apply. In the light of our consultations, that remains broadly our view. The detail, however, of the core services is to be settled in regulations to be made under the Bill. May I say at once that our plan is to make a draft of the regulations available for our Committee stage debates, so that we can consider the detail then.
I mentioned democracy as the second of the principles underlying the reforms. Freedom of choice is an essential element of democracy, and the measures that I have outlined bring important democratic benefits for students. But we also intend to ensure that the behaviour of student unions incorporates democratic practices. Clause 21 provides for this, by requiring universities and colleges to draw up codes of practice to ensure democratic behaviour in their student unions. Clause 21 also includes some specific democratic practices, which reflect the best practice that already exists.
The third principle that I mentioned is accountability. This too is partly secured by the provisions to ensure that public money is used only for the core services. Here we are talking about accountability to the taxpayer: our reforms will reduce opportunities for abuse of public money; for example, for political campaigning on matters that are not specifically of concern to students. And, as with democracy, we intend to ensure that accountability is built into student unions' practices, through the codes of practice required in Clause 21. This will provide accountability to the student.
Having outlined what the Bill does and why, I hope it will be helpful if I say a little more about what it does not do. It is important to be clear that these measures do not prevent students from associating in any way or for any purpose. We would be the last to infringe the vital principle of freedom of association. Nor does the Bill prevent students, or student associations, from undertaking any activities. It does limit the range of activities for which student unions may use public funds. But no limit is placed on what may be done with private funds, either raised by students themselves or provided by their universities or colleges; and we do not seek to limit what universities and colleges may do with public funds if the student union is not involved—in other words, if the whole body of students on a campus is involved, that should be all right. I am aware of some misplaced concern that our reforms will cause various activities to cease. If these activities are valued by students, or by their universities or colleges, there is absolutely no reason for them to cease.
Finally on student unions, it may be helpful if I explain at this early stage why we are not adopting the alternative route to reform advocated by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and also by the National Union of Students. They have suggested, in essence, that existing charity law could be built on to prevent any abuses. I welcome this recognition that reform is needed, but this approach does not go far enough, for two reasons. First, it does not provide the voluntary principle. A reform which did not give students the choice to opt into activities would not be

825
worth having. Secondly, reliance on charity law leaves too much of the burden of accountability outside the university or college. Our reforms are intended to incorporate democratic and financial accountability in the daily practices of the institutions and their student unions.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has also argued that it would be simpler to list the activities for which public funding will not be permitted, rather than stipulating, as Clause 20 does, that public funds may be used only for specified services. It would not be simpler. Students will be free, as I said, to undertake any activities they wish outside of the core. The range of student activity is multifarious, and in principle infinite. Any attempt to define in statute all the activities that students might undertake in association without public funding would be doomed to failure. More fundamentally, the suggestion that we list the activities that students are free to undertake overlooks the voluntary principle, which is in essence permissive. Our approach, therefore, is to define the territory in which public funding of student unions is justified and leave the rest of the field free for the voluntary principle to operate.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has raised concern about the possible administrative costs involved in limiting the activities for which public funds may be used. We have had useful and helpful discussions with representatives of the universities and colleges about this. They are, of course, well accustomed to accounting for the public funds at their disposal. We do not believe that extending their procedures over the public money that they give to student unions will necessarily generate substantial new administrative costs. We look forward to working together with them to ensure that the reforms are put in place in a way which minimises any administrative burden on universities and colleges and any intrusion on their affairs.
I commend these reforms to the House. Students have everything to gain and nothing to fear. These reforms will not of themselves bring to an end services and activities that are valued. But they do offer students the promise of extended personal choice, democracy and accountability. In the field of teacher training, reform is well under way. The measures in this Bill will give them new impetus and create a new institutional framework for quality. I commend these reforms to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, commentators on British politics are beginning to ask whether it is now a constitutional requirement that there should be an annual Education Bill. It is an appalling indictment of government that each year, before the ink is dry on the last Bill, another is introduced. It underlines the half-baked, impetuous nature of what the Government repeatedly put forward. It is a practice which has played havoc with the morale and effectiveness of those involved in education. At a time when we are all piously
826
told that public spending must be cut, the public are now unnecessarily asked to foot the bill for yet more unworkable and ill-conceived legislation.
This Bill, like its predecessors, reminds me of the lament of the king at the beginning of Richard III:
"Deform'd, unfinish'd, sent before my time Into this breathing world scarce half made up".
The need for a general teaching council to reflect and advise is ever more urgently highlighted as the Government rush blindly and wilfully on. The haste to legislate clearly indicates that the statutory gesture towards consultation was made with minds already closed rather than with a desire to reflect on the considerable and weighty advice received. Meanwhile, the Government arrogantly evade the significant proposals in the recent report of the National Commission on Education so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
I am afraid that it is with real anger that I turn to the detail of this unnecessary and irrelevant Bill. Initial teacher training has already been reformed. Over the past decade very effective partnerships have been developed between schools and higher education institutions and the practical content of training courses has been greatly extended. In addition, lecturers involved in the supervision of trainee students are now required to have recent, relevant and successful experience of classroom teaching. Courses have been redesigned to ensure close integration between students' experience in schools and their academic studies.
In September I made visits to London inner city schools. They are splendid places. They would probably not have hit the top score on the Government's skewed and deeply flawed league tables. But they make education a challenging and desirable objective for the pupils in their care. I asked a group of children what they found the most important characteristic of good teachers. Their answer was unequivocal: commitment to their subject. The academic link with subject is important. The broader and deeper our teachers' education, the more they are equipped to adapt and develop their subject to different teaching needs.
Frankly, this is a mere skeleton of a Bill; the flesh is in the regulations yet to be seen. I note what the Minister said today. However, can she tell us why even the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has not yet had an opportunity to see the Secretary of State's case for all these powers, subject only to the negative procedure? We must have proper time to consider that committee's report before we get to the Committee stage. Anything less would be to make a mockery of our proceedings.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will be considering the position on Thursday. I am sorry that we were unable to do so before then. We are committed always to trying to get a report before the House before Second Reading. As the noble Lord indicated, we await the department's memorandum.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. It underlines the appalling disgrace of the rush and the haste in which

827
Such an important subject is approached. We should have had time for careful deliberation and scrutiny. We know that the scrutiny committee will do its best, and we look forward to seeing what it has to say.
From the bones we have in front of us we discover that teacher education is to be placed entirely in the hands of yet another quango—the teacher training agency. The agency's functions are not fully explained, but its establishment will remove teacher training from the quality control and assurance mechanisms established in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
True to form, the Government are backtracking on a measure which was passed only a very short time ago and which, at the time, Ministers told us was definitive. Despite what the Minister said today, why can the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales be trusted but not the one for England? What possible rational explanation can there be for that?
Inevitably, it will cost more to set up and run the new agency than to keep the functions with the council. There will be members and staff, duplicating for teacher education the functions which the council carries out in every other area of education. There will be a duplicated headquarters. I wonder whether it will have fountains and hanging gardens like the DFE or merely a monogrammed carpet like the now defunct National Curriculum Council? All this, I remind noble Lords, from a government pledged to eliminate waste in the public service.
Most dangerous of all, the Secretary of State is characteristically set on gathering to himself yet more powers, including decisions on essentially professional matters such as the competence required of a member of the teaching profession. The all-familiar pattern is reinforced: accountability is to be reduced and power centralised.
My perspective of the Bill is somewhat different from that given by the Minister. Under Schedule 1, paragraph 2, the Secretary of State will appoint and remove the members of the agency and will appoint the chairman. I can do no better than echo what I understand were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, whom I understand to have said, "The Secretary of State will probably appoint another lot of businessmen of whom the President of the Board of Trade says only 2 per cent. are any good. The only people who don't realise this are the Department for Education".
Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State will resolve disputes. Under Clause 4 he will designate which institutions are eligible for funding. Under Clause 5 he will tell the agency to what assessment of the quality of education it must have regard. Under Clause 7 he sets the terms and conditions for the granting of money to the agency. Under Clause 8 he may give general directions to the agency by order. We learn, at Clause 22, that these are to be made by negative statutory instrument.
Under Clause 14 the Secretary of State decides how the agency shall provide information and advice. Under Clause 15 he can impose additional functions upon it.
828
Under Clause 16—again by negative statutory instrument—he can order the transfer of property and staff of the Teaching as a Career Unit.
The qualifying activities under Clause 4, which, we must remember, will only be granted money by people appointed by the Secretary of State, include the undertaking of research into the theory, practice and management of education. While we must obviously look closely at the implications of what the Minister said today, can we really believe that objective research, which might prove how badly the Government are running our education system, stands any chance of funding through this agency?
I share with the British Educational Research Association the fear that this will,
"restrict the freedom to conduct research and damage the quality of rational discourse about education",
and that,
"The possibility that educational research carried out in England could be under the political direction and control of government through a body of appointees of the Secretary of State is inimical to ideas of a healthy research community. The power of the purse could be used to punish and reward in ways that would mean that educational research could not be done without fear [or] favour".
These are massive powers. Can it be right that the future of teacher education is left so entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State and his appointees? If it were a Left-of-centre administration bringing forward the legislation, cries of "Stalinism" would be ringing from the Conservative Benches. It is an amazing contradiction in an age of so-called deregulation.
If the Bill ever reaches the statute book unaltered a huge burden will be placed on our schools and their already hard pressed staff. Of course, trainee teachers, to be equipped for their profession, must spend significant amounts of their training time in schools. But practical experience, which is not grounded in a full understanding of educational theory, falls down when it meets an unknown situation. Those preparing to teach need to understand how children learn and why children fail. Our European competitors, with their enviably successful record of helping more children to learn to a higher level, have a strong input of philosophy —of didactics—in their teacher training. We would be alone in taking the retrograde step back to the 19th century apprentice model of teacher training. It was precisely because of the limitations of that model that the present system was developed.
And what about the schools? How are they to be equipped to deal with the additional number of trainees? The additional responsibilities to be undertaken by existing teachers from September 1994 in training student teachers will wholly undermine the effects of the expected—and essential—reduction in their workload which should follow the Government's recent re-assessment of testing. People—good and able people—who have gone into the teaching profession in the expectation that they will be educating children will find themselves spending more and more time educating adult teacher trainees. Are they equipped to do that? And are they necessarily the most suitably placed people for the task? The Government say that primary schools want to participate in such training, but they have not given us the sources for that statement. From

829
the, overwhelming indications that I have received to the contrary, I am led to question how representative those quoted opinions really are. Will the Minister tell us candidly tonight exactly how many schools are specifically on record as supporting the scheme?
I wish to quote from just one of the organisations that are opposed to that scheme. The free Churches, whose commitment to education has a distinguished record, have stated:
"Our Churches' forefathers—who originally founded schools to provide for trainee 'monitors'—began to establish separate institutions of teacher education because they realised the essential differences in the needs of a pupil and of a trainee teacher. By increasing the emphasis on…school-based responsibility for planning and providing courses, the [Government's] proposals seem to have taken a retrograde step—without providing any rationale for ignoring educational history or the best of current practice".
While recognising the shortcomings which still must be tackled, HMI itself has reported:
"Headteachers considered that initial teacher training was responding well to the new demands of the Education Reform Act and subsequent legislation".
However, by contrast, the inspectorate also stressed:
"The provision and effectiveness of induction programmes [on entry to teaching] were very variable…Schools were largely unaware of their new teachers' strengths and weaknesses at the completion of their training…Few primary schools conducted structured classroom observation of the new teacher during induction. Assessment of their performance was largely impressionistic and provided an inadequate basis for identifying their professional needs".
Where is the sense in forcing teacher training away from the adequately performing colleges to the inadequate provisions of our already overburdened and under-resourced schools?
Robin Alexander, Professor of Education at Leeds University, writing in The Times put it very well:
"If one views a teacher as an ask-no-questions technician…then higher education will indeed seem not only irrelevant but also dangerous. But if one sees teaching as a demanding and sophisticated activity, requiring considerable reserves of knowledge, understanding, skill, creativity, and empathy, and if one believes that children in schools, no less than students in universities, need to be challenged by the liveliest minds and keenest imaginations then higher education becomes central to teacher training".
Part II of this wretched Bill is an extraordinary example of Conservative Party conference politics transformed into a disturbing attempt at legislation. It is posturing, dogma, another form of union-bashing. It has received almost unanimous condemnation from vice-chancellors, university finance officers and student unions. This part of the Bill, too, has sinister implications. Robert Jackson, Conservative MP for Wantage and a former Under-Secretary of State responsible for higher education, writing in the Times Educational Supplement stated:
"Proposed legislation on student unions raises basic questions about this Government's commitment to freedom of association and expression and to the freedom of the universities. There is an inconsistency not only with Conservative principles, but also with Britain's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights…The right of student unions to associate within the National Union of Students is a natural consequence of the principle of free association, and a natural exercise of the rights of 'citizenship' ".
Mr. Jackson concludes:
"A university is fundamentally a relationship between teachers and students. Government interference in this area is therefore an invasion of university autonomy in its most fundamental area".
830
The proposals in Clauses 18 to 21 for student unions show a complete lack of understanding of the positive work of such unions. The proposals will undermine proper and reasonable student activity. Whatever the Minister says they will be expensive and unworkable. Once again, in Clause 20, the Secretary of State reserves huge powers to himself and attempts to bypass proper parliamentary scrutiny. Of what is he so frightened? If what the Secretary of State proposes is acceptable, why not put it on the face of the Bill? If it is not acceptable, then Parliament should have a proper opportunity to debate it and if necessary to vote against it.
We do not even have on the face of the Bill a definition of core and non-core areas of funding. The noble Baroness tells us that these are likely to be welfare, internal representation, catering and sport, but we are not allowed to have this spelt out. If the Government had their way, we would not even debate it. Of one thing we can, however, be sure. The intention behind the measure is to exclude anything which could possibly be constructed as "political" activity. How short-sighted can the Government be? Our schools do not prepare our children for democratic citizenship and now our universities are to be denied the opportunity as well. Yet political debate and inquiry are part of a student's wider education and essential to the building of a healthy democracy. The Government pay lip service to the importance of citizenship but do nothing towards educating for it.
It appears possible that any campaigning which can even be remotely interpreted as "political" will. not be permitted to be funded with public funds. So if a student has been attacked in a badly lit alleyway where the lighting is controlled by the local authority and the student union wants to campaign for better street lighting, will that be "political" or "welfare" activity? Who will pay for the typing of the letters from the students' union to the local authority?
Other activities which could not be called political, but which do not come directly within the likely definition of core activities, may also be affected. Affiliation fees to organisations such as the National Postgraduate Committee will be excluded. Financial support for clubs and societies will be reduced or eliminated altogether. That is at least consistent with this Government's attitude that the last thing education should be is fun. Any attempt to define core services by inclusion will inevitably leave out others which are legitimate and valuable. And what is essential in one place may not be so in another.
In any event, as the noble Baroness assured us as recently as this afternoon, so far as core and non-core activities are concerned, it appears that the Secretary of State will allow public money to be spent on non-core activities provided that it is done by the institution and not through the student union. Either the Secretary of State objects to the spending of public money on non-core activities or he does not. The Minister has certainly not convinced me. It is clear that the dual accounting procedures for core and non-core activities will be very expensive and an unnecessary addition to bureaucracy.

831
Other requirements in Clause 21 are just ridiculous. Although holding sabbatical office for more than one year does not happen often, why should it not be possible exceptionally where the student union would benefit from the experience of the person concerned? Should it not be a matter for the students, not for the Government, whether any officer is re-elected? To hold a ballot for every affiliation to an external organisation is probably unworkable. A large student union might affiliate to dozens of external organisations, mostly on behalf of clubs and societies. Is a ballot really necessary to decide whether to affiliate to the National Skating Association of Great Britain? Altogether more serious is the plight of the Open University. A ballot of all Open University students would, I gather, cost more than £50,000. The Government's requirement has so far failed totally to take account of the circumstances of a non-campus body with a membership of some 130,000.
The provisions will do nothing to enhance the life of the students in our universities, now suffering the vicious 10 per cent. cut in grant levels, to be replaced with a further dependency upon loans. They will not help our underfunded, overcrowded institutions of higher and further education. They will not prevent the break-up of British centres of excellence for research.
I greatly regret that so soon we are again faced with an autocratic, blinkered, and altogether flawed measure. Its results will be damaging for the quality of higher education and for the future of the teaching profession in this country. Worst of all, it will cramp the development of the children in our schools and of the students in higher education who together form the life blood of our future.
3.51 p.m.
Earl Russell: Well, my Lords, here we are again. We are debating the Second Reading of the 13th Education Bill in 14 years; we are doing it 41 days after the Third Reading of the previous Education Bill and 37 days from the end of the consultation period. Welcome to the next performance of "The Mousetrap". I admit that the Government have consulted extensively, and I am grateful to them, but it remains to be discovered as we go through Committee whether in the time available they have paid much attention to the results of that consultation. On the Motion that the Bill do now pass on the previous Education Bill, I said that it had taken so much time because we were conducting the consultation process on the Floor of this Chamber. I hope not to have to say that again.
I must declare an interest in this Bill: I am a university teacher in a college whose education department is gravely perturbed about Part I of the Bill and whose student union is naturally entirely opposed to Part II. I also believe that without a strong students' union my own job would be impossible. That is not just because of its contribution to welfare and other activities. It is because in recent months I have been seeing an increasing proportion of students whose very ability to be there at all depends upon the fact that they are employed by the students' union. Were the students' union to cut back on its employment, a number of them
832
would have to go. That could be a disaster. I am also an honorary life member of the University of London Students' Union and of King's College London Students' Union. I am very proud to be a member of both those bodies.
I am not alone in my dismay at the atmosphere of permanent revolution in the education world.
"I have been trying to grapple with making order, sense and purpose out of what can appear, often time after time, to be change after change; initial after initial; and initiative after initiative".
Those are not my words. They are the words of Sir Geoffrey Holland, now Permanent Secretary of the department, whom I should like to congratulate on his appointment as vice-chancellor of the University of Exeter.
We are courteous people in this House. When we look at a Bill, we always try, like the curate, to say that parts of it are excellent. On this occasion I am afraid that I cannot do that. The Liberal Democrats see no need for the legislation in either part of the Bill. If we have the opportunity, we will repeal it. I hope that the party on my left can say the same.
Part I is a nationalisation Bill. We on these Benches do not automatically oppose all nationalisation Bills, but the burden of proof upon those who put one forward is heavy. We do not believe that the Secretary of State has shouldered it. In fact, he has relied heavily upon one misquotation from the Ofsted report entitled The New Teacher in School. If the Minister disputes that, I challenge her to read in full paragraphs 3.4 to 3.6 of that report.
The Minister may say that it is not the Secretary of State but the Teacher Training Agency which will be in control; but, unfortunately, quangos do not enjoy the independence that they did when the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was chairman of the University Grants Committee. If the Minister wants to convince us that the Teacher Training Agency is, as she said, independent of the Secretary of State, she will have to agree to the deletion of Clause 14(1) (b) which provides that the Teacher Training Agency must advise the Secretary of State,
"in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".
That is the muzzle which was first placed upon the Universities Funding Council in 1988. Before the Minister can convince us that the Teacher Training Agency is a watchdog, she will have to take off its muzzle so that it can bark properly.
We on these Benches are chary of a nationalisation Bill which tends to nationalise thought and, therefore, to interfere with academic freedom. The proper qualifications for a teacher are a matter of academic judgment. They are not within the competence of any Secretary of State. I do not believe that he should be meddling with it. Neither is it to be expected that university departments will continue to validate qualifications over which they have practically no control. We on these Benches think, whether by good luck or good management, that the Government have now just about got right the mixture between theory and practice, and there is no case for changing it further.

833
The telltale word "efficiency" is scattered all over the Bill. It leaves room for doubt as to whether schools will he provided with enough money to cover the costs for training teachers. If the Government do meet the true costs, it will be the first time that they have ever done it for anything. There are still those who believe that efficiency is a good thing. If so, they should try travelling on the Central Line. Moreover, schools are faced with performance indicators which force them to give priority to examination results and will tempt them, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested, to treat trainee teachers like pupil teachers of past centuries.
The Minister pointed out that training is a voluntary activity for schools. If they are not paid the rate for the job, they may not do it. Fears of teacher shortages have already been expressed. I share those fears. The Government do not. They never know that they are not paying enough; they never will.
The Bill will also face teachers with an extra workload at a time when the local government settlement is further reducing their numbers. Last Friday at a constituency dinner of my party in the Midlands, I was listening to a teacher who told me that because of staff cuts in her school she had been seeing 500 different children each week. She had retired because of the increased workload and because, in her words, "We are being made to tear down everything we have built up and go back to where we were a hundred years ago". If the Bill becomes law, we shall have more such teachers.
Perhaps what is most extraordinary in the Bill is the proposal for the Teacher Training Agency to take control of educational research. I shall not discuss the capacity of the present Secretary of State to judge educational research for I understand that that subject is now sub judice. However, nothing is for ever, and one day, sooner or later this Government will be out of office. I ask the Government to consider what those powers may mean in the hands of a government of a different political colour, dedicated to conducting a purge. The Liberal Democrats are prepared to come into office committed to reducing our power. That is one reason why we shall commit ourselves to repealing this Bill. I hope that the party on my left will do the same. I was interested in what the Minister said about the clause, and I look forward to exploring in Committee how far the Government may be prepared to retreat. I hope that it will be all the way.
The amputation of educational research from its academic matrix comes at a time when educational research is becoming ever more interdisciplinary. It also prompts the suspicion that, if there is so much doubt about trendy liberal thinking, which branch of research the Government will take control of next. Might it perhaps be theology? Can your Lordships not see Mr. John Selwyn Gummer introducing such a Bill?
The Bill contains no definition of educational research. What is to happen to research in psychology? Will researchers on 15th century chantry schools have to apply to the Teacher Training Agency for funding? Why should all educational research be harnessed to the needs of teacher training? That is a functionalist and barbarian definition of research. It reminds one of Montesquieu's Indian tribesmen who whenever they
834
wanted to eat fruit used to cut down the tree. I am even tempted to Montesquieu's conclusion that this may serve for an emblem of despotic government.
In Part II we turn from a nationalisation Bill to a vandalism Bill. One could say of our institutions of higher education what one of my academic colleagues said of the Church on the death of King Henry VIII; that it resembled a building shifted from its foundations by heavy bombing. Among them student unions were almost the only thing still in good working order. One cannot help wondering whether that is one reason why the Government chose to legislate against them. I understand that after an immense amount of hard work the Conservative Party has discovered some abuses in the student unions. I am not surprised; there are abuses in every institution. There are certainly abuses in government. But when I look at other institutions, compared with any other I can put a name to our student unions are in remarkably good working order.
The National Union of Students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have, as we have already heard, discussed proposals for dealing even with the few things that can be found wrong, relying on the doctrine of ultra vires, conscientious opt-outs and a code of practice. I simply do not believe that since 10th November the Government have had the time to consider those proposals and reach an adequate conclusion on whether they are workable. No Minister likes changing his Bill at the last moment, but those proposals need more thought before we have any legislation on the subject.
The whole of Part II of the Bill is based on a misapprehension. The claim that student unions are a closed shop, which is the heart of the Government's case, rests on an identification between student unions and trade unions. However, as I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, say on many occasions—the case that I have is of 11th November 1990—students have opted out of the labour market. I do not understand how one can opt out of the labour market and have a trade union at the same time. Student unions are not trade unions; they are representative societies. Much the fairer parallel is with inclusion on the electoral register, which in this country is rightly compulsory. In the United States one is allowed to opt out of electoral registration, and that is voluntary. But its elections are a great deal less representative than those in this country. That is the change which the Government propose to introduce, and it is deplorable.
The noble Baroness also defended the proposals on the ground of freedom of choice. She showed an inability typical of modern Conservatism, though not of traditional Conservatism, to recognise the connection between choice and opportunity. She did not understand that it is no use to say that students have the freedom of choice to join the classical society if they have to do so at the price of a square meal. Last Friday I was taken to task for not making enough fuss about student poverty. The noble Baroness, who knows how much fuss I have made already, might take warning from that. The message was not coming from students but from parents. They are parents who are unemployed as a result of the economic policies of this Government, and

835
it is a message which needs to be listened to. We simply cannot talk about running all the societies in universities on voluntary student subscriptions until students have the money to be able to choose whether to subscribe. If that condition is not satisfied they will be societies for the rich only and we shall have yet another decline in the quality of university education.
Those issues are not necessarily unacademic. A number of my students have learnt more about how to write essays from the undergraduate journalism they undertook for London Student than from anything that I had ever taught them, and I was pleased to receive the benefit of that outside experience. If that should diminish, the decline in the quality of education will be considerable.
My noble friend Lord Lester regrets that he is unable to be present today. He is taking part in a Boundary Commission inquiry. I know that the Government do not agree with his opinions that the Bill is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, they might remember that in the last resort the ultimate judgment on that will not be theirs; it will be made in another place and will have to be accepted.
The hub of the Government's proposals in Part II of the Bill is a complex distinction between core and non-core services and a system of cross-charges so Byzantine that it makes the accounting of National Health Service trusts look the model of simplicity. It is the duty of a revising Chamber not merely to discuss but to vote on the details of any such proposal. All we have in the Bill is Clause 20(1) (a) which informs us that public money may be used,
"only for services of such descriptions as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
We are told nothing about the system of cross-charging. Unless we can vote on the details of the proposals, any such suggestion is a contempt of this House as a revising Chamber.
I wish to thank the noble Baroness for the courtesy of allowing us to see the regulations before the Committee stage. That is welcome but it is only a courtesy. A courtesy is not a substitute for political power. My breath was almost taken away when in the next sentence the noble Baroness began to talk about democratic procedure and choice. If student unions are entitled to democratic procedure and to choice, why is this House not entitled to them? This House must be allowed not only to say yes or no to the whole body of the regulations but to judge the details, some of which may be right when others are wrong. If we cannot do that, I do not see what use it is having us here at all. This House does not have very many powers; we all recognise that. But among those that we have, the power to vote on amendments to Bills is the most important. If that is taken away, I do not see what useful purpose we serve.
I should like to make one further observation in reply to what was said in another place yesterday by the Secretary of State. He complained of having a meeting broken up by yobbish students. First, I offer him my sympathy. Secondly, I make him the offer which I have made and kept to the Secretary of State for Social
836
Security that if he should speak at my college I shall attend the meeting and do all that I can personally to guarantee his freedom of speech.
But freedom of speech, like patriotism, is not enough. It is necessary to preserve civilised politics, but there should be a hope of bringing about change by legitimate means. In this country there is a very deep identification in our minds between voting and consent. What we cannot vote on, we find very much harder to consent to.
When I think of that, I think of a letter in The Times in the late 1960s from Gwynfor Evans, the president of Plaid Cymru, which should have a central place in the historical documents of the 1960s. Gwynfor Evans said that all his life he had tried to persuade his colleagues that they should pursue the parliamentary route. He said that he had been elected to Parliament and had tabled over 1,000 Questions on Welsh affairs but nothing had changed; and then a few bombs exploded and a shower of concessions rained down from Whitehall. He said that that made it extremely difficult to go back to Wales and argue that violence did not pay.
If we cannot vote on any important part of the student union issue, it will be extremely difficult for me to go back to my college and tell them that the parliamentary route pays. The consequences of that are something about which I should rather not have to think further.
4.12p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I rise to make a few comments on this bipartite Bill. If what I say is a glimpse of the obvious or an echo of what has already been said in the debate, I assure your Lordships that my remarks will be extremely brief.
On the first part of the Bill dealing with teacher training, I am no expert and I shall leave the debate to those who are. But one cannot help remarking that, as far as I can see, the whole of the teaching profession is opposed to the provisions of the Bill root and branch, as is the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which now represents over 100 universities and colleges.
It appears to me to be odd that this Government, having clobbered the universities and their students in the Budget —no doubt higher education had to take a cut, as did everybody else in this year—they still proceed to introduce this vexatious and harassing Bill.
I turn to the second half of the Bill dealing with the regulation of student unions. There at least I can speak from some personal experience, having had dealings with students and student bodies and their organisations over a period of some 30 years. I admit that my direct experience is confined to two or three institutions. It may be that they are exceptional but I doubt it. I have had a knock-down and drag-out public confrontation with a student union which I enjoyed considerably, perhaps in retrospect because I won a decisive but not overwhelming victory. I have been frustrated by the habit of "inquoracy" in student bodies—"inquoracy" being a word of which I had no previous knowledge. I have been disappointed by the practice of mandation, which has so often prevented student representatives from playing their full part in discussions and in committees.

837
But most of those experiences date back to the 1960s and early 1970s, a period of widespread student unrest and disturbances. My impression, indeed my information, is that generally standards have risen in recent years. However that may be, I have always supported and encouraged moves for representation of students on university bodies and with the few inevitable exceptions, I have found student representatives to be helpful, sensible and co-operative.
Of course there are examples of poor management leading to waste and indebtedness; of extreme or unacceptable political utterances and demonstrations; and of downright bad behaviour. But after all, we go to universities to learn about extra-curricular as well as curricular activities, including politics and administration and how to go about things. One cannot really expect from students and their institutions maturity in dealing with administration and financial management. But I believe that most stand up fairly well. They stand up perhaps better than some prestigious governmental and official bodies have done in the past—no names, no pack drill. Certainly student bodies need supervision, help and guidance which should properly be given and normally is given by the university authorities. They are close to the action. They can react and manage the situation flexibly in all kinds of disputes and difficulties. It is perfectly practical to draw up codes of practice for student unions and their representatives.
I agree with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the provisions of this Bill are "damaging, expensive and unworkable". They are also well calculated to alienate the student population. They show a lack of confidence not only in student unions in general but also in the university authorities themselves. They have a whiff of some type of political correctness about them.
This Government, like their predecessors, pursue a relentless quest for centralised control of our universities in the hands of the Secretary of State, his appointees and their bureaucracies. Now, in the case of teacher training, they are adopting the tactic of divide and rule. They have brushed off what is, as far as I can see, the unanimous and strong opposition of all the parties affected and interested.
As has already been said, we have had a stand-off between the Government and the universities on various aspects of Education Bills in each of the past three Sessions. Now the Government are at it again and in aggravated form. I find that deplorable, and I shall certainly support any proposals which are put forward with the aim of trying to improve the Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, where there has been discord I propose to bring harmony. I have been trying quite hard to think of something which will unite the House this afternoon rather than divide it. I believe that what unites us is an overwhelming feeling of sympathy for my noble friend Lady Blatch who comes before us having, out of duty, to propose to us a Bill which she knows in her heart is rubbish and on which she has no alternative but to read briefs from a department whose character, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us,
838
has just been illuminated by the inability of its Permanent Secretary to stay there a moment longer than he could help.
After all, such a situation is not new for my noble friend. Indeed, the same thing happened yesterday evening, although we were fewer in number, when we discussed the related topic of additional bureaucracy on universities. There, again, at the end of the debate, my noble friend read a departmental brief—quite rightly, as it is part of our convention to do so—which showed that those who had drawn it up had no clue as to what was under discussion, that they did not understand the anxieties of universities and that they were repeating by rote sentiments of either banality or inefficacy—usually both.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, reminded us, we come again to the repetition of an old sop. Again and again, during past Parliaments, we have seen measures taken to limit the autonomy of British universities. This House has occasionally succeeded in removing their worst features and in inserting a protection for university autonomy and academic freedom. We then find that Ministers claim that they were responsible for such a great dedication to academic freedom, forgetting the fact that until it was forced upon them by votes in this House they were totally and utterly opposed to it. They then come back and prove that they were totally and utterly opposed to it by putting forward Bills like the one before us today.
It has already been said that the Bill does two things: first, it removes an important part of higher education from the purview of the higher educational system itself which totally contradicts the movement which we thought was the way in which teacher training would be improved—namely, to link it more closely with other forms of education and training—and to put it under another quango with a set of personal nominees who may or may not be acceptable to the academic community or the teaching profession.
In the second part of the Bill we have an attempted revenge by a group of small-minded young people (some of whom, alas, are in the other place) who, having failed to make an impact on their contemporaries and secure election to student office, have decided to avenge themselves by destroying the institutions which gave them the cold shoulder. There is nothing in it but that; indeed, no one takes seriously the arguments in the brief of my noble friend the Minister.
However, what we have is a very expensive and dangerous way of achieving those aims. In yesterday's debate I ventured to do something which, as I said then, I rarely do; that is, to read the contents of a document to the House. I read a letter from an eminent academic illustrating the folly of the so-called "assessment work" in universities. I have with me today a great deal of material which I could, if time were of no object, read to your Lordships, but noble Lords will be glad to hear that I do not propose to do so.
However, let us suppose that I had proposed to read something. I wonder which of the letters I would have chosen to read. For example, would I have read the letter from the vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford who tells me that the university is extremely upset by

839
both parts of the Bill and that it has no support anywhere in the Oxford academic community? Alternatively, I could have read the very moving graduation address from the vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, at the other end of the kingdom, which says exactly the same thing; or I might have decided that perhaps the student voice should be heard and perhaps read what I thought was an extremely telling and moving letter from the women's officer of the student union of the University of Swansea—you see, my Lords, Wales always comes into it.
All those letters, and many more, illustrate the central point that I should like to make. With many speakers on the list, I think that one point will be enough. By putting forward the Bill the Government have done something which I would have thought was impossible: they have united the entire university community from the most reactionary vice-chancellor to the most Left-wing and "with-it" student in a unanimous objection to everything contained in it. I cannot see how a government can pursue a policy which in the end depends upon the co-operation of the universities to be successful—indeed, even the Secretary of State cannot nominate a quango to run every campus—and at the same time, after a simulacrum of consultation, produce something which universities have told the Secretary of State, and will tell him again, is philosophically outrageous, intellectually disreputable and which, practically speaking, will not work.
I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to inform her colleagues that unless they wish to create a situation of permanent division in this country among the whole of the university community—and they keep priding themselves on the number of people now involved—they would do well to jettison the Bill after we give it the formal Second Reading which, at this stage, is all we can do however much we all dislike and despise it.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, when I was preparing some notes for the debate, I wrote down almost exactly the words with which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, started his speech. I wrote, "Here we go again, with another ill-thought-out and badly drafted Education Bill to add to the avalanche of legislation which the Government have poured on the education system during the past five years". The last Bill, on the inspection of schools, plumbed the depths of imbecility; this one is even worse. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, it is opposed by the whole education system—everyone from top to bottom.
I do not know what kind of world this Government live in. Do they not know what is going on in the education system? Do they not know that the whole system is in near uproar? Do they not know that morale is plummeting? Do they not know about that? Do they not know that teachers and lecturers are seeking early retirement in droves? I really wonder where this Government are living. What kind of government are they? Everything they touch is wrong; and this Bill is wrong. On any assessment it is a bad Bill. However, this
840
lunatic measure, another major irritant which no one wants—a Siamese twin of a Bill—is to be imposed on the education system.
The whole purpose of the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the reasons given by the noble Baroness. I am sorry that she has left the Chamber. The purpose of the Bill is further to concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is what it is all about. It adds to the complete power which he now has over what is taught in our schools, and to the power which he increasingly assumes he has to determine how the curriculum is taught in our schools. It is a Bill to take authority away from the universities and hand it on a plate to the Secretary of State. Cardinal Newman must be turning in his grave.
Both parts of the Bill give the Secretary of State power to make regulations. Indeed, Part II is nothing more than an enabling Bill: it enables the Secretary of State to make regulations. Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State power to impose further functions. I wonder whether your Lordships have seen the number of times the word "impose" is used in the Bill. Clause 13 gives the Secretary of State power to impose functions concerning the qualifications of teachers which are nothing whatever to do with the Secretary of State. Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State power to dictate how public money is spent in student unions.
Clause 8 is, in my view, the most ominous of the lot. It gives the Secretary of State power to make general regulations about the exercise of functions by funding bodies. Frankly, I do not trust the Secretary of State with the power to make general regulations. Where will he obtain advice before making those regulations? He will certainly not get it from staff at the DFE. The one thing they know nothing about is education. They know all about the regulations and they can write beautiful essays for Ministers. But they do not have a clue about what happens in schools and colleges.
Will the Secretary of State obtain advice from the inspectorate? If an inspector turned up at one of the older universities, the university staff would not know what kind of an animal he was as staff in the older universities have never seen an inspector. The inspector would know nothing whatever about student unions. Where, then, will the Secretary of State obtain his advice when he is making all the regulations? He will get it from his cronies in all the little, ultra-right wing so-called education groups which have proliferated under this Government. That is where he will get his advice. Of course he will add to it his own extraordinary "Alice in Wonderland" views. In other words, there will be a purely political impact—perhaps it will not be so pure, that is the wrong word—on teacher training and the running of student unions.
The Bill is a further major onslaught by this Government on the integrity of the whole education system. The object of Part I is to put all or part of teacher training—initial training—into the schools. This is a return to the pupil/teacher system. If noble Lords do not know what that system is they should read a book by D. H. Lawrence, who was a pupil/teacher—I believe it is The Rainbow—where he described his life as a pupil/teacher. The system disappeared at the beginning

841
of this century. Under it pupil/teachers learnt the tricks of the trade. They learnt how to write on the blackboard, stand in front of a class, cast their voices, mark the register and all the mechanics of teaching. That is important, but it is not all important. There is more to good teaching than that.
Some 150 years ago the Church of England realised that there was more to good teaching in their schools than merely the mechanics. So they established teachers' training colleges. Three years ago I attended the 150th anniversary of a Church of England training college. Teachers need to learn about, and be able to discuss, the ideas and methods of great educators of the past; for example, the ideas of Thomas Dewey. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has ever heard of Thomas Dewey. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has ever heard of Thomas Dewey. Thomas Dewey was a great American educator who developed views about the important link between education and democracy.
Teachers in training need to learn about and discuss the philosophy of education and to develop their own rudimentary philosophy of education. They need to learn about and discuss the psychology of education. In my view they need to know something about the history of education in England. I am only sorry that no one in this Government seems to know anything at all about the history of education in England. If they did they would know that they are making exactly the same mistakes as were made in the middle of the last century.
The trouble with this Government is that they do not really believe and recognise that education is a subject in its own right. They do not really believe that there is a sufficient corpus of knowledge to sustain first degrees and other degrees. They have never really accepted that. I wish they would look back a few decades and study some of the speeches of Sir Edward Boyle who in my view was the greatest Conservative Minister of Education this century. In a debate in the other place many years ago I suggested to Sir Edward that he re-christen the teachers' training colleges as colleges of education. He accepted that immediately: he re-named them colleges of education. The Government are going back on that. They do not really believe education is a subject in its own right.
The Bill will give the governing bodies of schools the right to organise courses. Imagine that!They may or may not involve the universities in those courses. In other words, the governing body of an inner city school could organise a course for the training of teachers. Can noble Lords imagine Bet Lynch, Alf Roberts and Audrey, Rita Fairclough, Dierdre Barlow and Mike Baldwin (as the statutory businessman) organising such a course? Yet these worthy people are your typical governing body of an inner city school. These are the people the Government are saying can now organise professional courses for the training of teachers. The Government believe that they are quite right to do that, just as they believe that it is right for the layman to inspect and report on the work of professional teachers. The provision will further set back and discourage the perfectly worthy and desirable aspirations of teachers to
842
be a profession in fact as well as in name, and the aspirations of teachers to achieve some kind of professional autonomy which other professions enjoy.
The teachers of this country will never forgive this Conservative Government for destroying those aspirations. They will never forgive the Conservative Government for depressing their qualifications and for downgrading them. They will never forgive this Government for allowing laymen to organise training courses and to inspect and report on their work. They will never forgive the Government for taking their training out of the mainstream of higher education or for pushing their profession downmarket. That is what the Government are doing. They are pushing the whole teaching profession downmarket.
By the middle of this decade, the effect of the Bill on university education departments will be near-catastrophic. That will adversely affect the supply and training of teachers in the late 1990s. Professor Ted Wragg, the head of the education department at Exeter University, stated in a newspaper article on 2nd December:
"We have all the makings of a disaster. The quality institutions are moving out of teacher training because the Government wants to shoot teacher training into schools".
That is the view of one of the most experienced men in the educational world today.
Part II of the Bill, dealing with student unions, is totally unnecessary. Despite what the noble Baroness said, all that was needed was to qualify the law of charity. That would have put the whole matter right.
In the past month I visited and had a meal in the students' union of a large university with 17,000 students. The way in which that students' union was run is a credit to the good sense of the students. The union, like most other unions, provides a wide range of services—advisory services and even pastoral care. Last evening I attended a carol service in one of the bigger colleges of Durham University. I sang carols with the students. I stayed behind for a mince pie and a talk with many of the students. The principal told me that of the students 400 are involved in community work in or around Durham. As I left I had an overwhelming feeling that our excellent students—they are excellent—deserve a great deal more help and trust than they receive from the Government. The Bill states loud and clear, "We do not trust the student unions. We do not trust the universities. We do not trust the teachers." Perhaps I may associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. I hope very much that noble Lords will amend this paltry, miserable Bill out of existence at Committee stage.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us that we have had 13 Bills in 14 years. I was reminded at that moment of the words of the King of Denmark in Hamlet:
"When sorrows come, they come not single spies, But in batallions".
Some years ago I wrote a book called Chain Reactions. If I had known that the issue would be raised by the noble Earl, I would have brought along a copy. I would then have found that I do not have an English copy but

843
only the Polish, Russian and Chinese translations, and they would not be understood, I am afraid, by the average civil servant today.
However, let me tell noble Lords the conclusions that one can draw from the pattern of frequency of the Bills. It will be only a couple of decades before the number of education Bills per Session will exclude the possibility of any other legislation, which will be a relief to some. That is based on the simple principle that every Bill brought forward is so flawed that it has subsequently to be modified; and therefore each Bill breeds at least one other Bill—and probably more—to change it.
The first part of the Education Bill which we are now discussing neatly exemplifies that principle. Having recently set up Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Wales and Scotland, the Government now propose to detach from the English council—I am sure that it is only a beginning—some of its funding responsibilities, and presumably also corresponding resources, and vest them in the new teacher training agency. That agency will dole out funds to the schools and further and higher education institutions which it deems fit (by what magic we are not told) to deliver teacher training, either alone or in partnership.
The Bill specifies four objectives of the teacher training agency. The first three—to promote teaching as a career, to raise standards and to improve the quality and efficiency of all routes into the teaching profession—are in praise of virtue and against sin. Little else can be said for them. So also is the fourth, which seeks to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes for the initial training of school teachers. But the purpose of the Bill is, of course, to emphasise the latter and to down-pedal the involvement of higher education institutions, which could indeed in some cases be totally excluded from the business of teacher preparation, although the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated at the outset of the debate that that was not the Government's intention. Clause 6 makes clear that the Government's intention is to shift the balance—a word which was used two or three times—more towards the school as the driving force; that is to say, as has been referred to already, that the driving force is school-centred training.
In the past I have been critical of some teacher training courses, especially the Postgraduate Certificate of Education courses, for what I would describe as their "bityness". By that I mean that on some courses there are only short episodes in the classroom. I emphasise that that is a purely personal opinion and that a survey by the newly set-up Office for Standards in Education shows that new teachers and headmasters regard the present arrangements as satisfactory. I have also been, and still am, somewhat attracted by the idea of a graduate being an apprentice—although not in the pupil-teacher sense to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, referred—supervised by an experienced teacher for a considerable period of time, but only because afterwards he will encounter the more theoretical aspects of the course. The point of that
844
sequence is that the pupil then brings the realism of significant practical experience to those more theoretical aspects.
I am therefore predisposed—sympathetic almost—to a part of the intention of the Bill and would not object to some shift in that direction. However, these changes of emphasis can be achieved within the existing structural framework, whereas the Bill throws out the baby with the bath water. By loosening the connection with universities, it will make it more difficult to apply rigorous standards to any qualifications. It will diminish the likelihood of application in the schools of good research findings. It will detach educational research from the support that it can have and now has in a multi-faculty research institution and thereby handicap the application to it of cognate findings in scientific research.
The exact parallel to the government proposal in the Bill in other subjects reveals its absurdity. Why not detach those funds from the funding councils which at present support medical, dental, nursing and so on, teaching and research bodies, abolish the General Medical Council and kindred bodies, and establish teaching agencies in those fields instead? Of course we all know that that would be ridiculous. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will think again in order to keep teacher training in step with the arrangements for all the other major professions and in step with Scotland. Please leave the responsibility for teacher training where it is and ask all the Higher Education Funding Councils in England, Scotland and Wales to have a joint combined teacher training committee which can look again at the problems (if there are problems) of teacher training and then agree to a general teaching council which will give to the profession the status that it needs for England. In doing so, I remind your Lordships that all we have done in the past 29 years is to deprive ourselves of the advantage which Scotland already enjoys.
I now turn to Part II of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that the public money received by governing bodies in higher education institutions, via a funding council or via local authorities and passed on by those governing bodies to student unions is,
"used only for services of such descriptions as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
That is in Clause 20(4) (a). No one in this House, I am sure, objects to the principle of student unions being accountable for public moneys, but the statement which I have quoted is completely vague and open-ended. It will not only be difficult for governing bodies to interpret and apply, but, unless the Secretary of State is prepared to be more responsive to the representations made by those who have to run student unions in colleges, who are "at the sharp end", as the modern idiom puts it, and who actually know and live with the realities of those matters (unlike, it seems to me, those who are aptly housed in Sanctuary Buildings in the Department for Education; an interesting but rather confusing preposition), only confusion, irritation and frustration will ensue. I see that the Minister is not in her usual place. Will she and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State therefore please pay real attention to

845
the views of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the criteria defining "core services", about which we have heard so much and for which the Department for Education says governing bodies would be allowed to pay?
Furthermore, in doing so, will Ministers please bear in mind two other important points? The first is the purely educational damage which will be done if core services are too narrowly drawn in the regulations. If they are based on the discussion document issued in the summer, as we were reminded today, they are currently thought to be only welfare, catering, sport and internal representation. I remind your Lordships that students learn not only from lectures, laboratories, libraries and tutorials but from a range of more active experiences in which they develop their confidence, their articulacy and the organisational skills that are vital both for their careers and, I may say, to their future employers.
If in the future student unions cannot support any clubs except competitive sporting clubs, a wide range of activities which contribute greatly to the quality of education will be imperilled. Many are subject-based societies—for example, law, engineering, medical, history, geography and other societies—not to mention the student clubs which are less disciplinary in their orientation but which also contribute to the development of confidence in students and of particular skills in music, debating and drama societies. In this connection, I note with some relief that a college may "sponsor" such societies. I shall await some explanation. At first sight the notion of public funds handed over to a public body like a university or a college to act as a sponsor for the activities of its students has a strange, if not bizarre, ring.
The second matter concerns the exclusion of external representation from core activities. That seems to me to be at the least unwise because there are many areas in which policies emanating, from government departments—not just education, I may add—affect the lives of students in all universities. If there is to be no provision for co-ordination and taking account of student contributions in all relevant stages of policy formation, then those policies will not take proper account of the detailed realities of student lives and particularly of their finances.
In conclusion, I believe that I have one remaining duty, which is to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that, while the Government set out in detail in Clause 21 the principles of democracy which the Bill would enforce on the student unions, it notably refrains from stating how the Secretary of State's powers should also conform to those eminently desirable principles. I can do no better here than quote the words of that distinguished lawyer, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, whose words the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, refrained from conveying to the House. He is a lawyer, a Queen's Counsel and has vast experience; and this is what he wrote recently:
"The government, although clearly bent on detailed over-regulation, gives not even an outline in the legislation and asks simply in the briefest and broadest of terms, for more and more extensive powers for the Secretary of State. This is particularly serious in regard to the specification of Student Union services which may be supported from money derived from
846
public funds…The Secretary of State may—if he chooses—declare certain types of expenditure by Student Unions to be legal. Everything else will be illegal. Even if the Secretary of State had power to rule things out, rather than rule them in, it would be proper that confirmation should be required by affirmative resolution. As it is, the only restraint available on the Secretary of State is a negative resolution which will rule out something which he was prepared to permit. The Secretary of State has little need to fear such intervention. Indeed he has only to stay silent, and all expenditure of public funds by Student Unions will [remain] illegal".
Therefore, we shall look with great care at the draft regulations which the noble Baroness said would be produced for discussion. I am relieved that the Scrutiny Committee hopes to give its views to the House before the Committee stage.
Nevertheless, despite all that is to be done, I think it will be a very sad day if the Bill goes through without drastic alteration.
4.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, there is a well established custom in the Church that during Lent we should give up some luxury or self indulgence in order to concentrate on a more fundamental purpose. Perhaps I may suggest that what we need is an educational Lent, when we give up the self-indulgence of continuing legislation in order to concentrate on a more fundamental purpose—the quality of education. That is our common aim. We have to ask whether the Bill will help that or whether it is just another bit of administrative fidgeting.
I know enough about gardening to be aware that if you keep uprooting and transplanting your shrubs, they do not grow, they just get sicker. What education needs now is space and stability, a chance to put down roots and grow. I find the Bill quite unnecessary and I should like to give it up for my educational Lent.
First, let me declare a second-hand interest in teacher education. Over 40 per cent. of teachers being educated today are in colleges below the new binary line and many of those colleges are Church colleges. I am advised that of the teachers qualifying at present about 28 per cent.—that is between one-quarter and one-third—are emerging from Church colleges—Anglican, Roman Catholic and Free Church. I have no formal connection with any of the colleges, but as Chairman of the Church of England Board of Education I have a concern for their present work, and even more so for their future.
I want to say, therefore, that if there are criticisms of the current education of teachers, the Church colleges stand ready to hear those criticisms and to change accordingly.
What are the criticisms? The Government paper on the reform of initial teacher training which preceded the Bill quotes Ofsted as saying that,
"around a third of lessons taken by new entrants into the profession were unsatisfactory".
That puzzles me. My copy of The New Teacher in School, published by Ofsted this year, states on page 25 that in 1992,
"The majority of headteachers considered the new teachers to have been adequately prepared for their first teaching post(94 per cent. of secondary and 91 per cent. of primary heads)".

847
HMI was more critical than the head teachers. It said that 81 per cent. of new teachers were judged to be at least satisfactorily equipped for their current post. That report goes on to make reasoned criticisms. But many of the criticisms of teacher education are not criticisms of the colleges that are educating the teachers but of the schools to which the teachers go. Schools, says the Ofsted report, take too little account of teachers' expertise; are not accurately enough targeting their induction courses; and do not adequately monitor the classroom performance of new teachers. So the Ofsted report indicates that HMI is satisfied with 81 per cent. of new teachers. It quite properly looks for further improvement, but among the weaknesses it notes the schools' handling of new teachers at least as much, if not more, than the colleges' education of those teachers. Where then is the evidence for the need to change the system, and in particular to change it in the direction of more school-centred training?
The education of teachers is not impeccable and beyond criticism. If there are weaknesses, improvements to be made and new ideas to be tested, let us tackle them. But, as yet, I do not see the evidence for changing the whole system, amending the Further and Higher Education Act which was passed only two years ago, setting up new school-centred training when it is too soon to evaluate the recent experiments in that direction and no evidence that schools can offer anything more or better than what is being provided by the colleges that are already doing the job.
Perhaps I may illustrate the enterprise shown by some of the established colleges of education. The teacher training strand in the Church colleges has pioneered the Urban Learning Foundation, giving student teachers experience of schools in the east end of London. Over 3000 students, nearly all of them student teachers, have now done courses at the Urban Learning Foundation. Student teachers there experience innercity schools, take part in community projects and work alongside other students, including those training for the ordained ministry. Fifty new teachers who have recently started work in the London Borough of Newham have been through the Urban Learning Foundation. That experience was what led them to return to that deprived area of Newham. The Secretary of State opened the new buildings last year and commended that initiative. It is an example of the Church higher education colleges ensuring imaginative school-based training. Such ventures will become far less secure, and may even be less possible, if potential students are diverted away from colleges to other patterns of training.
It is significant that the Government paper and the Bill refer virtually throughout to teacher training and not to teacher education. The assumption appears to be that teaching is a technique, a trade, for imparting curriculum knowledge into helmeted skulls. But education is not the transferring of knowledge, important though that is. Education is promoting the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and in society. For that we need not just trained teachers, but educated people. To separate teacher education from other higher education
848
is to deprive student teachers of the opportunity of interaction with people in other disciplines; it makes more difficult access to libraries and other facilities of higher education; and it might even make teaching seem a non-academic profession.
The Bill makes provision for school centred training of teachers. Nearly all teacher education is school based; but should it be school centred? Schools are there to educate young people; they are not primarily institutions for training teachers. Is there, for instance, any evidence that parents—we know the importance of parental choice—will want their children to be taught by trainee teachers rather than by qualified ones? I recall, following the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that in the mid-19th century at the time the Church was struggling to find the finance to set up its new teacher training colleges, some school-centred training of teachers had to be retained because the Church could not find the money to educate all its teachers in colleges. The teachers doing the short school-centred courses were in 1858 called "the teachers of an humble order". Perhaps we need to re-read our history.
The teacher training agency is to have responsibility for establishing and maintaining a balance between school centred training and the higher education of teachers. But what is that balance? It is not defined. What criteria are to be used? If this quango is to have that power, then the Churches, which are at present responsible for educating over one-quarter of the teachers, will wish to be consulted, if not represented, and I plan to table amendments accordingly.
Another unsatisfactory element of these proposals will be the complex funding for those colleges which are educating teachers alongside others. Their funding, often for students attending the same lectures, will now come in part from the Higher Education Funding Council and in part from the teacher training agency. That must mean more complex administration and so more bureaucracy.
The most significant part of this Bill deals with the provision of teachers, but I must touch on the secondary part of the Bill dealing with student unions. Let us recognise that there are horror stories from the past. The National Union of Students has not always served its own cause well. But the evidence is that the worst is past, and student unions at colleges, including further education colleges and universities, are now generally acknowledged to be serving a healthy and constructive purpose, even if, like governments, they sometimes get some things wrong. To try to control student unions by regulations from the Secretary of State is heavy-handed to an extent which invites the invention of new metaphors. I am getting rather tired of "a steam hammer to crack a nut". Perhaps we ought to think whether this is "a juggernaut being used to transplant a pansy". Or would it be better to say, "a pest controller being brought in to swat a wasp".
If the Secretary of State issues regulations as he has indicated, he needs to be reminded that he will be adversely affecting religious, cultural and, in a measure, welfare activities, because many organisations sponsored and supported by student unions cover all those activities. At the same time he will be restricting the

849
freedom of student unions to represent their needs to landlords, the police, local authorities and banks. And all those ministerial regulations are to be created by a Government who keep telling us that they want less legislation and seek deregulation. Even so, my concerns about the proposals for the reform of student unions are modest compared with my deep anxiety about the proposals for teacher education.
If it is not already clear, I am no enthusiast for this Bill. I think that we might with profit give it up. But if we are to press ahead with it, surely we can improve it. I am encouraged to see that there is the intention to maintain the denominational interests. I am grateful for that. I for one am ready to see some opening up of ways into the teaching profession. The Churches have always indicated their readiness to work with the government of the day and they do not wish just to be obstructive. But I cannot conceal that the comments and advice that I have received from my colleagues in the Church of England and other Churches are all quite clear in saying that this is an unnecessary Bill.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Beloff, I rise to strike a note of discord and upset the pattern of harmony that has so far prevailed. I wish to speak in broad support of the objectives underlying the Bill. I must begin by apologising to the House. I am afraid that I shall not be able to remain in my place for the whole of the debate because I have a longstanding commitment to host a dinner. I shall return as quickly as I can and I shall certainly be here for the winding-up.
I believe that there is a genuine case for the Bill. The need for the proposed changes in teacher education has been demonstrated by evidence of longstanding and serious deficiencies in the preparation of many teachers, which is reflected in inadequate practice in too many of our schools. The proposals to change the arrangements concerning the funding of student unions are a response to a very real history of the abuse of public funds by student unions in some universities and colleges. The right reverend Prelate called them horror stories, and they were indeed horror stories for many of us. If it had not been for those problems, there would be no need for this Bill. But the problems exist; hence there is a need to remedy them, although I cannot go all the way with the details of the proposed legislation.
First I must declare an interest. I have the privilege of being Chancellor of one of the new universities, Bournemouth University. I have great admiration and respect for the achievements of that institution. It has evolved through polytechnic status to become a popular university, growing in size and stature every year and offering excellent courses, especially in vocational disciplines. That could not have happened without the commitment and co-operation of everyone concerned: the university board, the vice-chancellor and his staff, and a very responsible student body. Therefore I turn first to that aspect of the Bill which is concerned with student unions.
I admire the students' union at Bournemouth, being familiar with its activities now and previously when I was a governor of what was then the Bournemouth
850
Polytechnic. The students have always been meticulous in their use of funds. They make very valuable contributions to the life of the institution and to the wider community in this country and abroad. I am particularly impressed by the maturity of their initiatives in the field of charitable work. Therefore I listen carefully to their views as a response from a sector of the student population which I regard as a relevant touchstone for assessing the proposals in this Bill.
But first let me make a contrast with my earlier experiences of student union activities of a far less happy kind, when I was head of department at the Polytechnic of North London. Abuses by that student union threatened the very values on which academies should be based. Unless there is a recognition that those problems were serious, that they could recur and that there is a danger that they might do so, then those who suffer will be the responsible students for whom I have so much respect. With great courtesy, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who is not in his seat, when he said that one did not always expect students to be responsible. Why not? Student nurses of exactly the same age are responsible for the life and death of patients. I do not see why irresponsibility should be condoned anywhere in the university sector among students.
It is not inappropriate to recall the behaviour of the students' union with which I had direct familiarity. It was typical of many highly politicised unions. The behaviour of that students' union included support for the IRA and expenditure of union funds, which are public money, on blatantly political causes. The polytechnic funded seven full-time sabbatical student union officers, the majority of whom supported the Communist Party or were further Left. They spent most of their time on manifestly political activities inside and outside the polytechnic, creating disruption and promoting "occupations" which often brought the institution to a virtual standstill.
The people worst affected were the majority of responsible hard-working students, many of whom were mature students. They were infuriated to see their contributions to union funds being spent in ways destructive of the purposes of their academic institution. But they were powerless to change the situation. Like them, I sat through interminable student union meetings. Anyone who dared to challenge the Far Left hegemony was shouted down, intimidated and threatened, while political activists filibustered for hours. Then, after a vote had eventually been taken, perhaps at midnight, and most of the responsible students had returned home to their neglected studies, those political activists cynically overturned votes relating to the election of student union officers or the use of funds in favour of their own political agendas.
That trip down memory lane is not irrelevant. As recently as last year there were reportedly problems on some campuses, still concerning political abuse of funds and threats to freedom of speech—freedom of speech which should be at the heart of the values of an academy. Thus, the legislation before us is not anachronistic. But, as many Members of your

851
Lordships' House so fiercely oppose it, I wish to offer the constructive views of one university senate and the students' union of that university.
Bournemouth University Senate discussed the proposals of the Bill last Wednesday. The president of the students' union expressed deep concern over the proposed fundamental changes which resulted from the distinction between core and non-core activities. Although, as my noble friend said, four core services are envisaged—internal representation, welfare, sports and catering—other, often academically related, clubs and societies are not included. That omission is deemed to be unacceptable because those services form an important aspect of student experience. Therefore it is hoped that amendments will be moved which might allow them to be included, especially those involving cultural and communal activities. It was also clear that the increase in bureaucratic procedures resulting from those distinctions would be time-consuming and might possibly be unworkable.
The vice-chancellor stated that the operation of the students' union at that university was entirely satisfactory and there was little or no need for change at that university, although experiences elsewhere might make some changes appropriate, broadly as proposed. It was also felt that the university board should be the locus for any controls necessary to ensure the union's compliance with a national code of practice, including an audit of moneys received from public funding. Finally, it was pointed out that the union is not solely dependent on public funding and should be encouraged to engage in appropriate income-generating activities, which could lead to greater flexibility in the ways in which such income could be used by the union. But overall it was felt that, with suitable amendment, the legislation would allow the union to continue to operate without problems. However, the senate felt strongly that the essential and valuable services provided by the union would be seriously curtailed by the proposed reforms and that an amendment is needed to allow appropriate cultural and communal societies to be included with the core activities. Overall it was felt that the Bill was not the disaster that has been described this afternoon in your Lordships' House.
I turn to the proposals for reform of initial teacher training. It would have been so good to have been able to apply that old maxim, "If it works, don't fix it". But, sadly, there has been too much evidence in recent years that all is not well in many of our schools. I pay tribute to the many good schools and dedicated teachers who serve their pupils very well. But research has shown that far too many young people are under-achieving to a very serious degree. Research of various kinds has been undertaken and I shall give just four examples.
First, there have been research and reports on the quality of education in particular schools, such as last month's disturbing report by Ofsted, Access and Achievement in Urban Education. Referring to primary schools it states:
'The outcomes for many children were levels of attainment below their ability levels and which did not provide a satisfactory foundation for their experience in secondary schools".
852
Secondly, there is comparative research showing differences between schools. Our own work with the National Council for Educational Standards, Tomlinson's The School Effect and Rutter's 15,000 Hours all show that some schools give their pupils a much better or much worse start in life than other schools of the same kind in similar or even the same areas. Recent work by John Marks shows differences increasing and some schools with as many as 30 to 40 per cent. of pupils leaving with no GCSEs at all. Differences cannot be attributed to intakes or resources but largely to the leadership of head teachers and the quality of teaching.
Thirdly, research on key aspects of attainment such as reading or mathematics, and on truancy—work by Martin Turner—shows an alarming decline in the number of seven year-olds able to read; and research by Denis O'Keeffe and Patricia Stoll highlights serious problems with truancy in many schools associated with dislike of, or boredom with, lessons. How can we be so complacent? The decline in the number of seven year-olds able to read is a stunting of educational opportunity if ever there was one.
Fourthly, international comparisons show that too many of our young people are under-educated compared with those in other countries. Research by Professor Prais of NIESR found the great majority of British 16 year-olds two years behind German counterparts; and a report recently published in Canada shows Britain disturbingly low in the league of international comparison in mathematical attainment.
Those examples of research—I could mention many more—highlight the sad fact that all is not well in many of our schools. I do not impute malign motives to the teachers; many are dedicated and trying hard to do their best in difficult circumstances. But often they have been failed by their teacher training courses and are ill-equipped for the realities of the classroom or to impart the knowledge necessary for subject teaching.
The decline in reading by seven year-olds occurred alongside a shift in educational orthodoxy and teacher training away from teaching children to read phonetically to the so-called "real books" method, which involves a form of guesswork. It deliberately eschews the logical understanding of the structure of sounds and words. I saw the disastrous effects in my own family, with young children confused, alienated and frustrated by that approach to reading. I saw them subsequently flourish when they were offered an alternative approach—the traditional way of learning to read. But that traditional approach is not available in many state primary schools and many secondary schools are reporting serious reading deficiencies in 11 year-old pupil intakes, which inevitably hamper their progress in secondary education.
An article by a head teacher in this week's Sunday Times highlights those problems and claims:
"It certainly appears from our records that the primary education system in Lambeth is failing a considerable number of our young people".
This serious situation cannot be unconnected with current teacher education courses which leave their graduate teachers too often sorely ill-equipped to help

853
their pupils to learn to read—a point made by research published by the NFER. Similar problems occur in other key subjects such as mathematics. Hence the need for improvements in teacher education.
One way in which improvements may be achieved is by closer contact during training with the real world of schools. Thus I believe that the increasing involvement of schools in the education of student teachers and the increased focus on competencies in accreditation provided by recent legislation are to be warmly welcomed. The opportunities provided by recent legislation, with the articled and licensed teacher training schemes, were welcomed by many mature students coming into teaching with different kinds of valuable life experience, whether in the form of parenting or other careers. Present proposals should enhance those opportunities provided that the schools involved are good schools, capable of giving a good apprenticeship experience —I am a great believer in apprenticeship learning—and provided that they are financially enabled to undertake those responsibilities.
As I conclude I should like to point out that, among the voluminous briefing from vested interests in the educational establishment inveighing against the Bill, I came across a paper from the Teacher Education Alliance claiming that the,
"Government has provided neither arguments nor evidence as to why teacher education is being treated as so conspicuous a special case".
Evidence, sadly, abounds to indicate that too many young people are being betrayed by the education system, especially those from the ethnic minorities and/or the least financially well off who cannot afford the solutions and the ways out available to the more affluent.
Many dedicated, able people are choosing teaching as a career. Many are doing the best they can for their pupils. But many of them agree that they are suffering from inadequate preparation for the reality of the classroom and/or the demands of teaching their subjects. If this Bill can help to bridge the gap between theory and practice, university and school, ideology and reality, educational so-called orthodoxy and real educational attainment, it deserves support, possibly with some modification. I hope that it will receive such support in your Lordships' House.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. With regard to colleges it appeared that the noble Baroness undermined her case by telling us how excellent Bournemouth is, and I am sure that we all accept that. We are sorry for the horrendous experience she suffered at the North London college, and I shall return to that in a moment. The noble Baroness properly said that the experiences she underwent there owed more to communist totalitarian approaches of students in that college than to anything else. But that cannot be the universal experience throughout the country and hardly justifies this measure.
Likewise, when the noble Baroness told us that most of the teaching in our primary schools was unfortunately
854
inadequate, it was rather illogical then to suggest that the solution was to bring teacher trainees into the schools to be subjected to the conditions that she felt were inadequate. That appears to be a contradiction in terms.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I made a distinction. Several times I said that there are many good schools. I said that when the apprenticeship system comes into play, it must be in good schools, which must be adequately supported to do it.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we all accept that, but we want to know where the good and bad schools are. We should not approach the matter with vague generalisations, which, with great respect to the noble Baroness, she did. I can find only one good word to say about this measure, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, today: in relation to the funds, thank goodness, sport is to be regarded as a proper core subject. But even then the noble Baroness did not say "sport and recreation"; no distinction was made. I am therefore under the impression that people in the Department for Education do not understand the difference. No doubt we can return to that later.
I want to take advantage of the normal procedures of Parliament which allow us on Second Reading to wax far and wide in what we wish to say. I start by looking at the personality of the Secretary of State for Education and the totally unbalanced and vindictive statements he continually makes in regard to the great city of Birmingham, from which I hail and which I represented in the other place for 40 years. The most modest description I can find for the Secretary of State is that he is a man becoming totally obsessed and unbalanced whenever he looks at provision in Birmingham. His remarks border on the malicious.
I shall give only two examples and I hope that the noble Baroness will have a word with him on the matter. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who spoke earlier, that the Bill and much of what is going on owe less to the noble Baroness—at least I hope so—than to the Secretary of State for Education. I hope therefore that she can persuade him to pack it all up.
The Secretary of State continues to say that Birmingham is spending all its education money on great prestige projects like the international convention centre. He has said it several times. He said it in another place quite recently. There is not one word of truth in that. The money that Birmingham has spent on its international convention centre came from two sources. Thank goodness, it did spend the money, perhaps the noble Baroness will kindly tell the Secretary of State for Education, because had it not done so the Prime Minister would not have been able to take the European heads of government there when the Government desperately needed to find a place to hold the last European heads of government conference in this country.
The first source was the private company set up with the National Exhibition Centre, which is a partnership between the City of Birmingham and the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. It follows the best principles of

855
government practice—a partnership between a municipality and private enterprise. The partnership raised most of the money. The other £50 million came exclusively from the European Community. The international convention centre did not receive one penny of education money or even ratepayers' money. It was set up in the way that I have described. So will the Secretary of State please stop libelling the City of Birmingham? I know that he is libelling other people such as our chief education officer. I cannot deal with that properly because it will come before the courts. It is sub judice. But at least we have to tell him to stop libelling or slandering the corporate body.
The other thing he continually says is that Birmingham is underspending on its education assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, nods her head in agreement. It is not underspending at all except to the extent that the Government are refusing to give Birmingham the money to spend which the Department for Education says that it ought to be given. For example, our education budget this year is £412 million. The standard spending assessment is £446 million. So the underspend is £34.8 million and it is caused directly by the actions of the Department for Education. No other money is available under the standard spending assessment to be transferred to other committees and departments in Birmingham because the Birmingham budget is in line with the assessment. I shall not bore the House by going through all the figures I have with me. I took the precaution of getting them this morning. They are of course available to the noble Baroness.
Why do not education Ministers come to Birmingham to visit local authority schools? I do not think the Secretary of State has ever visited one. He came to a grant-maintained school in my constituency and did not even have the courtesy, which is normal, to tell me as the then Member of Parliament that he was coming. He refused to talk to the local education authority, although it had written to ask him to do so, and he continues to make these completely inaccurate and damaging statements. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness and to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that they would be very welcome.
Education provision in Birmingham was established by Joseph Chamberlain, who before he came into national politics was chairman of the school board and built the whole of his reputation on developing the education system in Birmingham. The system has been based on agreement between the parties. The one great thing about Birmingham which cannot be said for any other city is that in all the main aspects of life —what I call in my autobiography, if I may refer to it, the Birmingham tradition—we have done things on a bipartisan basis. I have in mind the National Exhibition Centre, the international convention centre and our educational foundation, which was built up by people such as Martineau and Kendrick—great Conservative names. I had the privilege of sitting at their feet when I was a young man entering Birmingham City Council. It was all done on a bipartisan basis. That has now gone. I beg the Government to try to get back to it again
856
because it is out of such discussions and disagreements—no doubt honest disagreements—that we can sort out the facts and move forward.
Having said what I had to say about Birmingham, I move on to what I believe is a desperate omission from the Bill. If we are to have another Education Bill, for goodness sake let it be about nursery education, which is an area of most desperate need. Almost before reports are before us urging the importance of education, the Secretary of State is denouncing these proposals and these ideas. We all know about the report of the Rumbold Committee, which ought to find favour with this Government, and about the practicalities on the ground. I could weary the House again with quotation after quotation from the Department of Health about the importance of nursery education.
I want to look for a moment at women's participation in education and the development of one-parent families. I am sure that the noble Baroness shares with the rest of us a concern that, as more and more women go out to work, their children should be adequately provided for. Nursery education is vital. The figures I have before me show that in 1985, 35 per cent. of female lone parents went out to work; in 1987 the figure had risen to 43 per cent.; and it is still rising now. If we are concerned about education and performance in our primary and secondary schools, and even more importantly, about the deficiencies in nursery education leading onto problems in later life, we have to move over and try to provide at least 80 per cent. of such children with the benefit of some nursery education.
Local education authorities are being constrained all the time. Nursery education is the foundation of civilised life in this country. Its absence is the root of so much evil in society later on. More and more children are living in one-parent families. The figure will soon be 50 per cent. of all children. There is a dilemma for the Government. We all want to give those ladies the opportunity to go to work. I am of the old fashioned school which believes, without wanting to tie women down to the kitchen, that where mothers are ever present in the household for their children that has a beneficial effect on the lives of their children. If women are to be allowed to go out to work—and they certainly should be—there is an obligation on the state and on local authorities to provide for the education of those children. We are getting the worst of all worlds at the moment.
I have taken longer to speak than I thought I would. I have not said much about the Bill, except that I am pleased that it acknowledges sport. I support the general view. I do not think there is evidence these days of widespread wrong-doing by student unions. I accept the view that the co-operation of student unions should be sought to get them involved in the government of their universities and colleges. That is essential. I certainly believe that schools are a place primarily to teach children and not teachers, although some regard must obviously be paid to the need for teacher trainees to have school experience.
Finally, I beg the Government to take note of the overwhelming opposition throughout the land. If the Government ever listen to anything they will take back

857
the Bill and think again. That would be a great signal throughout the country that they are a listening government and not one based on the principles of Stalinism, as my noble friend Lord Judd said from the Front Bench.
This is a most centralist government. I spent my early years in the trade union movement trying to rebuff the effects of communism in the country and in the trade union movement. We are well aware of tactics such as those which the noble Baroness addressed. I spent years looking at the effects of what was then called the Comintern and how it was trying to spread its pernicious totalitarian influence around the world. I am sorry to say that this Government, with all these powerful regulations in the hands of the Secretary of State, are trying to create an educational Comintern in this country which in the end will bring about the destruction of this Government just as the Comintern itself has, thank God, brought about the destruction of communism throughout the world.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this Bill has not commanded a great deal of support in the House. Indeed, the only other speaker who had a great deal to say in support of it is the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is not now in her seat. Then she proceeded to attack one of the fundamental parts of the Bill; namely, the second part. She did so by saying that the core subjects about student union activity were far too narrowly drawn.
If one attacks the second part of the Bill when one comes to the core subjects, one is attacking the second part of the Bill. There is no way in which one can really justify the idea of having certain areas excluded, but be in favour of that part of the Bill. The Minister is in favour of the core of the Bill and one of her colleagues supports her on half of it. I shall not be dissenting from the majority on this.
As regards the first part of the Bill, other noble Lords with greater expertise than I have spoken about it at considerable length. I shall not add to that. When the Bill comes before noble Lords at later stages I shall try to encourage them to write into the Bill certain provisions about special educational needs and training and the great number of problems which arise. We should try to put into the Bill provisions in that regard. If there is anything to he gained from a piece of legislation we should try to inject such provisions into it.
My main anxiety about this Bill concerns its second part. I have been a student more recently than most noble Lords in this House. I left in 1988. The students' union fulfilled a function that was primarily built around the social qualities. It was able to help with matters such as welfare; for example, it dealt with such things as running housing for people. People attended the social gatherings and thus they had a centre in the students' union. The regulations, as we have been led to believe and expect, will remove that social function from the Bill apart from the area of sport. As the noble Lord, Lord
858
Howell, mentioned, sport is included and I am very pleased to see that. However, there is no definition of the difference between sport and recreation.
When I spoke about this matter during the debate on the gracious Speech, I suggested to noble Lords that there was no point at which one could separate recreation from sport and recreation from such activities as drama. Dance is a part of drama on its own. One needs recreation and gym facilities to be able to dance. Thus one has an area where confusion seems to be have been generated by the discussion document.
It was also suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that we might be able to reform that situation by tabling amendments, but we cannot. We are dealing with a regulation. Therefore, the major problem with this half of the Bill is something which we cannot address because we have no power to do so. We are in a very awkward situation.
Perhaps I may now bring up one of the great bugbears to which the noble Baroness referred. It is a pity that she is unable to be in her seat at the moment. I refer to the problem of political bias which has long been an accusation levelled against students' unions throughout the country. I believe there is one thing that can be safely said about this matter: it was always certain students' unions at certain times which had a very bad reputation for heavy political bias. It was not all of the unions at any time. I hate to have to point this out, but most of the people who were causing trouble 10 years ago at X university or X polytechnic will have left by now. Are we to re-declare war on Germany because of the Blitz? There is no point in carrying on with that attitude. The unions have changed; culture has changed and fashion has changed.
There is one aspect of Part II of the Bill which shows how badly it has been thought out. Despite the fact that sport is included—or it is suggested that we shall find it in the regulations as one of the core areas of activity—there is also the fact that if in joining an outside body you must annually, by secret ballot, decide whether to join that outside body. How on earth does one play sport in this country without being a member of an outside body? The Rugby Union, Football Association, the Rugby League and all the other bodies involved are outside bodies. It is necessary to be a member of all of those bodies unless competing totally internally, without regulation. In other words, that denies competition because without being part of a national body it is not possible to compete.
We have all finally buried the idea of non-competitive sport, but the proposal is to go through this, bureaucratic procedure of taking a vote on all such activities. What happens if one does not manage to secure a quorum when deciding whether the table tennis team should join its national association? I suggest that there are one or two issues here which do not knit together properly.
Finally, I make one last plea to the Government. Everyone who has been involved with this Bill has said that, so far, the second part of it is overly restrictive. It seems to try to strangle all the good things about student activities. It will effectively place restrictions on all beneficial activities. We have already heard something

859
about the tremendous amount of charitable work which is done by the students' unions. It is not welfare work, but part of the social side and the running of events.
Students do not have great opportunities or as much individual choice, when it comes to social activity, because they do not have good funding. Students who do not find paid employment during the summer vacation will be restricted to an income of under £60 a week outside London. Generally speaking, that is less than can be expected if a student is living on benefit. That applies normally to a student under the age of 25.
With that amount of money at the student's disposal, he will need subsidised activity to be able to take part in all the functions which traditionally go with being a student. As long as we are still suggesting that students should not be home-based and should go away into a new community, as the vast majority of students in this country do in higher education, we shall have to find somewhere which is supportive. The students' unions do it effectively. Everybody involved, including the NUS, has said that the problem of political bias is one that should be addressed. The NUS has proposed that they adopt charitable status and therefore are barred from taking part in overt political activity. However, they would still be able to campaign on student issues. I believe we would agree that students should be able to campaign on certain aspects which directly affect them. That is not totally beyond the pale of reasonableness.
Will the Government please look at the second part of this Bill in particular? Will they give us something to really discuss and move some amendments towards bringing these regulations into the Bill if we are to discuss it at all meaningfully? Will they make sure that they approach this Bill from the point of view of what the students' unions are really meant to do—that is to say, to look after students' interests in a wide variety of spheres, predominantly the social sphere, which enables them to have contact and to do the other good work which the Government themselves have recognised?
5.49 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, indicated, I have been privileged in the past two years to chair the Paul Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. Our report was published on 15th November. I hope that we shall be able to debate its conclusions and recommendations in early 1994. In the meantime I express my thanks to those noble Lords who commented on it during the debate on the gracious Speech. Copies of the report, entitled Learning to Succeed, have been lodged in the Printed Paper Office. I wish to highlight some of our proposals as they relate to teacher training. They are of direct relevance to the Bill before the House.
I want, however, to make an important preliminary point. The commission which I was privileged to chair took a totally independent, apolitical stance throughout its deliberations. I would therefore vehemently reject the comment in one national newspaper which, in a leading article, commended many of our proposals but went on to say that others represented the full agenda of the Left. I did not inquire about the political affiliations of my
860
fellow commissioners although I knew that three of them supported the Labour Party. I am equally certain that at least three —probably more—were staunch supporters of the Conservative Party and that others were Liberal Democrats. Our commissioners included teachers from England, Scotland and Wales in primary, secondary, higher and further education, but also three industrialists, an economist and a Queen's Counsel. I leave it to your Lordships on examining our report to judge our independence.
I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that if she examines the report in detail, she will find in it many more detailed statistics, some confirming what she said, but some supporting a different view. In particular, I draw to her attention the statistics which we produced showing that nowadays in our inner cities more young people from the ethnic minorities stay on into her higher and further education than, for example, do young white males.
Of course, we had disagreements. But we were able in the end to achieve a complete consensus. It is our belief that the conclusions we draw and the recommendations we promulgate will have to be followed by the present and future governments, of whatever political affiliation, if, by the end of this century and the first decade of the next, we are to offer our people education at all levels and training of the quality they deserve, enabling them and society at large to capitalise fully upon their individual talents.
I and my fellow commissioners fully acknowledge that all is not well in education and training in the United Kingdom today, although we also acknowledge that in several respects, notably through the introduction of a national curriculum and through improved access to higher and further education, there have been significant improvements in some sectors of late. I must also say that I personally acknowledge the fact that the legacy of the so-called "swinging sixties" with concentration upon a laissez-faire and undisciplined attitude towards education, perhaps with an excessive concentration upon child-centred learning, harmed educational standards.
I also wholly accept that the teaching provided by a minority of the teaching profession, coloured by their personal allegiance to the politics of the extreme Left or the extreme Right, did substantial damage, and that some local education authorities have in the past encouraged and even promoted such trends. The recent Ofsted report has shown that there is still too much unsatisfactory teaching, although much is satisfactory or excellent.
It is also plain that some of the teaching unions in their public posturing, particularly at annual conferences, have portrayed an unfortunate public image, as too have some student unions in our institutions of higher education, particularly the unacceptable behaviour of a small minority and their financial and vocal support for outlandish or extreme political causes.
I am aware that in some higher education institutions concerned with teacher training, there may have been an excessive concentration on topics such as sociology and psychology which, although important in teacher training, should never have been allowed to dominate

861
the curriculum to the exclusion of providing a thorough grounding in, for example, mathematics, the sciences, the arts and the humanities and, perhaps above all, classroom technique. We must also acknowledge that some societal trends, including lack of discipline, family breakdown, with consequential impaired parental guidance, and many other factors have contributed to an anti-education ethos, especially in some parts of our inner cities. Research evidence clearly indicates that universal, good quality nursery education would help in that respect, but much more needs to be done.
But while I personally deplore the strident, confrontational attitude at times adopted by some teaching unions, the present Government must in my view share some of the blame. The imposition of excessively complicated testing programmes for seven, 11 and 14 year-olds without proper consultation with the teaching profession (despite protestations to the contrary) inevitably provoked strenuous opposition from a largely dedicated profession which found itself overloaded. Thank goodness for Sir Ron Dearing and for his sensible proposals for change which we in the commission found generally acceptable and workable. I am sad to say that the Department for Education seems to have succeeded in provoking the bitter antagonism of the Headmasters' Conference and of the Girls' Schools Association. It should surely re-think its policy and enter into constructive debate and consultation with the teaching profession before issuing further diktats which can do little other than to add fuel to the flames.
The same considerations apply to the relationship between the Government and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Very many of those knowledgeable about, and involved in, education at all levels in the UK have expressed powerful opposition to the Bill which we are debating today and which I must confess I find deeply flawed —a word I still find useful despite the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, in yesterday's Times.
I do not propose to labour the recommendations in our commission report relating to teacher training as that would occupy too much of your Lordships' time. We do, however, stress the crucial importance of maintaining an all-graduate profession if standards are not to slip and, even more so, if they are to improve. At the same time we acknowledge the important role that can be played by classroom assistants assuming some of the inappropriate tasks which at present engage too much of teachers' time.
We support also an increased concentration on teaching within schools, provided that the teacher supervisors or mentors have the appropriate experience and receive the training needed to enable them to fulfil the task. But we are wholly satisfied that such a programme can only be properly established in partnership between a higher education institution on the one hand and a carefully selected cohort of schools on the other. The system is already developing in many parts of the country and will surely continue to evolve, but I was, however, horrified to find in Clause 11(1) (a) the suggestion that a school alone might provide courses of initial training for teachers. Surely the Government cannot be serious. In my profession of medicine, doctors
862
are required to undertake a pre-registration year after graduation and provisional registration. In that year, under the supervision of consultants, they learn by doing. Such an internship mechanism adapted to the needs of education is wholly appropriate in teacher training, but the suggestion that it might replace theoretical courses in higher education institutions, which are needed to provide the basic background of knowledge and skill upon which classroom practice can subsequently build, is frankly unbelievable. It would be rather like reverting to the medieval apothecary apprenticeship system. It would be equivalent to suggesting that a doctor could practise without any basic scientific training. Bluntly, that is a dangerous fallacy.
The report of my commission provides statistics showing that at present 50 per cent. of lessons, in science in our schools is given by teachers without any special qualification in the subject.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord so that we can clear up the confusion. The noble Lord seems to suggest that a school that organises training will be teaching people with no subject competence. The only courses that would take place under those circumstances would be for graduates who have science, geography, history or English degrees, and so forth, where the subject competence is firmly established. It is only that one year of teaching practice which they do in the schools that is organised by the schools.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. I did understand it. The point I am making is that there are theoretical considerations relating to the postgraduate Certificate in Education which cannot be properly conducted in schools and which must be conducted in an institution of higher education. I appreciate that it would be for graduates only. Nevertheless, it is an unsatisfactory proposal.
We must have improved methods of training specialist teachers, and we agree that courses leading to the Postgraduate Certificate in Education for graduates should be lengthened. The commission also proposes that at the end of teacher training all teachers should have a managed induction programme for two years before being awarded qualified teacher status. We also make recommendations about staff development, the acquisition of skills in counselling and in guidance and about in-course training and teacher appraisal. Our proposals are directed also towards improving entry standards to teacher training and the status of the profession.
I do not at this stage propose to pick out for comment other individual clauses of the Bill except to say that I agree wholly with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the idea of establishing a teacher training agency in England (but not in Wales) with all-embracing powers and the risk of future political domination by the Left or Right is, in my view, insupportable. The prospect of removing such training, and, above all, educational research and postgraduate training, from the control of the higher education institutions and their funding councils is seriously

863
misconceived. Surely educational research is not so different from that in other disciplines as to deserve banishment from the mainstream in such cavalier manner. In medical education, as other noble Lords have said, the funding councils have a joint medical committee to oversee the provision of high quality teaching and research throughout the UK. Why not do the same for teaching without establishing another costly and utterly superfluous quango?
While I accept wholly some of the criticisms which the Government and their supporters have levelled in the past against the teacher unions and some institutions concerned with teacher training, my experience from holding innumerable oral hearings with the representatives of such bodies, and with students, over the past two years has clearly demonstrated a sea-change in attitude among many of those bodies and individuals who now take a highly responsible and dispassionate approach. I was much impressed by the statesmanlike discussions we had with many such groups, just as I was greatly impressed by the increasing evidence to the effect that most teachers and many, if not all, LEAs have been working earnestly to improve educational standards, even if, as Ofsted reports show, there is still some way to go.
I am therefore totally supportive of the view, as are my fellow commissioners, that we need and indeed must have a general teaching council for England and Wales, comparable to the one at present in being in Scotland, in order to fulfil many of the responsibilities relating to standards of education, but dealing also with performance review, discipline and health in the teaching profession, and with many of the responsibilities imposed by the Bill upon the proposed teacher training agency. Why are the Government so implacably opposed to that proposal in the light of the cogent and responsible documents prepared by those in the teaching profession promoting the establishment of such a body? What has happened to the hallowed and cherished principle of professional self-regulation, fully accepted by government in relation to other professions?
The Secretary of State has gone on record as proposing, as an alternative, the establishment of a Royal college of teaching. True, in nursing there is a Royal college promoting the interests of a large profession, but in medicine there are Royal colleges of physicians, surgeons, obstetricians, and many others. Clearly we could not contemplate a multiplicity of Royal colleges of teachers. But those bodies have no statutory regulatory authority. In medicine, that regulatory role is vested in the General Medical Council which has a majority of elected members, elected through a detailed electoral scheme which does not require or indeed allow representation of any specific sectoral interest.
I recognise that in the election many individual bodies put up candidates. I am satisfied, from my experience in that council, that it is not beyond the wit of man to plan a constitution for a future general teaching council which would contain within its membership a substantial body of independent lay men and women as well as those nominated as candidates to
864
stand for election by the various teaching unions and institutions concerned with teacher education and research. Such a scheme could ensure that no single sector of the profession could dominate its affairs. I earnestly urge the Government to think again about that proposal.
Finally, perhaps I may echo what has been said by many about the part of the Bill relating to student unions. At the very least, the proposed draconian and unspecified powers of the Secretary of State must be curtailed. While the proposals are capable of amendment, not least in relation to the definition of core activities, they are unnecessary and could be handled by regulations. I shall not labour that point because, sadly, I believe the entire Bill to be so unsatisfactory that, for innumerable reasons and in the light of almost universal and implacable opposition from all sectors of education, I urge the Government—if only it were possible—to withdraw it and discard it.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is with a sense of deep gloom, and real concern, that I rise to address your Lordships on this dispiriting Bill to which nearly every university in the country is opposed, and to the second part of which every college in Cambridge finds itself in opposition and every head of house personally. As the chairman of the Cambridge Colleges Committee puts it:
"I have seldom known such unanimity".
Part I sets up what is widely felt to be unnecessary new bureaucracy (the teacher training agency) which will have the effect of divorcing education and the training of teachers from the rest of higher education. It is difficult to see how that will enhance the educational attainments or the academic standing of the teachers of the future. But it is upon Part II (students' unions) that I should like to focus.
As one who admires the present Government's success in increasing the number of students in full-time higher education and their recent commitment to continuing to meet tuition fees in full, it pains me to say that the Bill is anti-educational, unnecessary, bureaucratic, and procedurally offensive. I shall try to take those four points in turn.
As a university teacher, I believe passionately that a university student career is not just about learning one's chosen academic subject: it is about broadening your horizons, grappling with new philosophies, making new friends, arguing with them late into the night, reading a wider range of newspapers, glimpsing more of music, the theatre and the arts, seeking to excel in something—perhaps sport—in addition to one's metier, and understanding other people's politics. It is, perhaps, about having a good time and, in general, revising one's view of what life is all about. Those extra curricular activities are not trivia; they are central to the educational enterprise.
Let me say how much I admire the versatility, the extraordinary range of abilities, and the dedication, which many of our young men and women bring with them when they come up to college. One of my favourite occasions each year in Jesus College is the

865
freshers' concert, when newly arrived undergraduate musicians (only one or two of whom are reading music at Cambridge) play for us for the first time, often with notable accomplishment. I am impressed, too, by the persistence of the organisers of the Visual Arts Society in persuading artists of international reputation to come to talk to us about their work. If one or two of your Lordships think that I am rambling in my discourse, I would invite you to consider those activities in relation to the core activities, as so far defined in consultation documents, and I shall return to that point.
I am impressed by the professionalism with which the student committee organises an annual social event (sometimes the May Ball) or with which the JCR, which in the terms of the Bill is, effectively, our student union, sets up the activities of rag week. And I am much impressed by the dedication which undergraduate and postgraduate students bring to their charitable work for local causes, such as Bridge or Student Community Action. Those activities, as well as a wide range of sports, are an integral part of university life. And of course in every university they are organised by a body occasionally and accurately designated as "the amalgamated clubs" but more often described by that slightly misleading term "the students' union". It is misleading because students are not employees. To equate students' unions with trade unions is a mistake which activists have sometimes made. However, I have the fear that underlying this Bill is an element of the same equation.
How ludicrous, then, that all the activities that I have mentioned, apart from sport, fall outside the core activities set out in the Department for Education's consultation paper published on 1st July. Those core activities are, of course, obstinately undefined in the Bill before us. But there is no misunderstanding here: in the eyes of the Government—and I mean no discourtesy to my noble friend the Minister for whom I have the highest personal regard—they are secondary activities for which financial provision will have to be made by other, rather uncertain, means if the Bill were to come into force as an Act.
Surely we should have more faith in the students of today, as I certainly have, and encourage them with all the means at our command to be involved in all those things, including student politics. How else are the leaders of tomorrow to acquire the necessary experience? When else, indeed, do you learn to make mistakes if not during your student days? In my view, if one or two donations go to one or two desirable activities that may not be the end of the world.
Nor am I speaking particularly from an Oxbridge perspective. However, it must be said that from the Oxford and Cambridge point of view little consideration has been given to student college societies—the JCRs—in relation, for instance, to the Cambridge University Students' Union. I shall not trouble your Lordships with that, which may in the broader context be a detail. From my days in Sheffield and Southampton I know the central importance of the students' union for recreation in the broad sense. In many universities pop concerts and films as well as debates and charitable work centre naturally upon the union. What on earth is
866
the use of bureaucratic distinctions between core and peripheral at this point? Even academic societies—for instance, the French Society if you are reading French or the Engineering Society if you are reading engineering—fall outside the core in the only definition as yet known to us. That is anti-educational and it is regarded by almost every university in the country as anti-student.
That may not be the intention—and I do not imagine that it is—but this unhappy Bill is introduced after a period of consultation; admittedly one ingeniously timed for the long vacation. Can my noble friend in reply say how many universities have positively welcomed the Bill in response to the consultation? I shall be very interested to hear the answer to that question. When I joined the Conservative Party I thought that I had joined a party which stood for initiative, self-improvement and self-reliance against the dirigisme of the nanny state. Being a supporter of the Government I deeply resent being labelled as anti-student and anti-education. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but, if not, this is governmental and political ineptitude of the first water.
Secondly, the Bill is unnecessary. As we have heard, the National Union of Students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have been discussing how suitable codes of practice can be made to work. Noble Lords will remember that it was in Clause 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 that provisions were introduced—in my view very necessary provisions—to guarantee freedom of speech in places of further and higher education. They have been very successful. We no longer see speakers shouted down and denied a platform by a rabid and unrepresentative minority. And if we do, that is already against the law. That measure was necessary; these measures are not. Would my noble friend care to remind the House of the government guidance to students issued by the Attorney-General in 1983 relating to limitations placed by charity law upon the expenditure of students' unions? Will she say why Guidance of Expenditure by Student Unions, 1983 is felt to be inadequate? I believe that that is the path to protect against the undesirable activism where a militant minority can carry the day in the manner so effectively described by my noble friend Lady Cox.
I wish to quote from a letter that I received from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. He stated:
"We cannot, of course, be precise, but I suspect that more public money has already been expended on the preparation of the consultation (so called) about this legislation than has been improperly disbursed by Student Unions in the whole of history".
Thirdly, these provisions are highly bureaucratic. They will place upon bursars and treasurers—I am afraid mainly senior bursars and senior treasurers—the need to produce and monitor audited accounts of truly Byzantine complexity. That word was used by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and rightly so. In my own college we shall be forced to bill students for the use of college rooms for educational purposes; for instance, talks by visiting lecturers. To be told that we can, if we choose, pay those bills ourselves provided we do not do so from public funds—I believe that we could do so from public funds—is cold comfort. This is supposed to be the

867
government of business efficiency. Yet the universities are groaning under the burden of new paperwork, of research and quality assessments, and of mission statements and Citizen's Charter provisions, as your Lordships heard yesterday evening. The last thing that we need is an additional tier of paperwork and accounting.
Finally, the Bill is procedurally offensive. Its central concept is that of the core activity, defined with that rigorous precision which is becoming all too familiar in Bills introduced by the Department for Education as:
"services of such descriptions as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
That is all the indication that appears on the face of the Bill. The very central concept of the Bill remains undefined. This is not a Henry VIII clause; this is a Henry VIII Bill!Last week I wrote to the chairman of your Lordships' new Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to request that Clause 20 of this dispiriting Bill be subjected to scrutiny. My noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, who chairs your Lordships' Select Committee, kindly wrote to give an assurance that the committee will consider the matter, for which I am grateful. He gave your Lordships that assurance this afternoon.
I hope that the Government will also consider the matter—the whole matter. The defects of the Bill outweigh its dubious merits. During my short time in this House I have never felt less happy about a Bill on Second Reading. It should be no part of the Government's brief to restrict the scope—the effective scope—of student activities by tying their hands with red tape and elaborate accounting procedures. I predict that in Committee your Lordships may be invited to give further attention to Clause 20. It may be that Part II as a whole should be reconsidered by my noble and right honourable friends.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, we are scarcely half way through the debate but we have witnessed a beating of the Government which we have not seen for many years. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that those who have administered the beating are pre-eminent in their fields of education. We have heard in support of one part of the Bill only the lone voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It appeared to me and to my noble friends that she had drawn a generalisation from an unusual experience at Bournemouth. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but I am sure that she would not say that that experience is common throughout the country.
My noble friend Lord Glenamara said that there are 400 students at Durham University undertaking social work. He knows, and I am sure that most of your Lordships know, that that is not uncommon. There will hardly be a student union in the country which does not undertake that kind of work. I suspect that as regards the proposed student union legislation the Government believe, astonishingly in my view, that we are still living in the 1960s. I know that it got a cheer at the Tory Party
868
Conference and I suspect that that is the basis of the proposal. But it is absurd in 1993 to make a comparison with a situation in the 1960s.
The strongest message coming loud and clear from the schools is, "For heaven's sake, leave us alone. Let us have no more changes for a long time. Let us consolidate and implement all those changes which have been made in recent years". I find it astonishing that the Government do not heed that cry. Many Members of this House and Members in another place have made that point on many occasions but it appears that the Government do not heed it.
The Bill brings further changes, but, more than that, its two main proposals on teacher training, as has already been said by virtually every speaker, are unnecessary and unwise. In the case of the student unions the legislation is irrelevant. The latter demonstrates how accurate were the words of the Conservative chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education when he said of the Government in October:
"It is in the grip of Right-wing ideologues".
Had this Bill dealt with increased provision for nursery education or the problems now confronting adult education, it would at least have been relevant and necessary. Moreover, a measure dealing with those issues would have received universal support. Instead, the Bill is opposed by all the organisations concerned with education, from primary education to universities.
I shall confine my remarks to the proposals dealing with teacher training. It is significant that the Government refer to it as teacher training and not teacher education. I submit to your Lordships that there is a fundamental difference between the two. Training is a much narrower concept and refers surely to specific tasks and to techniques, all of which are important but only part of a teacher's role.
I have been concerned for a considerable time about maintaining the academic and intellectual standards of the teaching profession. I do not for one moment say that they are low, but for a number of reasons we should maintain and raise the standards. Any scheme or proposal which devalues the academic content of teacher education would be a serious mistake. I believe that this Bill is likely to do just that.
The change to a four-year B.Ed degree was a great step forward and any further changes should be based on that foundation. It appears that the Government have abandoned the proposal for a so-called Mum's Army. If so, that is a most welcome step. Perhaps—although I am not too hopeful —it will set a precedent and they will listen when there is a public and professional outcry against such ludicrous proposals.
It is of fundamental importance that the public should see teachers not only as professional in their techniques and personal standards but also possessing high academic standards. Nothing is of greater value in providing the status which teachers need and deserve. We shall not achieve that aim with this Bill for reasons which have been explained by previous speakers and I suspect will be addressed by noble Lords yet to speak.
Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I recount an incident which happened in

869
a school some years ago. Some of the older members of your Lordships' House may remember that teachers were not paid directly by cheque, as they are now. The cheque came from the education office to the head teacher to cover everybody's salary. The head teacher would nip down to the local bank, get the money, come back, put it in little brown envelopes and take it round the classrooms to the teachers. On one occasion when the head came in and put the little brown envelope on the teacher's desk, there was a seven year-old standing at the desk. Being inquisitive he asked, "What's that for?". The teacher said, "It's my pay". The youngster asked, "Where do you work, Miss?" I suspect that that may be an indication of what the standard of teaching was felt to be in the mind of that seven year-old.
The Teacher Education Alliance has written that teaching is too complex and good teaching is too dependent on professional awareness for preparation to be reduced to a narrow form of training based on the mere acquisition of techniques. I believe that that puts the matter in a nutshell. It must be right and I am deeply worried that the establishment of a teacher training agency will narrow the scope of teacher education. I fear—I hope that I am wrong—that the quality will suffer considerably. It will divide it from the universities, and that surely will detach it from the advanced study of educational practice and the research which is so vital if progress is to be made.
The reports by HMI published this year on the articled teacher and licensed teacher schemes, which I suggest to your Lordships are well worth reading, show the need for something more comprehensive and thorough than the content of such courses. I am happy to say that those reports were not all bad and the HMI report on the Postgraduate Certificate in Education reached similar conclusions. But it is obvious that something is lacking in such teacher education.
I concede readily that there is a difficulty in achieving the correct balance between what I might call education and training. In the past there was certainly too little time spent in schools and that has now been corrected. But this Government, as with most things they touch, have gone to extremes. Basic training in schools is a mistake, however good may be the work in particular schools.
As an aside—but there is no doubt about its importance—I should have liked to have seen something in the Bill about what in a number of fields, not least in the work of the training and enterprise councils, is called the training of the trainers. University and college lecturers should be able to provide the theory and academic content of teacher education, and no doubt in most cases do it well. But it is inevitable that they get out of touch to some degree with what happens in the classroom. That is something that one hears from time to time from student teachers. I believe that there is only one way to rectify that shortcoming—for lecturers and tutors to spend some continuous period in a school. A year would probably be the ideal length of time, but I realise that there are practical difficulties in that suggestion. A minimum of one term would be essential if anything were to be gained from that.
870
Setting theory in the context of the day-to-day running of the school would give real meaning to teacher education, apart from giving students more confidence in their tutors. It may not be expedient to include such provision in this Bill, but as it is so closely related to teacher education, the Government may consider it possible to introduce guidelines or think of some other method of doing so.
Clause 4 deals with research. I have mentioned that briefly already. Giving research funding to the teacher training agency gives rise to some anxiety, and a more detailed explanation is required. I am glad to know that I am not the first to mention that. The TTA is to be appointed by and answerable only to Ministers. It is reasonable to think therefore that we shall have government-directed research into what the Government think is desirable, which will be completely against the whole idea of independent research.
We would be justified in showing mistrust of a government who have shown such a bias towards city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools. When she replies to the debate, I hope that the Minister will clarify the meaning of that part of the Bill. Her statement during the debate on the Address on the matter has done nothing to allay the fears that many have expressed. I appreciate that she has enlarged upon that during her speech today, but I am possibly not the only one who feels that the matter has not been as fully clarified as such an important aspect of the Bill deserves.
In producing the Bill the Government have repeated a number of errors and misjudgments which educationists felt were things of the past. There is the inadequate length of time allowed for consultation, the additional burden placed upon schools with school-based training without the additional resources to provide it and the farcical decision not to allow sufficient time properly to assess experiments and changes introduced by the DFE.
The most glaring example of the latter relates to school-centred ITT. The scheme has been in operation for less than one year and has not been applied to primary schools. There should be no further development of the scheme until it can be properly evaluated. I assume that students on those courses will receive qualified teacher status without any validation from any higher education body. That is yet one more aspect which needs to be clarified. I hope that the Minister will refer to it in her response. A final example is that there is yet further centralisation—a point mentioned several times in today's debate—and yet more quangos created to deal with matters which are essentially issues for local government and higher education institutions.
In addition, to put it mildly, it is deeply sad that the Government are yet again ignoring the establishment of a general teaching council. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and his committee place such importance on the matter. The case for a GTC, like the

871
case for nursery education, is overwhelming, unassailable and not in dispute by anyone who knows anything about education. But once again the Government have deliberately ignored it.
I conclude by asking a question which I have posed on a number of previous occasions. Who do the Government listen to when preparing legislation on education? The teachers, the LEAs, the various advisers, the parents and others all seem to be ignored. Moreover, what about Ofsted? Its survey entitled The New Teacher in School published this year provides an independent view and suggests quite clearly that standards of performance are satisfactory. The survey does not say that everything is fine and there is no need to do anything; but it certainly says that there is no case for any serious worry.
In all those matters, all the evidence demonstrates that new and far-reaching legislation in teacher education is unnecessary and, indeed, unwise at the present time. The Government frequently boast that they are flexible in policy, although one has to say that there is little evidence of that, but they can demonstrate it with this measure by accepting the many amendments which we shall table in Committee. I look forward to seeing their boast implemented.
6.33 p.m
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, yesterday, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State for Education say in an interview broadcast on a one o'clock news programme that,
"teachers are professionals. We value their individual judgment".
I was delighted because that confirmed my own prejudice; and, because of that prejudice, I went to see teachers and those concerned with education to ask them what they thought about the Bill. I talked with teachers from primary schools, secondary schools and from the technical education sector. I also talked to a headteacher, two principals of colleges involved in teacher education, two professors of education and those involved in educational research. Without exception they expressed grave misgivings about the Government's proposals for the reform of initial teacher education enshrined in the Bill. I value their judgment because they are professionals.
I found that those to whom I talked held strongly to the view that effective teaching is built upon a body of knowledge and skills which higher education provides in partnership with schools. I believe that that partnership has been greatly enhanced in recent years with an increasing proportion of teacher training being school based and the development of improved schemes of mentorship.
I shall not deal with what Ofsted has said in its report about the products of education. But a headteacher to whom I spoke yesterday confirmed those findings so far as she was concerned: the intakes of new teachers into her school from initial teacher training were excellent teachers. They were highly skilled, knowledgeable in their subject background and skilful in classroom organisation. She was a satisfied consumer of initial teacher education.
872
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to apprenticeship training and her preference for that system. I was interested in her remarks because both she and I have been through systems of apprenticeship training in nursing. I know that what I have seen in apprenticeship training has very often been the exploitation of the apprentice and very little training. I am indeed glad that we have emerged from an apprenticeship system in nursing education. However, at the same time, I believe that it depends on what kind of apprenticeship training is given. Where there is effective supervision and an effective theoretical input which will give insights into one's practice, I believe that it can be good.
The noble Baroness also made reference to research in education, and her remarks were very persuasive. They painted a very black picture of the outcomes of education. I should like to look at those pieces of research in greater depth. It was not clear to me that the cause and effect relationship which the noble Baroness was drawing as regards the outcomes of education, the inputs of teacher training and the practice of education was really effectively drawn. In particular, she made reference to the learning of reading skills. As I said, I should like to look in greater depth at such research. As I look at the proposals, I am puzzled that the Government should wish to impose a totally new system with the minimum of consultation and without a real rationale and justification having been given to the profession or to the public who are consumers.
I should like to leave to one side the points that so many speakers have made in the debate about the erosion of teacher education that I see in the Bill and try to look more at the implications for the whole fabric of academic work. After 30 years in higher education, I look back on the initial steps that I made in pioneering higher education for nurses and recognise that in a university the strength of that system is the symbiotic relationship between different disciplines. I recall that, into our undergraduate programme, we put many methods of health education. At postgraduate level, we taught clinical teaching methods—that is, how you teach nurses skills—and we had an education elective in our master's programme that prepared nurses to become nurse teachers.
In all these assays into education we drew heavily on the Faculty of Education in the university in which I worked. We consulted it on curriculum development and on teaching special courses in education. We worked collectively with it on research projects and research into nursing education. That brought an immeasurable enrichment to my own department. Of course it was not only the education department that we worked with. We had service teaching from physiology and pathology and from all kinds of other departments in a medical school. We grew immeasurably by our contact with education and by the joint research that we carried out.
It seems to me that this Bill is an erosion of that seamless robe of academic work that we must perpetuate in order to have any kind of quality in our academic system. As I see it, this Bill will lead to the erosion of teacher education and its enrichment through

873
contact with other disciplines, but it will also lead to the erosion of the whole academic body of universities and higher education systems themselves. I, along with many others, would ask the Government to think again because I find little that I can support in this Bill. I feel that I should apologise because, despite having taken advice from the Whip's Office, I may have entirely miscalculated the length of time this debate will take and I must catch a train at 10 o'clock. If the summing up of the debate takes place before then, I shall be present; but I hope the House and the Minister will excuse me if I am not present.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall speak only about the part of the Bill which deals with student unions. None of us can object to the idea that universities and colleges should be required to develop and implement, where they are not already in place, codes of practice governing the conduct of their students' unions, nor the need for accountability where public money is being spent. But there is no need for this Bill to achieve those simple and widely accepted ends. The CVCP has offered one possible procedure. The NUS itself has proposed the creation of a charity—the rules governing charities are strict—and indeed many, if not all, student unions already enjoy charitable status by association with their universities or other institutions. I know that the Minister has rejected those two possibilities; nevertheless I wish to refer to them.
Codes of practice already exist virtually everywhere. The Government are legislating to correct a situation which no longer exists, and has not done for some time. Student unions today are serious, responsible, professional organisations. They have done much good and have always played a valuable and positive part in the life of their institutions. It is true that some student unions have been guilty from time to time of using public money and their own power to support strange and disreputable causes—I recall the situation at the North London Polytechnic, but that was over 20 years ago—which were far removed from the proper business of students in general, politically interesting though they were to some individuals.
It is right that the misuse of funds intended for the general social needs of students should not be allowed to occur and that student unions should be fully accountable for the public moneys they receive. However, that is already being done by the institutions through which the Government pass funds to the student bodies. I urge my noble friend the Minister to think again and to heed the cogent arguments which have been put forward both by the institutions, through the CVCP, and through the balanced and sensible proposals of the student bodies themselves. The latter have addressed themselves fairly and squarely to, for instance, the voluntary principle in proposing an opt-out clause on a particular issue which would notwithstanding allow the student concerned to enjoy all the other advantages of union membership.
I wonder whether those who advise the Secretary of State have the faintest idea of what the unions actually contribute to the life of universities and, secondly, of
874
what the proposed legislation will entail in terms of bureaucratic time wasting for those institutions. For that there will certainly be. I take my examples for the latter from Oxford. I am aware that there is an unusually complex situation there, as at Cambridge. The university, in order to comply with the Bill, will have to negotiate on non-core activities, of which there would be many, with no fewer than 43 separate student organisations—the junior common rooms of 36 colleges and seven private halls, let alone the middle common rooms—and with the Oxford University Students Union which is responsible for distributing funds to all those bodies.
The administrative costs in terms of man hours will be absurdly excessive and the cost to college JCRs and MCRs could well exceed their whole budget. Their turnover is often less than £90,000 per annum, and for the Government to want costings of staff time, use of rooms and other matters, is absolutely absurd and makes nonsense of accountability. It is precisely because every university or institution has very different problems and solutions that it makes sense for the Government to trust them rather than to impose a nationwide strait-jacket; to continue to devolve power and responsibility to them; to continue the present internal accounting system; and to continue the existing ultra vires rule laid down by the Attorney General in 1983.
In Oxford the university students' union takes its charitable status from its association with the university and it observes the ultra vires rule. The university circulates the Attorney General's guidance to the students' union annually but there have never been any problems. The cost of administering the access funds and the student loan scheme is respectively £16,000, borne by the university, and £30,000, borne by the colleges on a 50 per cent. take-up of loans. Those costs are presumably replicated in all universities and we can expect similar costs in the proposed exercise. The institutions should not be asked to bear that additional expenditure on a completely unnecessary, superfluous and cumbersome exercise where the cost is out of all proportion to any possible improvement in accountability.
But, as usual, there is more at stake than money. I do not believe that the Government, who appear singularly badly advised by people who are still living in 1968, have begun to appreciate the positively valuable contribution the various student bodies make to university life. In Nottingham, for instance, they raised £100,000 last year for charity and they make a major contribution in terms of voluntary work in the community. In Oxford they have for some years now run an invaluable scheme known as Target Schools, in which junior and senior members of the university join together to work as missionaries to schools which have never before sent anyone to Oxford seeking to persuade them to think again.
The Oxford University Students Union produces an admirable student handbook for new entrants—it is a very important contribution—and runs an excellent counselling service. Working with the university it brings pressure to bear on LEAs who are late with grant payments, and provides legal advice for students with

875
bad landlords. It is, of course, active—I am glad that it is—in drama, music, sport and a hundred other activities that are part of the life of a university and, yes, it cares what is happening in the outside world. After all, students have a vote. Should they not know and care what the issues are? Should they not have views as citizens? We should be worried if they did not care about the world outside their university. What they must not do—they agree with this and so do we—is use public funds for political ends. There is another point. There are many universities where students may be living out, scattered in shoddy accommodation and often in poverty, far from the centre, and for them the union is their home. It is the place where they can feel they belong.
Relations between universities and their students are good today and things are working. As a former head of house and a member of council I know how vital and valuable these relations are, and how much they form a part of the success of any university. It would be a deeply retrograde step to introduce legislation which required constant, expensive and timewasting negotiations on what is a proper core activity and what is not. It would be so much simpler for the Secretary of State to proscribe in a simple communication to the institutions militant political activities of the kind that we all agree are an improper use of public funds and to leave the remainder for the universities to manage, as they have done. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully whether that would not be the best and wisest course. She would find the CVCP, the NUS, and everyone else very ready to work with her.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, several noble Lords have already said that this is yet another unwelcome Education Bill. As with the previous Bills before the House in recent years, we have to ask: is the Bill necessary, and will it achieve anything? It is difficult to give a meaningful answer because much of the meat of the Bill is not yet known to the House. That will come before us in the form of regulations. In her speech today, the Minister indicated that a draft of the regulations would be published before Committee stage. That is helpful but it does not altogether meet the situation because regulations cannot be amended. The regulations would come before the House on a negative issue; at that point they cannot be amended.
I should like to refer to the two main subjects of the Bill. I start first with teacher education. My noble friends, Lord Glenamara and Lord Dormand, referred to the fact that the Government use the old description of teacher training whereas those involved in the education profession regard the subject as teacher education. That was underlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
In the context of the Bill, perhaps the Government are right to use the terminology of training because the implication underlying the Bill seems to be that teacher education is no longer necessarily to be regarded as a form of higher education. I find that somewhat strange. At a time when even the Government recognise the need
876
for more young people to obtain professional qualifications we are now taking a backward step and almost reducing teacher education to the old-fashioned "sitting with Nellie" type of training. I wonder what our European partners will make of the proposed changes. Our professional qualifications are supposed to be recognised by, and interchangeable with, those of other countries in the European Union. Already in most European countries the status of teachers is higher than it is in the UK. Will our partners in the future be so happy to accept our teachers as equivalent? Were they consulted during that all too short period of consultation? They have a legitimate interest in the subject.
There are a number of questions that the Government need to answer before they can be given the all-clear for the Bill. First, why do we need to have these changes at a time when the 1992 changes in secondary initial teacher education have not had time to be evaluated and, indeed, when we are in the middle of the consultation period for the reform of primary initial teacher education. Most of the universities and colleges involved in teacher education feel that the 1992 changes are working well and have enabled a good partnership to be established between them and secondary schools. Do the Government not accept that view? If not, what evidence do they have to support the contrary view? Certainly the recent Ofsted report does not support such a contrary view, as has already been indicated by several noble Lords.
Secondly, why do the Government feel that schools will be in a position to provide better courses than institutions of higher education and the colleges? The schools themselves do not claim that. The University of Leeds is greatly concerned about the subject. It wonders whether there will be any significant diseconomies of scale in school-based courses. It is of the opinion that there might be. It is, too, concerned that a further move towards school-based provision could lead to a reduction in the number of science teachers. That anxiety is based on the fact that schools with which the University of Leeds is associated and in partnership are having difficulty in accommodating the number of science graduates already coming forward to train as teachers. Will that situation be exacerbated by the changes which the Bill proposes?
Thirdly, what is the evidential basis for the Government's proposal to transfer the funding of teacher education and the funding of education research from the Higher Education Funding Council to a new teacher training agency? Can the Government show in any way how the separation of the funding of teacher education from the remainder of higher education will result in a higher quality or even greater efficiency and less bureaucracy? Again, the contrary will surely be the result.
The Minister accepted today that it is important to keep teaching and research together. However, does she not also accept that teaching and research in education are part of the whole field of teaching and research? As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, indicated so tellingly, surely there is no clear distinction between research into teacher education and research

877
into education generally. Again, is not collaborative research across disciplinary boundaries important; and might that not suffer if the proposals are carried through? Could not the separation of education research from the remainder of university research lead to a narrow, less critical, focus which could have implications for the standing of research in social studies, of which education is an important part? Could it not perhaps threaten the international reputation of British education research generally? Those are important questions which the Government need to answer.
Far from being an independent body, as the Minister today indicated, there is a perception that the newly proposed teacher training agency is yet another attempt to undermine the independence of universities and to undermine academic freedom. The Government may deny that; and it may not be their intention. However, the fact is that that perception is present and it will be difficult for the Government to dispel it on the basis of this Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I can only lament the fact that the Government did not take the opportunity to establish a general teaching council rather than establishing another controversial agency. It would have given a new confidence to both the teaching profession and higher education. One must ask: why is it that the Government always seem to believe that they know better than the profession for which they seek to legislate?
I now turn to the second part of the Bill. I must say that it contains an equally bizarre and disruptive set of proposals on the subject of the students' unions. In order to try to control the so-called political activities of the students' unions, the Government are introducing legislation that would not only make it difficult for unions on university and college campuses to continue to provide the necessary services, but will also involve the institutions themselves in a whole mass of bureaucratic procedures.
Most universities—certainly the two with which I am closely involved; the universities of Bradford and Leeds—regard the campus union as a university facility, in the same way, for example, as a library is a university facility. It is open to all students and all students are automatically members of it.
The membership card of the union acts as an identity card which is the student's access to all other university facilities. If the union did not do that, then the university itself would have to do it. Many of the services that the unions provide would have to be provided in an alternative way. The Government have already indicated that apparently they do not mind if institutions spend public money on running some of the services that are already being run by the students' union, so long as the union itself is not involved. What a nonsense that is! Surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, indicated, the activities of the students' union are a vital part of the students' education. They are a way of integrating students into the community of the campus, particularly as all students take advantage of one or more of the facilities on offer. Involvement in those facilities provides experience for a large number of students, not
878
just those with a sabbatical post, but many others with experience in running their own affairs. It would not be the same if the universities and colleges were to take over some of the functions of the students' union.
Like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I fear that the Government have been far too concerned about some of the activities of the students' unions in the past and are overlooking the excellent work that most of them are doing at present. In the state in which we have it today, I do not think that the Government have a right to expect us to pass such a Bill.
7.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the Government's proposals to reform the structure and funding of teacher education rest on good principles. They include a concern to raise educational standards and levels of skill and to equip people to cope with change; a growing emphasis on the competencies necessary for effective practice; the importance of training being closely linked to its practical application; the need for continuing training and development throughout working life; and increasing the effectiveness of expenditure on training. Those are good principles, but we do not need a Bill to implement them, as has been amply demonstrated in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The first point I wish to make is simple and straightforward. The partnership between higher education institutions providing teacher training, on the one hand, and schools, on the other, is a key element in good teacher education. Indeed, I think I heard the Minister in her introduction talk about the need for a structure within which such a partnership could evolve. That partnership already exists, is well tested, works effectively and therefore should be built upon.
Teacher education in colleges and universities is not perfect, but most of it is good; some of it is excellent. It is founded upon the partnership between institutions and schools. There is a place for strengthening the, partnership and for developing better and clearer forms of it, and indeed a case for allowing schools to play a more prominent role. But that is to build on what already exists. That the Bill does not do. The proposals in the Bill would shift the centre of training to the school, a responsibility which most schools do not want and do not have the resources to undertake.
Existing partnership arrangements in the college of education which is nearest to me—the college of Ripon and York St. John—are well established. The College has a network of relationships with schools throughout North Yorkshire and Humberside. They include primary and secondary schools, Church-maintained and independent schools. Students on the four-year degree course in education spend time in each of their four years in schools. Students doing the postgraduate certificate in education are in schools for three days a week throughout their certificate year. There is already a strong emphasis upon teaching experience in schools during teacher training, and it is the partnership between institution and school which enables that to happen. The case has not been made out for the need for a new

879
agency to improve and develop that partnership. That improvement and development could take place as well or better within the existing framework.
My next point is the pressure that the new arrangements will place on smaller colleges, some of them church colleges, originally founded specifically to provide teacher training, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford pointed out. Those institutions have diversified in order to give them greater strength, but in some cases the weight of their work is still in teacher training. They will be required under the new arrangements to account to two bodies, the Higher Education Funding Council and the teacher training agency, for use of their funds, with a consequent increase in bureaucracy. That has already been pointed out by many of your Lordships. Those institutions which derive more than half their funds from the teacher training agency will face particularly difficult circumstances since presumably responsibility for the general oversight of such institutions will pass to the agency. There is a fear among some of the smaller colleges that their existence will be threatened.
I was grateful to the Minister for her warm words about denominational colleges, but I could not help contrasting them with the words which appear in the Bill. Clause 6 refers to denominational colleges and subsection (4) speaks of funding. The phrases which occur there qualify the activities of the funding agency in a most curious way. I feel that I need to read the subsection, both for its curious syntax and for the implications which it will have for denominational colleges:
"In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for qualifying activities a funding agency shall have regard (so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations) to the desirability of maintaining—
(a) what appears to them to be an appropriate balance in the support given by them as between institutions which are of a denominational character and other institutions".
Could it not simply say "a funding agency shall maintain a balance"?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for allowing me to intervene. Would he say that that was a good example of basic English?
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point so well.
Those colleges—Christian colleges in some cases—have been established as Christian foundations, with a specific concern to provide teachers whose convictions and values were well grounded. In the light of the debate in this House tomorrow on respect for persons and the law, there must be concern not just for the professional training of teachers, important though that is, but also for their personal development. Church colleges, other colleges and all higher education institutions lay stress on the personal qualities of the teacher, nurturing self-awareness and the critical faculties, and encouraging the articulation of values in personal and social life. Some of the smaller colleges feel that under the provisions of the Bill they might well disappear.
880
The proposals seem to imply that teacher training is no longer to be regarded as a form of higher education. That surely must be wrong. Teachers are required to have a high level of skills, and whoever trains them must be in a position to ensure that the results are academically and professionally credible. Schools obviously have a vital part to play in the education of teachers, but higher education institutions must retain their function in respect of the formation of teachers; providing essential subject knowledge at degree level; coupling professional training with a sound research base; and nurturing the students in personal development. Surely a shift away from that emphasis will not attract people of quality to the teaching profession.
If the Government insist that school-based courses must be more thoroughly explored, surely the existing framework provides the means of doing that. The extension of such courses does not require the creation of the new bureaucracy. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness the Minister as she introduced the Bill. It seemed to me that time and again she laid emphasis upon the need for the Higher Education Funding Council and the teacher training agency to work very closely together. Indeed at one point I believe she suggested that the advisory committee should be advisory to both bodies. Surely that raises once again the question of why two such bodies are necessary. No case has been made out.
I am no supporter of professional isolation. I believe that education goes on in many ways. Teachers need to look to all sorts of other people who are involved in education: to parents and to others in the community. But all of this involves a strong profession at the core, and I do not believe that this Bill will nurture it.
I do not wish to make more than one brief comment about the matter of student unions. Along with other Members of this House, I have received many briefings. I have received an extensive one from Leeds University, on whose court I sit. But the one piece of correspondence that I received that moved me above all was a letter from an individual student, a girl at Leeds University, who wrote to me explaining her involvement in community work, which had been made possible for her by the student union. She talked about the way in which the lack of that experience would have been a tremendous loss to her. As I read her letter, it seemed to me that she was talking about the possibility of a real diminution of the university experience and of the educational opportunities offered through it. As I read that letter, I have to say that my chief emotion was one of anger at the loss to that particular girl and to many thousands of other students should these provisions go through. I share with other noble Lords the hope that this Bill will,
"depart and be no more seen".
If we have to see it again I trust that we shall amend it with vigour.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the first and most important part of this Bill. I shall make only one comment on the second part, namely that dealing with student unions; that is, that

881
there is a history here, and that history has to be taken into account. It is no good saying that just at this moment in time student unions are admirable organisations which do very well by their students. There has been a history of abuse of power. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that we do not want to declare war on Germany just because there was a Blitz in 1940. That is quite right. But we are interested in setting up a security system that prevents those kinds of things from happening. This Bill disarms the potential of student unions to repeat the things that they used to do not so long ago, not in some dim and distant past. I was at an institution that was destroyed by a student union in the 1970s. Many outrages have taken place since then. In inserting that degree of disarmament the Government have been right. But that is all that I wish to say on that part of the Bill.
On teacher training, which I regard as being at the heart of the matter, I welcome the Government's reforms. They have been designed to create a greater diversity of routes into teaching in order to get a more varied intake. That is very, very important. They have also been designed to introduce a greater variety of backgrounds and life experiences. This area was becoming very much a monoculture, with a very narrow route into the teaching profession—there were really only two avenues. The Government have expanded the number of routes to four by setting up licensed teaching programmes and also articled teaching schemes. Those are both school-based programmes. As I understand it, Clause 11 of the Bill simply extends the possibility of school-based initial teacher training programmes by empowering either individual schools or consortia of schools to provide that initial teacher training and give them the funds to do so. The key word is "empower", as my noble friend the Minister said—not "force" but "empower". There is no compulsion involved. And so many of the speeches that have argued that the Government were trying to force teacher training into schools away from universities have missed that simple point. They do not have the power to do so and this Bill does not provide them with that power.
I also think it is quite sensible to set up a teacher training agency in order to channel funds to a more diverse system of providers. Noble Lords have asked why the existing Higher Education Funding Council cannot provide the balanced funding between the different providers that will emerge. The answer is that its funding goes directly to the universities. Its bias is therefore necessarily, and rightly from its point of view, in that direction. There is a serious danger that school-based programmes will be under-funded unless some extra provision is made for them. At the moment the funding for the pioneer programmes comes directly from the general government fund. The Government are trying to set up a system that will provide for balanced funding over the whole range of providers. That is on the whole sensible, though we certainly need to clarify the respective roles of the Higher Education Funding Council, the ESRC and the new teacher training agency in the funding of teacher education in its broadest sense.
882
The gravamen of the charge against this Bill is that it undermines the professionalism of teachers and interferes with academic freedom. I want to deal specifically with those two charges.
On the first point, I was astonished when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said (and I hope that I quote him accurately) that teachers' professionalism must be a matter of purely academic judgment. If that doctrine were accepted, government would have no power, or indeed responsibility, for what goes on in the classroom, however foolish or vile the practices. It was precisely because the professionalism of teachers had been called into question by many people who were not necessarily sympathetic to this Government that the reform of teacher training became so necessary. I remind the House that it was the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who in 1976 warned that unless teachers put their own house in order, there would be legislation. That legislation has come to pass because they did not put their own house in order.
There is a great deal of confusion about what we mean by teachers' "professionalism". It seems to me that there are two aspects to it. One is mastery of subjects. Everyone accepts that. Teachers have to know the subjects in order to be able to teach them. The other aspect is pedagogy—knowing how to teach. Sometimes the two are not sufficiently distinguished.
No one suggests that the validation of subject qualifications should be removed from universities. It is not suggested in this Bill. School based courses will be for graduates or people who already have subject qualifications, qualifications given and validated by universities or other academic bodies. So there is no question of by-passing that system of validation.
When it comes to pedagogy, we have a different position and there is a different picture. Pedagogy is not analogous to medicine, law or accountancy. There is no theoretically based good practice which defines professional teaching. There are a number of arguments and approaches and they are in contention. I was struck by the touching faith of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that full understanding of educational theory is the golden road to better teaching. If he believes that, he will believe anything. I can think of few things more destructive of effective teaching than a full understanding of educational theory. Educational theory is not in that state of development. We can still read with great profit Rousseau's Emile, written in the 18th century. We cannot read with great profit a medical text written in the 18th century. That is the difference. Education is an immature discipline and, because of the very strong element of politics, ideology and connection with wider social aims that are always part of the theory of how to teach, that will remain the case and educational theory will always be highly disputable.
It is at least reasonable to expect that, where experts disagree, there will be a variety of approaches. But we do not find that. As my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out, over the past 20 years there has been a dominant orthodoxy driven by ideology, fashion and assertion rather than by method and argument. That has manifested itself in all kinds of ways: for example, in the assertion that one cannot do arithmetic unless one

883
understands the concept of number; in the misuse of linguistics in order to decry the importance of teaching grammar; and in the belief that didactic teaching is so uncongenial to learning that children should spend all their time trying to reinvent the wheel. Those are all dogmas which have had enormously strong influence on primary education.
Those are not my ideas or assertions. They have been said by people who have great experience in education. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, quoted Professor Robin Alexander of Leeds University. I can quote him too. He is regarded as a highly sensible and sober investigator. He said:
"The idea that a local education authority can be the sole definer, arbiter and guardian of good practice must be abandoned. Teacher training institutions must stop laying down a 'party line'.
Ever since Plowden, there's been a pseudo-consensus—an assumption that there's no need to debate what constitutes good practice. Generations of primary teachers have been brought up to accept, whether they like it or not, that this is the way to think and that is the way to do things.
There is now overwhelming evidence that some of those central beliefs are questionable, to say the least, and that many of the most widely endorsed practices simply don't work. As a result, millions of children have had a raw deal —they've wasted such a hell of a lot of time".
That is the background against which the reform of teacher training is being attempted. It is not a culture which produces lively, inquiring minds. It is a culture in which often enough people who have come or want to come into the profession are forced out by the weight of orthodoxy that they encounter or are indoctrinated into a belief. It is a betrayal of teachers who want to devote their lives to teaching. It is a betrayal of children. To argue that everything is all right in this particular garden seems to me to be quite wrong.
That brings me to my last point about the question of academic freedom. It is alleged by many noble Lords that the Bill will stifle objective research into education, destroy a healthy research community, or destroy the sound research base, as though all those things already exist and something healthy is being cut down and destroyed by the Government. Where have noble Lords been living over the past few years? Much of that is simply fantasy. I have had occasion to study professionally much of the research that has taken place and I have also had experience in my own university. Many of the fruits of that research I would describe as an uncontrolled growth of theory, an excessive emphasis on what is called the context in which teaching takes place, which is code for class, gender and ethnic issues, and an extreme paucity of testable hypotheses about what works and does not work.
Of course that is not the whole picture. There is a lot of excellent research going on. But on many of the issues on which we want answers and on which answers are in principle attainable, there has been no research at all. Surely the Government have the right—not to stop research or stifle activities, but to ask that other kinds of research that need to be done are done.
These issues involving professional responsibility and academic freedom are very difficult. People's judgment will differ on where the line should be drawn between self-regulation and external regulation. I have
884
no doubt in my mind that by encouraging many flowers to bloom in this particular monoculture, the Government have chosen the right approach. I hope that they will have the courage to go forward and accept the necessary amendments to improve the Bill as it now stands.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, first I should declare an interest which no doubt affects my reaction to the proposals contained in the Bill. I have been an academic for 27 years, first as a lecturer in the University of Manchester, and for the past 15 years as a professor at the University of Southampton. During that time, I have had quite a lot to do with students' unions as well as with the pastoral and administrative oversight of undergraduates. I am also married to a primary school teacher, and I shall have some observations to make about the proposals for teacher education. To those noble Lords who believe that such a background debars me from membership of the real world and turns me into a member of the much despised educational establishment, I say that in what spare time I have, I also chair an engineering company. So I feel that I have some links with the real world and some knowledge of how education interacts with the so-called real world.
I should like first to say a few words about the proposals on students' unions. From the perspective of someone who spends three hours every Monday morning with several senior colleagues at Southampton University in a committee dealing with the allocation of public funds coming to the university and monitoring the use of those funds by all the budgetary groups within the university, I find the preoccupation with students' unions very curious. I find it difficult to believe that that is now the highest priority in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the universities. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is quite right; there is a history to this, and I agree that in some respects it has its deplorable moments; but those issues can be dealt with in different ways.
Given the Government's political priorities, the proposed reforms set out in the Bill seem to be over bureaucratic and over intrusive even in terms of securing the Government's own objectives. It is also the case that at the moment we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, as many noble Lords said, distinguishes between core and non-core activities—core being those which can be supported by public funds and non-core those which cannot, but the distinction between the two being promulgated by the Secretary of State by means of regulation. I am pleased that I am not the only member of your Lordships' House to find that an objectionable procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, called it a "Henry VIII" Bill; in my slightly less elevated horizon it seems to me to be more like the legislative equivalent of the nursery rhyme, "Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly".
I am worried by the distinction between core and non-core activities. I want to set the issue in the context of the rapid expansion of universities. I do not know how many noble Lords are aware of the great changes that have taken place in universities in the past few years

885
as a result of the welcome expansion which the Government encouraged. However, it has been difficult for universities to expand welfare and pastoral support to keep pace with the expansion. Lecture group sizes have gone up, in some cases to quite astronomical proportions, so that in the first year one is teaching several hundred students and using video link-ups with other lecture theatres, and so forth; tutorial class sizes have also increased enormously.
Students are therefore going through a much more anonymous learning experience. In addition, the modularisation of courses—a crucial feature in the more efficient use of resources in the university—means that students now do not go through degree courses as an identifiable group as they once did. When I was an undergraduate, my intake went through the whole three years as a group and we acted as a group of friends, each of us finding support from the others. That is now not a typical experience of the undergraduate, outside perhaps Oxbridge, in modular courses containing a large number of students. In those circumstances, the student union plays a vital role in providing clubs and societies in which students can develop a sense of common interest, friendship with other students and a sense of common purpose. The clubs and societies are not just forms of self indulgence. In my view they are essential ways of providing a sense of community and a sense of identity, together with a degree of support, in universities which are becoming larger and more anonymous.
In the summer the Government indicated that sport could be funded out of public funds and thus be regarded as core. But no guarantee about support through public funds was given for religious and cultural groups, whether it be the Christian Union, Islamic, Chinese, Jewish, Asian groups or whatever else. Yet those are crucial ways of creating a sense of belonging for students who will feel very much at sea in the newly emerging, highly anonymous institutions. I thought that the Conservative Party, following Burke, was rather keen on the idea of the "little platoons" which mediate between the individual and large-scale institutions. The present proposal seems to undermine that principle.
In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness said that what was crucial was the voluntary principle; that people should choose to belong to such groups and if they belonged to them, they should be paid for by voluntary means or at least not public means. But the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right to say that that raised not only the question of choice, but also of opportunity and how far specific students would have the resources to buy into those groups which are, as I suggested, essential to creating a sense of greater belonging within those rather anonymous sorts of institution.
The distinction between core, publicly-funded activities and non-core activities and the need to account for each strand of funding will create a bureaucratic nightmare, as many noble Lords with experience of university bureaucracy mentioned. Students' unions obviously have permanent officials and permanent employees. At the moment they exercise their duties across what would be both core and non-core activities. If the universities must be accountable for ensuring that
886
public funds are spent only on core activities, that will present a monumental bureaucratic problem. If the Government believe that money is being spent inappropriately, and if there is a history of that—as there surely is, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said —the remedy is not through an enormous bureaucratic framework; it is through the reiteration of the guidance provided by the Attorney-General in 1983, and the ultra vires provisions in relation to the Charities Commission.
It is part of the Government's intention to restrict the sphere of a students' union activity to the institutional campus. However, that seems to me to be an undue restriction in a free society. Surely it is reasonable to believe that students have some common interests across campuses between universities and should have a right to voice those common interests. In the local community also, and perhaps more obviously, they have interests; for example, in the activities of local authorities, street lighting, physical security and housing are all issues mentioned by noble Lords. Surely it is right that students' unions should, as corporate bodies, be allowed to make representations to local authorities. To prevent them seems to be a draconian restriction on the freedom of institutions in what has come to be called recently "civil society".
Overall, therefore, I am completely unconvinced by the case put forward in the Bill in relation to students' unions. There are existing procedures which can be built upon and the Government's anxiety for accountable and appropriate public expenditure can be met in other ways.
I want to turn briefly to the problems of teacher education. I should say first that I do not hold any specific brief for what might be called "progressive" education which seems to me—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, brought this out—to be the subtext of the Government's concern in the Bill. I had deep misgivings regarding many of the teaching methods that became fashionable in the 1970s and believe strongly that some of those damaged, in the public mind, the prospects for comprehensive education to which, as an 11-plus failure myself, I am passionately committed. There is no necessary link between comprehensive education and specific teaching methods. I believe that those that were in fashion for a period actually did harm to the comprehensive ideal.
Having said that, the Government's proposals in the Bill are draconian and unnecessary. I believe that the national curriculum and testing will require changes and are requiring changes in teaching practices and thereby teacher education of the sort that the Government want to see. Those institutions offering teacher education courses will need to train teachers with the skills to operate the curriculum. Even given the Government's criticism of the content of training courses, the content of the courses will change as and where they need to to meet the new demands from the schools operating the national curriculum and the testing regime without needing to invoke a new quango.
It is curious that the Government are proposing that the link between teacher training and higher education will be diluted in circumstances in which the education of nurses is being brought much closer to the university.

887
I am part of a group at Southampton University negotiating with the regional health authority to bring the training of nurses within the ambit of the university. That is thought by the region to be central to the growth of professional status among nurses. It is crucial to expanding and consolidating the knowledge base of nurse education. It is argued that good nursing practice needs to be kept close to research in medicine. The knowledge base, a disciplined approach to training and a link to research are thought to be fundamental to professionalisation. The proposals in the Bill, it seems to me, will threaten all of those in relation to the education and training of teachers. So while we are undertaking one strategy to professionalise the nurses, we are going down a different path which may de-professionalise the teachers.
I am also worried about the way in which the proposals in the Bill might threaten the growth of the knowledge base in education which grows—here I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, but I do not have time to explain why—as the result of research in all those disciplines which contribute to education. I accept that there is no core subject called education, but I think that there are disciplines that bear on education and that it is important that they should be researched into in relation to how they affect the educational process. Psychology and social psychology are the most obvious examples.
The Bill seems to put the control of the funding of educational research into the hands of the teacher training agency—controlled by about 10 people all appointed by the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness said in her opening remarks that that was a mistaken assumption and the TTA will fund educational research through the normal formula funding. If that is so, I welcome that point. However, I would hope that at some point it will be put directly into the Bill because I cannot see it there at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred to schools being empowered but not required to enter this arrangement and process. That may be so—and I accept that—but given that the distinction drawn by the noble Baroness and other speakers between, as it were, good schools which would be encouraged to participate and those which would not, I wonder how far the good schools that might be encouraged to participate and might want to participate have the resources to do so. I have an example close to home. It could not be closer to home. It is the example of my wife's school. She has a class of 35 five-year-olds. It is a successful school. It meets all the criteria of success that the Government would want. There are other classes of 37 in that school. Apart from the fact that one can hardly get through the door into the classroom because of bodies, I wonder how far schools will have the resources to undertake this kind of activity if they are good schools, and whether the parents who are anxious to send their children to the kind of school that my wife teaches in because they think they get good teaching will be happy about their children being taught, for presumably quite long periods, by those who are undertaking this apprenticeship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, called it.
888
Last month, if I may finish on a slightly lighter note, in her pay-slip—this happened to all the teachers in the school—my wife not only got the print-out of her pay but a letter from Hampshire Education Authority offering courses on stress management. If the Bill goes through, and if some of the provisions contained in the Bill become law, I am sure that she will be taking it up.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and indeed the consensus in the debate—an almost unbroken consensus—against the Bill. I want to speak strongly against the second part of the Bill and strongly in favour of one clause of Part I of the Bill. It is a clause which I shall call the Welsh Office opt-out because, in case noble Lords have not noticed it, Clause 1 provides that the teacher training agency,
"shall not do anything in relation to Wales, or institutions or students in Wales, except at the request of the Secretary of State".
That is the part I strongly support. I shall return to it later.
In the Charter for Higher Education booklet entitled Higher quality and choice—purely for brevity's sake I shall quote only from the English language version, although clearly both versions are to be treated on a basis of equality following the Welsh Language Act—the Government tell students:
"The Government has proposed new rights for you in connection with your student union".
That seems to be the height of irony when we read Part II of the Bill. What we are seeing is not rights for students but regulations by the Secretary of State. We are debating today in advance of the regulations but we are looking forward to seeing them before we debate the Bill in Committee. I am certain that that will have an effect on the way in which the House will view the whole of the Bill. It is an extremely odd way of proceeding with legislation to specify the coming of regulations, then to be debating the principle and then to be faced with detailed regulations which may well be going beyond the principle of the Bill.
We know already, on the basis of the discussion document, that the regulations may refer to this notion of core services. It seems to me that here we have a complete misunderstanding of the nature and role of student unions. I speak as someone who has been an official of student unions, a university and college teacher and has worked closely, particularly with the NUS Wales, over 20 years. As other noble Lords have said, student unions are not trade unions. That is a completely false analogy. I will concede one point to the extreme Right. I concede the point that many of us in the past and many student union leaders since then—certainly in the sixties and seventies—did pretend to behave as if student unions were trade unions.
Baroness Blatch: Some still do.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I do not think that we should be legislating for the small minority of extremists in any camp. But I shall come to the Bill as the revenge of the FCS later on.
The point I want to make here is that student unions are a social combination. They are part of the

889
community of scholars on a campus. They represent the students, just as the staff associations and the governing bodies represent the colleges or the universities, whatever structure we are talking about. Their role of social provision, their role of external provision indeed, is inherent in their very activity. Therefore, to think that one can distinguish between a core activity which is suitable for public funding and an activity which is not suitable for public funding is completely to misunderstand the nature of the organisation.
On that I want to put down a marker for later in the debate and ask whether it is the intention of our Secretary of State—if I may so call him—the Secretary of State for Wales, to prepare guidelines which are specific to the position of student unions in Wales. I ask that because of my interest as chairman-designate of the Welsh Language Board which comes into existence later this month. The Charter for Higher Education refers to the Welsh language legislation and to the requirement for public bodies to propose language schemes. It states:
"All higher education institutions in Wales will have to produce schemes which will set out the services and courses available in Welsh and to make this information available to you on request".
Clearly, the Welsh Office is already indicating that there is a dimension to student union activity in Wales which is specific and special. I ask the Welsh Office to consider when looking at regulations whether it is appropriate for the Welsh Office to exercise an opt-out here as well as in Part I of the Bill.
I mention that specifically because the National Union of Students in Wales, as a national organisation within Wales, and its constituent unions and bodies have been very much in the forefront of developing bilingual policies. Indeed, from the sixties on the single organisation in Wales in the education sector that has done most to develop the use of the Welsh language both in administration and in campaigning for Welsh medium teaching is the National Union of Students in Wales—Undeb Cenedlaetuol Myfyrwyr Cymru. It has provided courses for students. It has emphasised to students coming in from outside Wales the nature of the national and regional culture and so on. All that activity in no way comes under the core funding, yet it seems to be crucial to the kind of activity that a learning community should be involved in.
I turn to a letter of 3rd November from my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office in another place—I think I can still call him my right honourable friend —the right honourable Sir Wyn Roberts, to Glyn Williams, President of NUS Wales. Glyn Williams was questioning him about how the regulations will operate. The Minister of State replied:
"Institutions will remain free to support union activities outside the core, though if they wished to do so with public funds they would not be able to use the student union channel".
That is very revealing. It is important that we should be told, if these institutions decide to support non-core activities with public funds, how they intend to do that. Are they to be in the business of setting up some alternative organisation which clearly would not be cost-effective? If they are not going to use student union channels, what channels are they to use?
890
We have seen in this whole debate about the second part of the Bill not only a misunderstanding of the role of student unions within the education community but an attempt by government to legislate in an area where no legislation should be required. I feel that none of the speeches from this side of the House this evening has justified the need for legislation. Surely that could be done in other ways.
We should have allowed for the exploration of the issue of charitable status to be taken much further. We should have allowed for the autonomy of the governing bodies of colleges and of student unions to sort this matter out. If there are difficulties, it is up to the political organisational skills of students and governing bodies of our institutes, colleges and universities to deal with them. I fail to see why it is necessary to legislate in this area at all. Surely this is an attack on the very basis of academic freedom, which is the autonomy of institutions to be self-governing and in a democratic way.
That brings me to the point that, as far as I can see, this Bill is indeed the revenge of the FCS. It is the revenge of that small fringe of young Conservatives which decided to take on a campaign within and against student unions in the 1980s. It is very regrettable that the Government should be bringing legislation to this House dictated from that sector of their supporters. As other noble Lords have said, it is a piece of party conference rhetoric and it should have stayed at that level.
I now come to the one other issue which is very important; it is in relation to core and non-core funding. We are now in a position where student support is being reduced. The Government have done so again in the recent Budget. So the idea that somehow students are going to be flush with money to be able to contribute voluntarily to all the non-core activities is completely false. I declare an interest because I have a son who is a student at the University of Wales. No doubt his middle brother will want to follow him somewhere, and probably outside Wales.
The young people of his generation are not in a position to make choices about whether they are going to spend their money on core or non-core activities. When one comes to the non-core activity, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said, we are talking about the national organisation of student activity and the representation of the student voice at the national and international level in relation to government and other institutions. In addition, we have the issue of the community activity in which students are involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is the president of University College Swansea, He reminded me earlier that about 600 students in Swansea are directly involved on a continuing basis in community work. We have activity in the area of social clubs, service facilities and the commercial activities of the student unions. We also have the rag activities. For example, only last year the rag at Aberystwyth, which is not the biggest of university colleges, raised over £300,000. I am sure that noble Lords can produce similar figures for their

891
institutions. We are talking about a community contribution from students, which is an inherent part of their education.
It may be of interest to some noble Lords to reflect that, had I not become involved as I did as a student union official in the 1960s, I probably would not be in this House. That might be regarded as appropriate in the view of some people opposite. But it is that very activity which is part of the educational experience—the learning to be a social animal, a citizen, and learning to participate in dialogue and debate and to win arguments against the extreme Left or extreme Right in student politics. If the Conservative Government are really concerned about the position of extremist students, they should be training their own student supporters to take on in a non-combative way the extreme Left, if that is their concern. That is how we should be dealing with this issue.
We should be enabling and empowering students themselves to be politically effective in ensuring that no institution is taken over by an extremist organisation, not having a government legislating in an extremist way to deal with the issue. That is a part of the Bill with which I disagree, in case somebody has missed that point.
I come finally and quickly to the teacher training provision and the teacher training agency. I am very concerned to see in this context the separation of teacher training from the rest of higher education at a time when other services, including the nursing service and the social work service, are being increasingly professionalised. Higher education is being seen as the right place for this training to take place and the right context. Yet it seems that in the work of the teacher training agency we are pushing that out. We are going to create that very separation between theory and practice which those of the Right tendency have been criticising in so-called progressive education. It is the unity of theory and practice which will provide for relevant and effective teaching.
I welcome, as I say, the Welsh Office opt-out. I welcome the fact that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is going to be the funding agency for institutions within Wales. I know that at the beginning the Minister told us that this was a matter of scale. For me it is not just a matter of scale because we already have 15 higher education institutions and only about 2,000 schools. It is also a matter of very effective principle. It will be an advantage to us in Wales that we can plan our initial teacher training with the rest of our higher education. It will be an advantage to us that we can maintain the strong links between HE schools and the funding council, particularly in the area in which I am charged to take an overview, the development of Welsh medium education. For those reasons I welcome this opt-out.
I welcome too the fact that, since the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales will have that responsibility for initial teacher training in Wales, it will mean that the criteria for initial teacher training courses will be set by the Secretary of State for Wales rather than by the Secretary of State for Education. I welcome
892
that yet further example of the devolutionary policies of the Conservative Government, at least as far as administrative devolution is concerned. That relates of course to a different curriculum in Wales and the different needs of the schools. I welcome that very strongly. But I feel sad for the education system in England, which is going to be saddled with this teacher training agency.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, I do not plan to detain noble Lords very long. I believe that all my best horses have been shot already in the previous stages of the debate. In some ways I shall speak to rectify the balance a little, not perhaps nearly as far as my noble friend the Minister would like, but at least perhaps give a more broadly sympathetic view than some of those which have been expressed.
It is quite evident—is it not?—that the two main elements in this Bill do address genuine problems. The first problem is that somehow the teacher training colleges are not doing what they ought to do. The second problem is that students are liable to turn nasty. I say "liable" but accept the point that major student disturbances are a thing of the past. Today we have what one might call student-related student disturbances—Mr. Portillo's eggs and the Secretary of State being besieged somewhere in his constituency by a howling mob of Balliol men. Admittedly, that is a terrible thing to endure, but it is altogether on a much less frightful scale than what happened in the past.
I make this remark because nobody has made it: the interesting thing is that as far as I know the students' union is an entirely British phenomenon. In France you emerge from the lecture hall, or from lecture hall No. 3, where you have seen a lecture on the video, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said, and then go immediately to a commercial caféwith your coat over your shoulder and engage in ardent discussion of some up-to-date fashionable topic. There is no students' union or any provision of that kind. I do not believe there is anything of that sort in Germany. There are, of course, social provisions of various types in the United States. My point simply is that the existence of students' unions certainly does not seem to exacerbate student unrest but, if anything, the opposite.
Our student unrest is a very meagre affair compared with what went on in France in les évênements de Mai and in the United States, so it does not seem to me that students' unions are a serious problem in themselves or are the point at which to take precautions against dangers of repeated student uprising. One has to face those things as they come. No amount of adjusting the arrangements governing the public funding of students' unions, which I hope will continue, will deal with that.
I turn now to what I think is the much more serious issue of teacher training. As I said a moment ago, rather in the style of Admiral Beatty observing the poor conduct of our battleships at Jutland (in language which I shall not repeat in your Lordships' House), our battleships are not doing very well. As was stated earlier, our young school leavers of 16, 17 and 18 are markedly lower achievers than their age-mates—their

893
correlates—in France and Germany. Where do we look for the explanation of that? We certainly do not look to heredity. It must be something in the surroundings. Is it that our public culture is very hostile to education? I should have thought that there was something in that. It was not always so—particularly in Wales. Perhaps Wales is a little different. That may explain the different arrangements, but there is still an old-fashioned, 19th century idea permeating the whole community there that education is a wonderful thing to get hold of.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to suppress the thought that the way in which teachers are prepared for their tasks is somehow not working well. It is not a matter of indoctrination. One usually reacts negatively to indoctrination. After a good deal of Church and King—as it was in those days—between the years 1942 and 1944, I was an ardent Trotskyite. It did not lead to anything much, but was, I think, a simple reaction to rather heavy indoctrination at school with compulsory chapel, corps, and all that stuff. One gets over that because an indoctrination such as I am talking about is overt and explicit and one cannot avoid being aware that it is going on.
Altogether more insidious is to work in an intellectual environment where certain assumptions are made but never very elaborately spelled out because there is nobody to criticise them. This is where I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who referred in a praising manner to Dewey—I am sure that it was John Dewey he had in mind—as a great contributor to educational theory. Many people in the United States regard him as having had a more disastrous influence on the intellectual level of American school pupils than anybody else. He is the force somewhere behind "projects"—"fooling about", broadly speaking; the enlarged and variegated forms of finger painting which replaced old fashioned, definite instruction in an activity where there is a clear difference between getting it right and getting it wrong. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Skidelsky that Dewey is a pretty paradigm educational theorist.
In the formation of teachers—in Britain at any rate—there seem to be three ingredients. Noble Lords have adverted to them already. First, there is the subject, which may already have been sufficiently accommodated in an earlier phase of the proceedings in an ordinary first degree course. Then there is the practical classroom experience, which is the nets, as it were, the vital part of the whole thing. There is then a need for something else—and that is educational theory. As has been pointed out, there is not all that much to educational theory. There are some quite useful bodies of theory from which something can be learned, but educational theory proper is nothing serious at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, compared the situation of a person studying to be a teacher with that of a person studying to be a doctor as if the bodies of scientific doctrine that were associated with and nourished the clinical or pedagogical work were strictly comparable. Of course, they are not. What one has in the field of educational theory is a number of poets, model makers and fantasists, from Rousseau onwards. There is no theory there. In fact, what occupied the place called
894
"educational theory" was an insidious ideology of intellectual permissiveness which said, "You don't have to get anything right. Let it all hang out. Do what you feel. Spell it any way you like. That is a fine, lively, natural and impulsive way of speaking". To be taught how to organise one's sentences properly does not necessarily prevent one from using other sentences behind the teacher's back. It is not destructive of a child's individuality to be taught how to do something effectively, but that was the assumption of a great deal of educational theory.
That seems to have worked itself through into the classrooms and to have led to the manifestly ill-prepared output of an enormous number of our schools. And that has happened with people with the best will in the world. Many of our teachers are anxious to do the right thing but have somehow been conditioned (by the way in which colleges of education operate) into providing pap and failing to cultivate capacities while simply massaging the little burgeoning egos.
Is the Bill well adjusted to deal with that? I think that I see what the Bill is doing. It seeks more classroom activity so that there will not be any room for the malfeasant soapy water of educational theory. However, that seems a rather roundabout way of doing it. It would be much better not to push teacher training away from the universities, but to associate it ever more closely with the universities so that the intellectual standards that one gets in a serious academic department of physics, botany, medieval history, or whatever, will leak over into the education department where hard, seriously theoretical and verifiably and confirmably theoretical discourse will be encouraged, rather than vague ideological musings.
Therefore, while I am sympathetic to what I call the underlying aims of the Bill, it does not seem to me that, as constructed at the moment, the Bill is particularly well designed to bring them about or to remove the enfeebling element in current teacher training—and I am sure that that is there. It is a general point of conversation among people on the fringes of the education industry.
Equally, I think that we must always be ready for any kind of student disturbance. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who said of some aspect of this legislation that it showed little confidence in the universities' capacities to manage their own affairs. That lack of confidence is fully justified. The ability of the universities to cope with student uprisings or to protect ideologically unpopular speakers is absolutely hopeless. They are no good at it. America's recourse was to the police and eventually, at Kent State, to the National Guard. That is not very desirable. There is no obvious solution to that although one solution might be a students' union where there are plenty of connecting links between the authorities and the students. I still retain some belief that the existence of students' unions has a peace-making rather than war-making purpose. It is not a lens which focuses on hostility, but provides a set of areas in which human beings meet each other which is liable to diminish and defuse that hostility.
Equally, however, I feel that the present system of pushing teacher training further away from universities

895
rather than drawing it closer is just what is calculated to enhance—here I agree with the underlying sentiment—the things that are wrong with teacher training.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister on her opening speech. I was amazed when she presented the Bill because it sounded like a logical and fairly sensible measure. It was not until I looked back at the Bill itself and at Clause 20 that I realised that one can make this Bill as rational as one likes because the real meat and drink of it comes in the regulations which are not in front of us. I shall have to speak on this issue with a great deal of ignorance because we do not know what will be in the regulations. They have not been put before us. We do not even have any draft regulations. On the third day of debate on the gracious Speech, I asked the Minister if she intended to put draft regulations before the House, and she said that she would. I hope that she will.
It is disappointing that the regulations have not appeared before today's debate. There would have been a great deal more to discuss. As they are not before us, I shall make just a short speech. I apologise for that, but I hope to make up for my brevity by the amount of work done in Committee.
It is not so long since I was a student. A great deal has been said about students' unions, but they are only a vehicle by which students make their lives acceptable through university. The students' union is a focus for student activities through societies, groups, welfare and a number of other activities such as catering and bars. In some university towns, students are not liked. They need a students' union so as to be among their fellow students.
It is unfortunate that an institution that works well at the moment will come into direct conflict with the bodies with which it functions so well—the universities themselves. I am aware that the Minister has given assurances that there will not be a great deal of bureaucracy. Yesterday, she pointed out that the Government are committed to the principle of academic autonomy and to freeing, as far as possible, universities from bureaucratic constraints. I go along with that sentiment. After listening to so many vice-chancellors and others today, I feel that in universities there is a real danger, and fear that a great deal of expensive and wasteful bureaucracy will be created. The legislation is unnecessary.
I must admit that as a student I did not find the students' union to be an insidious political organisation. It took me a while to work out what students' unions stood for. To tell the truth, apart from the activities the students' union organised, I was not much worried. It provided a bar, welfare and a number of other activities. That is what most interests students.
On the issue of opting into clubs, the action of walking into a club and trying to become a member is a voluntary action showing that one wants to take part in that club. One of the dangers about having subscriptions to societies is that students are offered a great array of societies to join when they first go to
896
university. A student may join four or five societies before deciding which will take up most of his time. A student will then settle into a hobby and make friends in that society. If societies are so restricted by financial constraints that they have to charge a subscription before the student can find out what he wants to do—the only way a society obtains money is when the student first walks through the door, because it will not get it afterwards—that will impose a self-regulatory system upon a society. There will therefore be far fewer societies, which would be a great shame.
One of the saddest aspects of the Bill is that it shows a remarkable lack of faith in students themselves. Students have told me that if the students' union was taken over by a politically active group it would be for a short time only because the students themselves would vote it out. That has happened at a number of universities. We are taking away from students the right to choose, if the proposal is forced upon them.
My view of the Bill can be illustrated by a joke which went around our university. The proverb was that a lecture was a means of getting information from the lecturer's notes to the student's notes without their going through the mind of either. It seems that this piece of legislation has not been thought about.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, many of your Lordships have turned to drama to describe the latest in a long line of Education Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, opted for Richard III, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, went for The Mousetrap, while my noble friend Lord Dainton chose Hamlet. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to drama as part of education. I shall refrain from the obvious response of referring to a Whitehall farce, although the title of one of them, She's done it again!springs to mind. I prefer to stick to Macbeth when contemplating all those Education Bills because I know how he felt when he saw in his nightmare the long line of ghostly kings and inquired somewhat anxiously whether the queue would stretch out to the crack of doom.
As I am sure your Lordships know, Macbeth is looked upon with a certain degree of suspicion, even dread, by my fellow Thespians. Ill fortune is said to follow a production. It would indeed be ill fortune if any government were to follow Lady Macbeth on the occasion of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House and our suggestions and amendments were ignored with those contemptuous words:
"What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account".
But I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is no Lady Macbeth and, as is her wont, will listen most courteously and closely to all that your Lordships have to say and, we hope, will act upon the same. Dumping the Bill, or amending it significantly, would seem to be the preferred option tonight.
Perhaps I may jump into the fray and suggest two points which I believe should be looked at now and to which I shall return at a later date should the Bill come forward in its present state. First, I support the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Redesdale, in their

897
tribute to the work of Student Community Action and, like many of your Lordships, trust that the Government's anxiety to curb public funds being spent by student unions on the purchase of rotten tomatoes to hurl at visiting Ministers will not also act as a curb on student union fund-raising activities —rag weeks and the like—which support so many deserving causes, MENCAP included, and which encourage young people to become involved in their local communities. I cannot imagine that the Bill is intended to put a stop to such "decency and consideration for others".
However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I should like to quote a few lines from Sir William Fraser, the Principal Vice-Chancellor of Glasgow University, who can put this far better than I:
"Among the many characteristics of a real university—and certainly of this university"
Glasgow, of course—
"are the opportunities opened up to students to organise themselves, to form clubs and societies and to gain thereby experience to make themselves useful citizens—and, in some cases, leaders in our society. Here in this University we have the Students Representative Council, three Unions, the Athletic Club and innumerable groups —innumerable in the sense that some of them coalesce and disappear over such short periods that they cannot be enumerated. Most of these organisations receive some financial support from the University, either directly or through the SRC…What, you may ask, is a core function: will the Drama Club, the Cecilian Society, the Exploration Society, the Chess Club, be core activities? We don't know. Will the SRC be allowed to use part of its grant from the University to write on student affairs to MPs or newspapers? Possibly not—but we don't know.
And why in any case should we have to bother? Has there been some great scandal? No. Are the accounts of the main student societies not already audited? Of course they are. Is the University powerless to blow the whistle if students misappropriate funds? Of course not. So why, when there are so many serious issues in higher education, is the Government pressing on with this legislation in the face of almost universal opposition?".
Perhaps I may turn to something which may be more important from my personal point of view as chairman of MENCAP; that is, the teacher training agency. I cannot find anything in Part I of the Bill which states that members of the agency should have experience of disability or of children with special needs. I fear that the lack of any specific mention will mean the lack of any specific action. Unless teachers in mainstream schools can recognise and support children with special needs in those mainstream schools, those children will get integration without education. Conversely, unless teachers in special needs classes and/or schools—or those providing back-up in mainstream schools —have the special teaching skills which they need, large numbers of children will get segregation without education.
We know what children with special needs can achieve given proper support. We know what teachers can achieve given proper training. If we do not provide specialist training for the teachers of children with special needs we betray the teachers and we betray the children. Anyone who imagines that ordinary teaching, taken slowly, will do is making the same mistake as those who believe that speaking English slowly will do instead of learning a foreign language. Perhaps I may quote the Scottish play yet again:
"You see, her eyes are open".
"Ay, but their sense is shut".
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me as a Scot a wonderful entrance and I am grateful. Amid the cannon-fire directed at the Government Front Bench from all parts of the House, we should remind ourselves quietly from time to time that there is a good deal of anxiety across the country that means should be found to improve the training of teachers, in particular primary school teachers. It is clear that many people who are not involved professionally, and indeed some who are, believe that far too many new teachers are being let down by the nature and quality of their training.
Continuing evidence exists in comparisons of the performance of children in different classes taught by different teachers in the same school. It exists as those same children move into higher or further education. It also exists as they move into the world of work. The CBI, which represents employers, is deeply anxious.
Of course, many teachers cope extremely well. Many enter the profession with the understanding, the skill and the commitment necessary to succeed as a teacher. The National Association of Head Teachers reminds us of the most recent Ofsted report which suggests that the performance of new teachers has al least been maintained since 1987, if it has not improved. It may well be that there is heartening news; we all hope so. However, I do not believe that the Government should be condemned for deciding to do something. The life chances of too many children are at risk.
On the face of it, I can well understand the decision that the way most likely to provide an improvement in teacher training is the setting up of an agency specifically charged with that task. The Minister in her clear introduction to the debate all those hours ago appeared to see few problems in the Government's approach. I have three main worries. Noble Lords will be comforted to know that I shall be brief because all those worries have all been mentioned tonight.
I worry seriously that a body set up by and answerable to the Secretary of State, a body specifically designed strongly and directly to influence the training and education of teachers, will be a ready-made channel for political manipulation should any future government wish to see it in that way. The Minister told us that safeguards exist in the Bill. In Committee we shall need to look carefully to ensure that they are strong enough.
My second worry stems from my experience and from what I am told by the Open University, by the CVCP and by individual universities. It is the wisdom of giving the new agency responsibility for research. I was glad to hear what my noble friend the Minister said about a possible change of heart by the Government in that respect. That is indeed sensible news. We must look carefully at the implications of any government amendments tabled to the Bill.
I share my third worry with other noble Lords. It is the danger that under the arrangement for England, if not for Wales, the education of teachers may become isolated from the education of other professional people.

899
Clause 4(1) (b) gives responsibility to the new agency not only for research but also for funding the provision of higher education in
"the theory, practice and management of education".
The dangers of that have been spelt out by many noble Lords.
I wish to add what I regard as a further danger. Teachers need the respect and support of the parents of the children whom they teach. For that, parents need not only to see and to know that teachers have proper classroom skills but they need to appreciate that teachers are professional, educated people. Teachers are not just skilled technicians, although people want that, but they should be people with academic standards whom parents can trust. Teachers need to be involved in courses together with other professionals. Too much separation could be damaging as well as unnecessarily expensive. We shall need to look at that danger during the Committee stage.
Before leaving Part I of the Bill, I wish to ask my noble friend a question. In last night's debate there was a good deal of mirth and serious evidence about the paper generated by the new higher education funding councils. However, instead of setting up a free-standing agency, have the Government considered requesting the Higher Education Funding Council for England to set up a special committee within its own structure to do the job? Surely that would be a better use of resources. It would reduce or remove all three of the problems that I have mentioned. I believe that it could be done without new legislation. Did the Government consider that and, if so, why did they not adopt it? I do not believe that the suggestion put forward by the CVCP for a joint committee of all three funding councils will work. It would involve Scotland, where the training of teachers and the arrangements for that are very different.
I turn briefly now to Part II of the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Skidelsky that we must remember that there is a history here and that history can repeat itself. I believe that in the view of most people it is unacceptable that student unions should spend taxpayers' money on party political campaigning across the country outside the university. That is widely regarded as unacceptable. It is also regarded as unacceptable that student unions should victimise individuals or individual unions, that they should run themselves in an undemocratic way and so forth.
The proposition in Clause 21 is sensible, but the proposition in Clause 20 is very much less so. It suggests that under the negative instrument procedure Parliament will decide, with little discussion, what student unions can do with public money, and that they must somehow find the money for everything else. For many years I have been closely in touch with student unions at a variety of universities and colleges. Last month I and other members of the governing body visited St. Andrews University and we spent some time seeing the many services and activities that its student union organises. The imagination boggles at the work and cost of the bureaucracy which will be involved in separating core and non-core. I agree with noble Lords
900
who have said that something must be done about Clause 20. In my view, Clause 20 as it stands is out of the question.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I feel that Clause 21 is much more reasonable. It lists various requirements for the democratic and accountable conduct of student unions and requires an institution's governing body to produce its own code of practice accordingly. The list needs careful examination in Committee. Clearly, for example, the Government have not yet taken account, as another noble Lord said, of the views of the Open University, in which to ballot the 130,000 members every year would cost £50,000 each time. That is utterly impossible. Nevertheless, the approach in Clause 21 is practical and sensible.
Could not the purpose of Clause 20 be achieved in the same way? There could be a broad statement on the face of the Bill as to what Parliament requires should not be financed out of public money and the requirement that every governing body should implement that through its own code of practice. That would work and it would allow for different circumstances in different institutions.
I know that the public and their elected representatives like to know that there has been proper consultation and that the Government's action which results, at least on practical mechanics and workability, pays some attention to what those consulted have said. As regards Clause 20, the Secretary of State has not taken the advice that he received. The Government need to help higher education institutions and students. They need to be their friend. It is unwise to attack them and hem them in when it is quite unnecessary to do so. Resources are scarce. Universities are bastions of our democracy and they are trying very hard to do a good job in difficult times. I believe that Clause 20 at least must be radically altered and I ask the Government to think again about that.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, at this late hour and after 25 speakers in the debate so far with, at my tally, a ratio of two to the Government and 23 to the rest of the House, there is little more that I can add. I wish to say just a few words about Parts I and II of the Bill and then speak a little about what we might do with them.
Part I is about downgrading the teaching profession. That was the way in which my noble friend Lord Glenamara described it, and I believe that will be the net result. I was extremely interested in the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in which he seemed to suggest that there was room for improvement in the theory and practice of teaching. I believe that we all agree that there is always room for improvement in professional practice.
I thought it rather curious to hear someone who is a professional economist saying that the profession of teaching is not a real profession. I thought that was a rather curious contribution. However, I agree that there is a need to look at ways in which to improve the theory and practice of teaching, but I wonder whether we shall achieve that by centralising the organisation of teacher education and training and educational research. I

901
should have thought that it is far better to have the pluralistic regime that we have at present through various different teacher training colleges, universities, the activities of a whole range of local education authorities and different practices in schools up and down the land. That gives us a tremendous degree of diversity and the ability to identify good practice and work on it.
What is most important is the need to reinforce that sense of professionalism in teaching and to ensure that those people engaged in the teaching profession have an adequate amount of academic and practical training.
The reality is that over the past 20 to 25 years, we have seen the teaching profession going from a profession which was, broadly speaking, trained or educated through a three-year full-time course to one which effectively received its teacher education and training in a one year course. I recognise that that one-year course is a post-graduate course. But again in this regard I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. He seemed to think that in order to teach, one merely needed a knowledge of the subject. I suggest that it should be almost completely the other way round and that the most important requirement for teaching is to have the professional expertise, knowledge and ability to teach. Someone who has that professional expertise can teach almost any subject under the sun. There are obviously difficulties about that in some areas and subjects; but, broadly speaking, I suggest that is true. Therefore, the Government's proposals in Part I will not be supportive of the teaching profession.
As regards Part II, if one looks at the provisions in Clauses 20 and 22, powers are given to the Secretary of State which would make a nanny blush and Stalin smile in appreciation. They are immense dictatorial powers which confer the ability to determine matters in the minutest detail. For example, the Bill states that orders or regulations:
"may make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas and may contain such incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
That confers on the Secretary of State the power not only to determine what happens to a very precise level but it gives him the power to determine different things in different institutions in different parts of the country. Effectively, it gives him the ability not only to be broadly dictatorial, which would be bad enough, but it gives him the power to be dictatorial in terms of one area of activity in one part of the country. In effect, that gives him the power to be discriminatory and unfair. That is the way it is written on the face of the Bill. I do not know whether that is the Government's intention; but I suspect that they would not wish to think that it would be interpreted in that way.
The Bill before us is two sows' ears. I wonder what we should do with it now. One option would be for us to decline to give it a Second Reading. The net result of that would be that the Government would introduce it at the other end of the building and the majority in the House of Commons would rubber stamp the main provisions and we should have great difficulty in significantly modifying it. But if we give the Bill a Second Reading (which by custom and practice we
902
generally do in this place) it then goes into Committee and we shall have the opportunity to advise the Government in fairly radical ways. Indeed, one of the provisions that we might write into Part I of the Bill is the formation of a general teaching council, which was mentioned by several speakers in today's debate.
There are also various other ways in which we could radically change the Bill. We could effectively use it like a shell company and be entrepreneurial in our advice to the Government. It is to be hoped that the Government might listen to our advice and modify their views on the training of teachers, the operation of students' unions and the positive development of education that we need to see in this country.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, at this late hour I shall deal with only one issue which relates to Part I of the Bill. As a governor of various schools over a number of years, I have often wondered whether education was not too important an issue to be left to the educational establishment. After all, most children are being educated for life and not for academia.
There is something to be said for an escape from the domination of the academic establishment. However, I am a little worried about what we are getting instead. Are we getting a kind of Arts Council—that is, a group of faceless men and women making bad decisions and not answerable to Parliament? If so, I wonder whether we should, like Jim,
"Always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse".
Will the Secretary of State take responsibility for the decisions of the teacher training organisation? Will he and the noble Baroness answer questions at the Dispatch Box about it and accept responsibility for its actions? I know from bitter experience that that is not the case with the Arts Council. One of the objects of the teacher training agency (indeed, it is the only object which really mentions teaching) is stated in Clause 1 (2) (C):
"To contribute to raising the standards of teaching".
But teaching what? For example, there is no requirement in the Bill for the agency to balance subject courses which it finances with the demand from schools. What price the Government's policy of parental choice? Parents, through governors, will not be able to make a choice if there are no teachers there to teach the subject. Therefore, it will be the teacher training agency which eventually chooses the subjects (outside the core curriculum) to be taught, in our schools, not the governors or parents. I put it to your Lordships: do we want the subject mix taught to our children to be decided by eight faceless men and women who are not even answerable to Parliament?
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to the significance of family background in influencing school failure. If we are to improve the quality of family background which our young children enjoy, we must be prepared to have specialist teachers trained to develop a better understanding in young people of the needs of young children and of the responsibilities of becoming a parent. That will have to be done through discussion, videos and all sorts of special teaching

903
methods in secondary schools. It will also need specialist teachers. What reason do we have from the Bill to be confident that the eight faceless men and women will decide to ensure that teachers are trained for that work?
Finally, what about ethos and values? What provision is made in the Bill to make sure that the teacher training agency ensures the proper moral, spiritual, social, cultural and physical development of pupils? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to personal qualities of teachers. What confidence do we have from the wording of the Bill that the agency will be concerned about such matters?
Clause 6 refers to denominational institutions. I welcome that reference. As the right reverend Prelates suggested, there are amendments that we shall want to table on points of detail. The fact that denominational institutions have been taken into account is, as I said, to be welcomed.
Are decisions about the education of our children to be taken by another kind of Arts Council making confused and unsatisfactory decisions and shielded from query or criticisms by its quango status? Alternatively, will the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend be prepared to come to the Dispatch Box, answer questions and accept responsibility for the acts and omissions of the teacher training agency? I have to point out that I believe I have given the shortest speech today.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, I have been searching for a kind word with which to greet the Bill and I have found one which is at least neutral. The Bill is briefer than those which preceded it on the subject of education. But there, I fear, my welcome has to end. I shall say little about Part I of the Bill because that lies largely outside my experience. However, what strikes me is that the argument for a separate training agency seems strange and, it might be said, even perverse.
Teaching is a graduate level profession and one would assume that standards in teaching are best set and delivered by teachers. If the argument is sound—and I listened to what my noble friend said in her opening speech on the subject—I am still not quite able to understand why it is proposed to create a training agency for England but to leave the responsibility in Wales with its funding council. The proposal seems to flow against a counter-tide under which, for example, the Minister for Health wishes to link nursing training with higher education.
What then is the rationale for distancing teacher training from higher education, where logic would seem to place it? Surely there must be extra costs involved. Further, what precedents do we signal from that intention? Today it is teachers; tomorrow, will it be lawyers, engineers, veterinarians, or what? The signal for higher education is not a positive one.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. The words that I have to use to describe my reaction to those clauses are "frustration" and "dismay". "Frustration" because little or no regard is paid to considered advice from those
904
responsible for running our higher education institutions. Here I must declare an interest as I am chairman of the board of governors of one of the new universities, a position that I have held for more than 10 years.
There was, to be sure, a period of consultation. Universities replied collectively through the CVCP and CCUCab. I have seen their responses which reflect the approach taken by the Bill. I was present on 23rd October at a meeting of CCUCab at Warwick University at which the feelings on the subject ran strong and also ran quite unanimously. Old and new universities, large and small universities and universities from the north and south of England were all against the proposals which have been spelt out in the Bill.
I have a concern about the process of consultation. It has been remarked that the time allowed for it fell substantially during the summer vacation. However, that time was extended. I wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of my own university on 29th October, just before the end of the consultation period. I received his reply with quite remarkable and, one might say, unusual speed. It was dated 8th November. I have to say that the reply barely addressed my concerns; but, more significantly, attached to the reply was a departmental paper which was dated November 1993 which, in essentials, foreshadowed the proposals in the Bill. The Bill itself received its first reading on 23rd November. What conclusion can one draw? One could suppose that minds were not open at the end of October. The Secretary of State has said that he wants to listen. There is, I fear, no evidence that he has heard anything at all.
I turn now to the dismay that occurred when the Bill was published. However, I had one moment of hope. We made the point that the legal status of students' unions was in need of clarification. Clause 18 has the promising rubric "Meaning of 'students' union". It runs to 37 lines. It contains such memorable wording as:
"In relation to an association or body which is a students' union by virtue of this subsection, references in this Part to 'all students' are to all the students who by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) are comprehended by that expression in relation to its constituent or affiliated associations or bodies".
That is quite so. But what of the power of the student unions to contract and the power to incur debts? What of their status as employers? There is not one word about those matters.
Here I pause to ask a question of my noble friend Lady Blatch. If there is no immediate answer I shall quite understand, but it would be helpful to be told whether I am on the right track. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill", states:
"The provisions in Part II of the Bill for the reform of students' unions will have no effect on the public funds available for further and higher education".
At present students' unions are funded substantially from the grant given to the universities by the funding council. A literal interpretation, therefore, would be that, if under Clause 20 the funds passed onto the union were reduced, the balance would be available to universities to fund particular activities on a voluntary basis or by sponsorship of the unions. I see my noble

905
friend nodding her head. The point is not insignificant and it would be helpful to have confirmation that that is indeed the case.
However, the most important aspect of these proposed changes, and the aspect which to me makes them most unacceptable, is the diminution in the responsibility placed on students individually and collectively. For 10 years now in our own institution I have witnessed the effect on young people, and on some who are not so young in an institution with more than 50 per cent. mature entry, of being given responsibility for budgets, employees, running committees and organising activities. Generally they respond well. Being immature, they respond occasionally in a surprising or even an inadequate manner, but they are generally quite readily persuaded to take the necessary corrective action. That is a part, and a vitally formative part, of the development of maturity. This process should be encouraged and the opportunities should never be diminished. Those 40 lines of print in Clause 20 regrettably have the effect of discouraging responsibility and diminishing opportunity.
Most of us, I suppose, have had the responsibility for raising children, usually our own but sometimes other people's. I suggest that none of us approaches this awesome task—for once the word is used in its literal sense—in such a nannyish manner as does this Bill. The Bill says in effect, "We will give you in due course, and at our sole discretion, a list of the things you may do, and all else will not be supported by us, your parents". Surely it is an irony to adopt this approach for young people collectively. The 10 Commandments start "Thou shalt not" and leave individuals obeying these prohibitions to develop their talents and their careers. That is why, in essence, Part II of the Bill is unwelcome as well as being, in my opinion, unnecessary.
Those are my own conclusions based on experience in my own institution. Now I find myself in complete accord with those responsible for other universities and that makes me ask whether it is just possible that all of us are right and the Secretary of State is wrong. Is it just possible that Clause 20 attacks the wrong target, long after it has ceased to pose any threat, at the wrong time and with inappropriate weapons? I shall not take time at this hour in spelling out my objections to Clause 20. They are on record in correspondence and in general they have been referred to by earlier speakers. Whether or not there will be adequate merit in other clauses of Part II I do not at the moment wish to judge. I do not know whether they will become useful with amendment. It has been commented—I agree with this—that there is some useful substance in Clause 21. Whether or not that is the case, I believe that the nannying approach underlying Clause 20 puts it beyond redemption.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, speaking near the end of a long debate it would be extremely unlikely, not to say miraculous, that I should have anything new to say. Nevertheless I wish to explain, if your Lordships will bear with me, why I oppose this Bill most strongly.
On the second part of the Bill concerned with student unions —that is itself not perhaps the most world
906
shatteringly urgent issue—I want only to support what has been said as to the unlimited powers that are apparently to be taken by the Secretary of State, who, as the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford put it, has only to keep silence to render any expenditure of money by the unions illegal.
Students—I have seen a deputation of them today—believe strongly (and I think they are right) that they are still tarred with the brush of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Here I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. My experience, which is comparatively recent, is that they have changed radically since those days. I believe that Part II of the Bill is grotesque as it stands —the word "bizarre" has been used elsewhere in this connection—and is based on an outdated perception.
The first part of the Bill contains more serious misconceptions perhaps, and certainly more serious threats. I wish briefly to address the first part of the Bill from a somewhat egocentric point of view. But before I do so I must express the hope that when she comes to reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will clarify the meaning of Clause 11(1) (a) about which I intended to say something but I cannot now do so as I have discovered I do not understand it. As far as I can see, this clause says nothing whatever about the limitation of school-based courses to graduates only. But I understood the noble Baroness to say that this was how it was limited. If such courses are not limited to graduates, then I think the clause might well be a signal for the reintroduction of the Mum's Army which was apparently so recently repudiated by the Government. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could clarify that clause later.
I shall embark briefly on some egocentricity. In 1985 in the BBC Dimbleby lecture of that year I spoke in favour of a shift towards training teachers in a certain way. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that there is an ambiguity in the expression "teacher training". I am using it in the sense of pedagogy. I spoke in favour of this pedagogical aspect of teachers' education to be held in certain designated schools analogous to teaching hospitals. I argued then—I still agree with my argument —that in such schools some of the senior teachers should be allocated to the supervision of students, both in the classroom and outside it, and should be paid for that as part of their job. However, some of the supervision, in the form of tutorials or seminars, might be given in the related university or higher education college, departments where the designated teachers should also be part-time members of staff.
The reasons I then advocated such a scheme—I still wholly believe in them—were threefold. First, it would make what teachers learnt in their training more practical, more realistic and more up to date. I have no doubt that those aims are shared by government. Secondly, it would provide for some teachers a professional career structure which would not force them out of the classroom into pure administration. Finally, it would enhance the status of the school teaching profession by encouraging the collaboration of school teachers as equals with university staff. I

907
believed that that enhancement would go along with the creation of a statutory general teaching council under which teachers would be empowered not only to set their own professional standards but to see to it, on the ground, that those standards were fully understood, aspired to and accepted by students and by teachers in their probationary years.
The twin pillars on which such a scheme would rest are, first, the establishment of a statutory general teaching council; and, secondly, the close and structured co-operation between schools and institutions of higher education such as university departments of education or colleges. On the first of those twin pillars I shall say nothing because the Bill is silent on the general teaching council. However, I wish to say a little about the second.
My conviction that joint training schemes shared between higher education institutions and schools would work and be productive of the best trained professionals was based on the observation of what was going on, and has increasingly gone on since, in the places where such an arrangement had been started. Sussex made it work. Oxford—where the sadly maligned Professor Brighouse, as chief officer of the local education authority (as he then was), was responsible for the school side—made it work. When Professor Brighouse became Professor of Education at the University of Keele he made such a scheme work in Staffordshire.
I recognised in 1985, as I do now, that the funding of such joint schemes was somewhat complex. However, the problems are not insoluble given the common aims and good will on both sides.
I relate that past history simply to point to what I believe is an indissoluble connection between the education of teachers, including pedagogy, and higher education as a whole. To separate them, as will be the effect of the Bill, is totally to undermine the utility of school as a place of training. The training of teachers to a considerable extent may best be carried out in school itself. But to bring that about, to make it a proper training, higher education must be brought into the classroom, and equally the experience of the classroom must be brought into higher education. They must be interwoven. The people involved on each side must be equals. Otherwise the training of teachers will become little more than a practical apprenticeship, as has been suggested—the pupil-teacher system of old.
It is not only that there must remain some reflective elements in the training of teachers. I prefer the words "reflective elements" to the word "theoretical" because theoretical education or educational theory has an extremely bad name, although that dates from long ago. I believe that there must be reflective elements in the training of teachers. They must have time to stand back to see what they are doing and why they are doing it if they are to understand whether they succeed or fail in the classroom. More importantly, the training of teachers, as with any professionals, must not be a static concept based only on tradition. It must essentially be based on research—and especially now, when there are so many changes both in educational content and techniques.
908
In that context, research must be independent, academic research, much of which will inevitably be inter-disciplinary. It will have recourse especially to the academic expertise of psychologists and linguisticians, perhaps other social sciences, mathematicians, people who are interested in the history and philosophy of science and many others. Such research must be funded along with other academic research, not hived off to a department of its own under the auspices of a government-appointed funding council or agency.
Of course it is true that there is provision in the Bill for the new funding agency to collaborate, if it so wishes, with the other funding agencies. But it is beyond belief that that would be the most efficient or cost-effective way of funding research into education. If research were so funded, it seems more than dubious whether it would be wholly disinterested and not affected in any way by current government policies.
From my reading of the Bill it is not clear that any research whatsoever will be forthcoming from the new teacher training scheme, much less that the training in schools, separately funded, will necessarily be based on such research. To split off the pedagogical training of teachers from the remainder of higher education must be to the detriment both of the standing and, more importantly, the effectiveness of teachers. There appears to be no argument in favour of the establishment of the new and separate funding agency, and it is on that ground that I must oppose the Bill.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I propose to concentrate my words of welcome for this very necessary Bill on its first part, which deals with teacher training. I do not have so much personal experience of student unions, although I feel sure that the Bill is right when it seeks to make students' involvement in their unions' political activity voluntary. I am also encouraged by the fact that the two Vice-Chancellors with whom I have discussed Part II of the Bill both tell me that their universities can easily live with it.
However, I believe that my experience over the past 10 years as the representative of commerce on the Council for National Academic Awards, or CNAA, entitles me to welcome the changes proposed for teacher training in somewhat greater detail. For the record, I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the CNAA was the validating and degree-awarding body for the polytechnic sector and for many higher education courses from 1964 until it was closed down earlier this year. In that capacity it validated the majority of teacher training in England and Wales.
Your Lordships may be aware that this lonely experience has given me a fairly jaundiced view of at least the softer subjects in most of our higher education system. Although, of course, I am sure that there are many sparkling exceptions, I fear that too many of our universities do not add enough value to their students' knowledge acquired at A-level, at least in the humanities and social sciences, to justify their enormous cost to the taxpayer. I believe that many of the academics employed in those areas are among the most spoilt people in the public sector.

909
During our debates on earlier Education Bills I have compared the employment terms of lecturers and others in our universities with, for example, those of nurses and others in the health professions, so I shall not repeat it all now. Suffice it to say that I have since become aware of a history teaching don at Oxford University on full pay and generous conditions who runs an antique shop full time. I have also become aware of a sociology student at Edinburgh University who cannot find herself more than four hours' work a week unless she invents her own reading list. Of course, if your Lordships are familiar with many of our modern sociology courses, which share much with our teacher training courses, you may feel that she is well advised to do just that. But one cannot help thinking that something pretty fundamental must be wrong with a system which permits these sorts of excesses at taxpayers' expense.
Of course, I accept that much is also excellent in our higher education system, especially in the harder subjects such as medicine and science generally. But we are discussing teacher education tonight, which is a very different kettle of fish.
If my experience as a non-academic on the CNAA for 10 years was a lonely one, I can assure your Lordships that criticising higher education in this House is not only a lonely business; it is also extremely frightening. One cannot help noticing that your Lordships' House is peculiarly well endowed with vice-chancellors and other luminaries of the system, not all of whom seem to declare their particular interest in our debates. When we disagree, as we usually do about higher education, I am often struck by the impression that we must be looking at a completely different animal. Perhaps it is just because we look at it from different angles.
Indeed, I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Beloff is in his seat. He revealed the other day that he always disagrees with everything I say about education. I have given some thought to that and have to suggest that it may be because our experiences in higher education—his very deep, immensely creative and successful, mine comparatively superficial and extremely frustrating—were gathered at the opposite ends of the higher education spectrum.
To prove my point, I think I have only to remind my noble friend that the CNAA refused to validate Buckingham University—
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? That is untrue. Buckingham withdrew its application to the CNAA because it thought that the CNAA's methods of validation were wholly unsatisfactory. I think it was before the noble Lord's time, but he must not repeat something which is wholly untrue and which the CNAA has admitted is not a fact.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I think it proves the point of what happens when you come at things from opposite ends of the spectrum. I was going on to say that the fact that the CNAA did not end up validating Buckingham University—in Buckingham University's version because it did not want to go on with it, but in the CNAA's culture, the version I have
910
given; but for whatever reason—was what allowed it to go on to become such a. beacon of extraordinary excellence in our system of higher education.
Before I move on from this general background to focus on the teacher training aspects of the Bill, it would be very wrong of me if I did not pay tribute to much of the work of the CNAA from 1964 to 1993. Although I have some harsh and, I trust, disturbing things to say about its validation of the majority of teacher training in this country, its system of peer review was often innovative and rigorous. It did much to make particularly the "technic" part of the polytechnic experiment successful. My doubts lie more with the "poly" side of things, but even here the CNAA did much good work.
Before I go on, I should also like to pay tribute to the many dedicated and hard-working teachers in our schools today. It is just that I believe that those teachers are succeeding in spite of their teacher training and not because of it.
Your Lordships will be aware that the 35 polytechnics were miraculously transformed into universities upon the demise of the CNAA. They were all therefore given their own degree-awarding powers, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear my fear that many of them were not yet ready for that great responsibility. That theory is based on the fact that the CNAA had only granted what we called "accreditation" to the polytechnics within three years before their miraculous metamorphosis. "Accreditation" meant that even the CNAA's often cosy and always bureaucratic peer review was handed over to the institutions themselves. The idea had been when we granted accreditation that we would continue to go round our institutions every five years or so to make sure that they were indeed sticking to the internal validation procedures which we had agreed with them as the condition for our grant of accreditation.
I have to say that this whole process of accrediting the polytechnics was indecently and dangerously hurried, because by granting accreditation almost wholesale we hoped to stave off the political pressure for our closure which was being orchestrated by the polytechnic directors seeking autonomy from what they naturally regarded as our yoke. That meant that we had to take too much on trust, in my view, and I can, confirm to your Lordships that I went on a number of accreditation visits. Worse still, our closure this year means that we shall not be able to find out for a very long time whether our trust has been justified or not.
I was delighted to hear from my noble friend Lady Cox, who is a shrewd and experienced observer of these, things, that accreditation and university status have indeed borne the intended fruit of good academic quality at what is now Bournemouth University, of which she has the honour to be chancellor. But I fear that that may be more the exception than the rule, at least in the faculties which worry me.
Having just given some of the reasons for my worries about quality in higher education generally, I come to teacher training itself and its reform as proposed by this Bill. The CNAA carried out its peer review and validation process through subject sub-committees. I sat

911
on its Teacher Education Committee (as it was known in the jargon) for six years from 1984 to 1989. They were years of constant dismay and growing apprehension. I quickly saw that the teacher educators formed a large, powerful and introverted establishment who did not mix much with real teachers.
To give your Lordships some idea of its size, in 1992 there were some 60,000 students on teacher training courses. About three-quarters of them would have been on four-year Bachelor of Education, or B.Ed., degrees and about one-quarter would have been on one-year postgraduate certificate of education, or PGCE, courses. The CNAA, before its demise, validated rather more than half of the whole system.
As well as being validated by the CNAA, our courses were inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, with whom my committee found itself in easy affinity. Both these processes took place under the influence of Teachers' Branch at the Department of Education and Science, whose advice to the Secretary of State on appointments to our council seemed to make sure that dissenting voices thereon were few and far between. I was clearly a ghastly mistake.
After 1984, the courses were also accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (or CATE, as she has become known), because by 1983 my noble friend Lord Joseph, who was Secretary of State at the time, had realised that none of the quality assurance processes in teacher training was working properly, if at all. My noble friend has said recently in this House that his greatest regret about his time as Secretary of State is that he did not do more to improve teacher training. How right he was to say so.
Two other important factors were working in the background against the possibility that our courses might actually teach our students how to teach. First, the word had gone out that our teachers had to be an all graduate profession, even if that meant that they only possessed one of our useless B.Ed. degrees, having been accepted for their course with as little as two Es at A-level. Small wonder that their subject knowledge was so weak when they eventually faced a classroom.
Secondly, the teacher educators were determined to turn teacher training itself into a profession, and so they conveniently forgot that the profession is in fact teaching, which they therefore did much to harm.
Be all that as it may, I have to tell your Lordships that the CNAA never validated a teacher training course unless it conformed at least ostensibly to our criteria, and those criteria required a clear bias towards issues of gender, race and class at the expense of anything more useful to a teacher. They also required a clear aversion to all aspects of our traditional culture. For instance, and most serious of all in my view, we regarded as an anathema any course which might have required our students to give at least equal weight to the phonic method of teaching children to read as opposed to the look-and-learn method so favoured by all our trendy socialist educators.
Please remember, my Lords, that I am now describing the systematic control of the majority of our teacher training courses, certainly during the six years in
912
which I took part in the process but also, I suspect, over some 25 years. Lest anyone should think that that state of affairs was confined to the polytechnic sector, let me say that I have always been assured that most of the university courses in teacher training at that time were as bad as ours. Such evidence as I gathered at the time confirmed that. So I for one am not in the least surprised when I hear that some 6 million adults in the United Kingdom are now functionally illiterate and innumerate. What a terrible indictment of the state system of education in this country!
I wish that I could agree with those who will claim that I exaggerate, that I am out of date, or that CATE has done much to put those matters right. But in preparation for this debate I put my ear to the ground as to what is happening now at the chalk face in this sector. I regret to say that little seems to have changed. The course profiles may now be somewhat more disguised than they used to be, the reading lists may be a little less obviously biased; but to anyone versed in the jargon, the sorry picture is still there. I am tempted to name the half dozen institutions where I have been able to check that nothing much has changed at the chalk face. But I do not think that it would be fair to pick on just a few when the whole system remains so endemically cancerous.
Perhaps I may draw towards my conclusion by saying a few words about academic freedom, in response to those of your Lordships who appear to think that the Government's attempt to improve teacher training might interfere with that cherished concept. As I have pointed out before, academic freedom carries with it the duty to avoid bias. Seldom can that duty have been more widely betrayed than in our teacher training departments. The result is plain for all to see.
So I urge noble and academic Lords who have protested that academic freedom might be violated by the Government's proposals to look closely into what I have said. If possible, they should talk to students who have recently completed their teacher training courses but have not gone into teaching. They are the people who can speak most obviously and fearlessly. I hope that noble Lords will not dismiss my suggestion as worthless unless they already accept the broad thrust of what I say.
I make the suggestion because for most of the past 10 years I have tried to discuss what I discovered about teacher training courses with serious academics in our great universities and to ask them what they intended to do about it. The reaction was always the same: a vague, disinterested smile would greet me, accompanied by a statement such as "Teacher training, old boy? I'm afraid it's not vaguely a serious subject. You can't possibly expect me to have anything to do with it".
When I tried to discuss what I had learnt with Ministers in the department, their civil servants always persuaded them to treat me as though I was saying that I had just seen the Loch Ness monster. I can understand that many noble Lords who work or have worked in the purer realms of higher academe would prefer not to look too closely at the troubled waters of the loch. But I have to tell them that the monstrous teacher training establishment is still alive and still devouring student

913
teachers, who will therefore continue to fail to learn to teach too many of our children how to read, write, add up, subtract and divide.
So that is why I welcome the Bill. It seems to me to have at least a sporting chance of slaying the baleful beast of teacher training which has done and is doing so much irreversible damage to so many of our children in our state system of education.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must express the deepest sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who has sat through a barrage of criticisms with such good temper. I fear that I shall add to that barrage although I almost hesitate to do so in view of the quantity that has been hurled at her. I find it difficult to decide whether I sympathise with her more over the quantity of the criticism or over the quality of the support she received.
As mentioned by a large number of your Lordships—but it cannot be too often repeated—the Bill is yet another example of the centralisation of this Government and of control being given to the Secretary of State unchallenged by Parliament. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has not been present. We would no doubt have heard one of his powerful indictments of the Government for the way in which they are taking power, consciously or unconsciously, to decide matters which ought to be decided democratically. I refer to both the proposed appointment to the teacher training agency of eight individuals named by the Secretary of State and, of course, the enormously important regulations which are only to be dealt with on a negative basis. That is simply not good enough.
We in your Lordships' House have complained again and again that this Government are undermining Parliament as a whole and your Lordships' House in particular. The ability to amend is our primary task, and in a matter as important as this not to be able to amend because of the negative resolution proposal is an outrageous affront to the House.
That said, I join with those who have expressed grave anxiety in regard to both parts of the Bill. We know that not everything is as it ought to be with teacher training; no one pretends that it is. It is perfectly true that far too many are leaving school unable to accomplish simple arithmetic, reading and writing. My mother was a primary school teacher with classes of 60. She always said—I assume that she was speaking the truth, she usually did—that at the age of seven her children could do the four arithmetics, read and write. She had been through teacher training. What has happened to it since those days of long ago I do not know.
No one is saying that there is not room for improvement; there is. But I cannot believe that the improvement needed will come from the proposals put forward for the teacher training agency in the Bill. One of the weaknesses has been the segregation of teacher training from the universities; the separate teacher training colleges. Although many have now disappeared, in the past a number of teachers probably did not receive the kind of training they needed in those
914
colleges. One could have improved teacher training courses in education departments along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, through a proper working together of people on the more academic side with those on the applied side. That is happening in professional, academic teacher and nursing training, in management training and in the best of social work training where there is close collaboration. I was involved in that, as were many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. It is a skilful business finding people in the professional field who can work closely together so that what goes on in the practical area illuminates what goes on in the theoretical area and vice versa. That is what is needed, and that is what we see in the best departments. We need more of that, not less.
To some extent I go along with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, regarding the nature of the academic subject of pedagogy. I do not quite know what that is, but I know that a number of academic subjects were developed in the universities to a high level that are relevant to people who will teach. To be able to convey information, to communicate, to study how people learn, to study behaviour, to study human development; all are absolutely vital for people who intend to teach. After all, that is what psychology courses are all about. If we did not have psychology courses in the universities to give to people going into teaching, we would set about inventing them. This is one of the great disadvantages of leaving it to happen in the schools. People will make up their own homespun psychology in place of what is available in proper academic study in the universities. They will make remarks about how people learn and why they behave the way they do —and very odd a great deal of it will be.
We hear it all the time—mother's knee stuff—because people make generalisations. They have to. They have to have some idea of how they convey facts and ideas and stimulate thoughts in the people they are teaching. They invent their own psychology, not knowing that there is a great deal that they can already learn. If that had been going on in good education departments in universities. some of the nonsense taught—and there has been nonsense taught would not have been taught. In the rightly sceptical atmosphere of a good university, that nonsense would have been challenged, and challenged far more effectively than it has been in the past. It is that kind of integration between the professional in the field and the academic study applied in that field that we need.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, one of the points I was trying to make is that a majority—and perhaps a large majority—of teacher training takes place in departments which are a part of universities, as they all are nowadays. The fact is that the rest of the institution has not been interested in what was going on in the department concerned. We would not be where we are now if, in the CNAA, we had been able to get serious philosophers, serious psychologists and others onto the course teams in question.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I agree that one needs more of this. I do not believe that one does not get it everywhere. I am sure that one does get it. But one needs more. I agree with that. For once I almost agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says. That is where we need the development to come. I find the idea of doing it by apprenticeship extraordinary. Apprenticeship is suddenly being viewed again with great respect. Although the best of apprenticeship in the skill trades was superb, the worst of it was awful. Apprentices were always decried, and with justice, as teaboys. One could have teaboys' equivalents in the teaching world if one did all the training inside teaching establishments. Only the very ablest of teachers are able to contribute at a practical level to training of the kind that we need. Yes, we need improvements in teacher training but the way indicated by other speakers—notably, by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock—is the one we should follow. There is no indication of that in the Bill before your Lordships.
I simply cannot understand the attack on the students' union. I was at the heart of the storm of student riots in 1968. I had the privilege of being a staff representative on the LSE standing committee while the riots were going on. I had a whole day when a choir sang, "We shall overcome" outside my office door. If there had not been a Welshman in very good voice I do not know what would have happened. But there were even then some justification for it. It was not entirely without reason that those riots took place. They forced reforms in France which were long overdue. It was not the right way to do it but they expressed something which very much needed to be expressed.
The Government seem to have lost all awareness of the value of what goes on in student organisations. The core subjects given in the Bill reflect English anti-intellectualism at its very height. You are to be able to finance welfare, food and sport but you are not to be able to finance out of public money music, religion, art or political discussion or debate. Of course, it can be got out of the students' exiguous amounts of money which they have to spend. If we are to be told the contrary, that will be very good news but we understood that it was welfare, food and sport which was to be included in the publicly financed resources of students' unions.
Any of us who have been undergraduates or who have worked in universities know the enormous educational value of student activities. We ourselves and the students we dealt with learnt a great deal by following up our enthusiasms as members of committees which got organisations going and by taking an active part in them. In many ways they are much more valuable than a great deal of lecture courses. Those involved learnt a tremendous amount of what goes on through their own activities in organisations.
As we are turning universities more and more into glorified crammers, which the Government seem to want to do, we need more and not less in the way of student activities which can add genuine, educational experience of an extremely valuable kind to what goes on inside universities. The standards of our universities have been one of the crowning glories of this country, but they will go down and down. I have heard people in
916
a very good position to know say that if we go on as we are, in 20 years' time there will not be a university of world class in this country. At least let us not undermine the students' activities which maintain the standards of our universities.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, in my 15 years in this House I do not believe that I have been present at such a remarkable Second Reading of a Bill. There have been extremely powerful speeches by powerful speakers and the great majority have been very strongly against this Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, were the only two who had absolutely undiluted support for it. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I always disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and I do so again today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is more of mystery to me. I have great admiration for her in all she does. She is not here at this moment although she did appear at the Bar of the House a short time ago. I always admire very much what she says about health, nursing and the National Health Service. But when she speaks on education her judgment seems to go somehow. I feel that her anecdotal accounts of what goes on in schools do not altogether stand up to the test of—perhaps "truth" is the wrong word. If you go into them more deeply, you find that perhaps there is not quite so much in them. I was interested to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, who has had to leave the Chamber, had some doubts about what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said concerning research.
The great point which has come over in this debate is that this Bill is totally unnecessary. I like the right reverend Prelate's words that it is "administrative fidgeting". That is what I believe it is. Why are we wasting our time on this when all the Government really want to do could be done by other means? That is a great shame.
Another point which has come over is that there are too many delegated powers. I believe that almost everybody has said that. We do not really know what is in the Bill. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, say that the delegated powers committee will be meeting later this week, so we hope to have a report from it before we come to the Committee stage.
A formidable opposition has gathered to fight this Bill. If the Government have any genuine belief in listening to consumers, as they make out that they do, they must think again about this Bill. The Teacher Education Alliance, which has been formed to fight it, is made up of parents, governors, schools, colleges, universities, teacher organisations, researchers, local authorities and Churches. They are united in their approach. Their declared aim is to enhance the quality of initial and continuing professional development of teachers which will improve the quality of teaching in our schools. That is what we thought the Government wanted. No justification is offered as to why a separate teacher training agency is thought necessary. Its creation to fund and accredit courses would set teacher education apart from the rest of higher education, inviting universities to regard it as different and inferior, thus

917
weakening the status of teaching in comparison with all other major professions. If Wales still needs university support and the funding there continues to be managed by the HEFC, why, oh why can't England? I did not think that the Minister's defence of that in her opening speech was convincing.
Students thinking of becoming teachers—and the supply side may well prove difficult again in the future—will not find a non-university-based training nearly as attractive. The fun of meeting other students from different disciplines with the width of experience that that brings will have gone. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, spoke of that. The plan to allow people to receive qualified teacher status from the Secretary of State without any intervention from higher education will put this country in a unique position in Europe. Nearly all the developing countries of the Pacific Rim are rapidly upgrading their teacher education and are closely relating it to higher education.
We hear that teacher education is to be shortened from four to three years. Again, that is bad for students who need that time to acquire both subject knowledge and the confidence and skills to work in difficult conditions. There is also the fact that many students do not come up well prepared. In many cases, their educational performance is modest and they need those four years.
The only evidence cited in the DFE Green Paper—or "Blue Paper" as it is sometimes called—for radical reform of teacher training comes from Ofsted and refers to a recent inspection that was carried out by HMI and published as The New Teacher in School. Sir Peter Newsam pointed out in The Times Educational Supplement how that has been misrepresented. The actual reference in the consultative document is:
"The need to raise the level of professional skill of new teachers has been pointed out by recent evidence from OFSTED that around a third of lessons taken by new entrants were unsatisfactory. That is too high a figure for comfort".
But HMI has never claimed that a third of lessons by new teachers are unsatisfactory; nor has it given the impression in any of its inspection reports that teacher education generally, and initial teacher training in particular, is in such a serious plight that it is in need of radical reform.
I have been sent a paper which is headed,
"What HMI really said about standards in initial teacher training".
It was compiled by Eric Bolton who until fairly recently was Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. In the paper, Mr. Bolton quotes from a number of reports that were produced between 1988 and 1991 in which, of course, there are some criticisms—and we have all agreed that there is room for some criticism—and in which he states:
"The general picture is encouraging. Institutions continue to respond constructively to the requirements of the Secretary of State's criteria for teacher education, and the work of…CATE. "However, greater flexibility and variety in the routes into teaching should not put at risk the real gains in quality made over the past few years, nor threaten the even higher expectations of teacher training implicit in the thrust to raise standards in our system generally".
That was written in 1990, I believe. In February 1991, these comments were made:
918
"The majority of ITT courses are doing a satisfactory, or better job. They have continued to develop closer working relationships with schools to the benefit of their students. ITT courses are no longer over-loaded with educational theory or the history, psychology or sociology of education. So extensive are the working partnerships between colleges and schools becoming, beyond the long-standing arrangements for teaching practice, that the demands upon some schools are now very heavy. The tricky question of how to fund the schools, or in some way recompense them for their time and effort is now a pressing one. If not resolved satisfactorily, the goodwill of the schools will begin to evaporate to the detriment of effective teacher training.
The initial training of primary and secondary teachers is satisfactory or better in most institutions. In several, in both the university and public sectors, the quality is good, or outstanding. Of all the work inspected, 85 per cent. was judged satisfactory or better".
A good partnership has been built up and more schools are becoming involved. The training is becoming much more school-based. I wonder whether some of the criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for one, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, have caught up with how much change there has been in the past few years. Why put all that at risk by pushing through Parliament these ill-thought-out plans for schools-centred training when there is such opposition and no need? We should remember that university and college courses now provide 60,000 places, and the so-called pioneering schools-centred courses only 250. From 250 to 60,000 is a long haul.
But it is in the sphere of research that there is the greatest unease. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was powerful and entertaining on that subject. That responsibility would be assumed by the TTA, with its eight to 12 members appointed by the Secretary of State, including,
"persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters".
Will that encourage researchers? If the TTA takes over the funding and control of research, some fundamental principles will be violated, and substantial practical difficulties will be created. One important principle is that research should be independent of government. Academic freedom, fought for so often in the House, would be threatened, and in no other field of study will a Secretary of State be able to exert such direct control over the pursuit of knowledge and the dissemination of its results.
Educational research is essential for continuing professional development and the vitality of teachers and other practitioners. Educational research is strengthened by its links with social service research and other scholarly activities in universities. Recent years have seen a massive increase in research into, and therefore our knowledge of, children's development and learning and the conditions most conducive to its maximisation. In order to ensure the application of that knowledge in the classroom, students need knowledge of it during their preparation as teachers. That cannot be given them by existing practical teachers, although they can of course assist intending teachers in their induction into class organisation and teaching techniques. But only those thoroughly conversant with the new knowledge will be able to develop the new pedagogy, (teaching strategies and tactics) that present circumstances demand. The problem of truancy comes to mind.

919
The danger is that research sponsored by the TTA will focus too narrowly on applied research relating to the specific objects of the agency, whereas the main purpose of educational research is to improve the quality of education as a whole. Perhaps I may remind the Minister what the 1992 ESRC working party report Frameworks and Priorities in Education made clear:
"Educational research is a large-scale and complex national enterprise; properly based in universities; necessarily closely linked to social sciences; dependent on growing international links; concerned with many different aspects of education, at practical and theoretical levels and at all the stages; already highly self-critical and self-developing".
The transfer of educational research to the TTA is more likely to undermine than to enhance the quality of research undertaken. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, wondered whether any research would be undertaken.
Part II of the Bill relates to students' unions. Other noble Lords have made strongly the points I should have wished to make, so I shall try not to take up time repeating them. The Government's aims are purely political. If they had wanted to de-politicise some people in some unions, all they had to do was to make some activities ultra vires. That is a simple situation, and it could have been done. If the core/non-core division remains, much excellent work and good experience will be lost. I shall quote from a letter I received from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University:
"The drawing of any line will always give rise to argument about what should be on each side of it (and rugby in/opera out, may seem odd or unjustifiable to some). But that one area, in terms of our experience of it here at Bristol, might be outside seems astonishing. I refer to Student Community Action. The 'action' is marvellous unspectacular voluntary social work for the elderly, homeless and disabled in the city, work praised by our city fathers as it must be elsewhere too. The prospect that this work might stop or be gravely impaired because it is ineligible for core funding is unattractive indeed. Besides this specific area there is the general point that such divisions of funding will unavoidably introduce a large number of separate recording and accounting procedures, which is to no one's benefit in terms of efficiency or time spent."
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made the point about community action. The final point made by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor about the accounting procedures is important. Much valuable time will be wasted in producing multiple accounts and bureaucracy will be taking over.
I wish to ask a few questions about students' unions in further education, which has hardly been mentioned. The Government emphasise the need to involve all students. Bearing in mind the substantial number of part-time students in FE, have the Government considered the cost, complexity and bureaucracy attached to arranging secret ballots for all students on at least an annual basis? A ballot would need to last for a whole week if it is to allow the participation of part-time students who study for only one session a week. What is meant by students "at" an establishment, which appears in Clause 18(1) (a)? Many students studying at FE colleges are enrolled at universities. Are they to be included? Many FE students study at their place of work but are enrolled at an FE college. What is their position?
920
What legal mechanisms will be established to ensure that the codes of practice apply uniformly to all students in FE, whether they receive public funds or not?
The association for colleges believes that by including students' unions in FE, against which there is apparently no argument, within the terms of this legislation the Government are in real danger of creating a costly bureaucratic Act which in practice would be extremely difficult to enforce. I hope that the Minister can clarify the position in her reply. Many people are puzzled about the Government's intentions and I have given the Minister warning that I shall be asking that question.
I estimate that this Bill and accompanying measures are of major importance. It is a crucial part of the drive to ensure centralised control over all aspects of education and, in particular, to destabilise and threaten the role of the universities within that system. Like the continuous attack on local authorities and their control of relatively autonomous systems of schools, this Bill paves the way for excluding universities from their role in the whole field of teacher education and puts their research role at risk. I see it also as another attempt to destroy what the Government are pleased to call the "education establishment"; that is, those who know something about education.
The clear purpose of the Bill is to take the bulk of teacher education out of the hands of universities and to hand it to the schools; it is to substitute an apprenticeship system for teacher education. That would be an enormous step backwards. Indeed, it was on that basis that the monitorial system was erected in the early 19th century. My noble friend Lord Glenamara and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Guildford referred to the system with better knowledge than I. The failure of that led to the development, first, of teacher training colleges and, later, of the involvement of universities in teacher education. It began just over 100 years ago. Now this Government are deciding to go into reverse and to destroy all that has slowly been built up.
No wonder the whole educational world, parents and governors are presenting such a united front to oppose the Bill. I hope that after this debate the Government will see fit to withdraw it or to dump it, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggested. That may be too much to hope for. However, it will become clear that there is strong opposition to the Bill and there will be a difficult time in Committee. Strong opposition will be put forward. I hope that the Minister will use her influence in the department to achieve as many changes as possible, and perhaps she will have an easier time in Committee.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggested some parallel between my role and that of Lady Macbeth. I suppose that I should be grateful that he did not compare me to one of the witches. As I have listened to the debate today, the words that have been rattling around in my brain are:
"Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble".

921
However, I must say that it will not be possible to answer all the points raised in the debate today. Those points which I do not address will either be addressed in detail at later stages of the Bill or I shall write to noble Lords. I shall place in the Library copies of any letters which I write so that they are available to all.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, was concerned about the training for special needs teachers. As in nursing, we regard it as important that all teachers should receive basic initial teacher training, and that that should be on a par. Beyond that, it is important that anybody training to teach special needs children, whether they be, for example, deaf or blind children or those with a mental handicap, should go on to further courses of study. I promise the noble Lord that I shall discuss the availability of such courses and return to the matter at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that it was a disgrace that there had been no report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. First, I welcomed the intervention of my noble friend Lord Rippon. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report states that,
"the Committee's aim would be to ensure that its views would be available to the House before the Committee stage on the bill or perhaps, in some cases, earlier if feasible".
We have been told that it is not feasible. We have been given a date. My department has issued a memorandum in time for the committee to consider the Bill on Thursday, 9th December, which is in plenty of time for the report to be available to noble Lords before the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, queried the Secretary of State's powers as regards membership and work of the teacher training agency. The provisions in the Bill are modelled on those of the HEFCE's powers which are contained in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The Secretary of State's powers are the same as those which he already has under that Bill and he would retain them if the HEFCE were to continue to fund initial teacher training. Therefore, they are not extra powers. They are the same powers being used for this body rather than the HEFCE.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked how many schools were interested in supporting school-centred training. Some 200 schools have bid for funds in either 1993–94 or 1994–95 under our new school-centred training scheme. That is a modest but worthwhile start. We look forward to a steady increase in other schools volunteering to come forward. However, as has been pointed out already in the debate, it is a voluntary activity on the part of the schools and we have no intention of forcing them into that role.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, was concerned about the centralising of power. Traditionally, Secretaries of State confer qualified teacher status and they have had a long-standing role in setting standards. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will retain those duties. HMI has traditionally inspected the departments of education, and will continue to do so in all universities old and new, to advise the new agency.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, was concerned also that the objective of the Bill is to put all training into schools. The objectives of the Bill are as set out in
922
Clause 1. The agency will be able to fund courses run by schools provided they meet the criteria and the objectives of high quality and efficient training. I have seen at first hand school-centred courses and I suggest to noble Lords that they may wish to visit some of those schools to see the work in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, was concerned about the objectives of Part I; again, about teachers being trained in schools. Noble Lords will look in vain if they expect to find the objective that all initial teacher training should take place in schools. Clause 6 explicitly talks about the teacher training agency, not the Secretary of State, determining an appropriate balance. Therefore, that fear is groundless.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, was concerned about post-graduate courses. Again, that does not apply to schools alone. I fully accept that not all schools could take on the important task of training graduate teachers, but groups of good schools with the necessary finance can do so. I repeat again, I have visited such a consortia of schools and I urge noble Lords to do likewise. I am confident that if the noble Lord does make such a visit, he will be extremely impressed. I invite him to speak with the graduate trainees and ask them why they chose such a course. I would ask him to ask them how the theory of education is being covered by the course and to ask them how it is fitting them for the challenging career of being a teacher. I would also ask him to make his own judgment about the quality of the provision made by those schools and to make a judgment about the suitability of such schools for that purpose. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be impressed on all counts.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was concerned about school-centred courses not being validated. Courses leading to qualified teacher status (school-centred courses) must meet the criteria which we set out for all courses. Whether or not they are validated by higher education institutions is a different issue, but most current courses are taking the route of higher education institution validation. However, I do not think that we need require them to do so as long as the students—and this is the important point—reach the necessary standards for qualified teacher status.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford was concerned—as, indeed, was the noble Baroness, Lady David, and other speakers—and took us to task for using the results of the reports of the HMI Inspector of Schools to support the case for a change in teacher training arrangements. I regret the unfortunate rounding of the figures in our consultation paper. I shall now refer to paragraph 3.4 of the Ofsted report, The New Teacher in School. As I said, I regret the rounding up of the figures, but the percentage of lessons taught by new teachers which were unsatisfactory was 29 per cent. in secondary schools and 27 per cent. in primary schools. Those figures fall a little short of the round one-third which was mentioned in our paper, but they are still not very encouraging. Over one lesson in four taught by a new teacher—that is, over one lesson in every four received by his or her class in a typical primary school—is not satisfactory. If the number of unsatisfactory lessons is not thought to be significant,

923
the evidence that only just over one-half of new primary teachers feel well equipped to teach reading or that 10 per cent. of all new teachers were, in HMI's opinion unsuited for the profession, should at least give us all pause for thought. Today's first annual report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector sounds a suitable cautionary note. The new agency will not be able to put the matter right overnight. But, in applying the new criteria for courses and funding the best providers, the agency will be a powerful force for higher quality.
My noble friend Lord Beloff talked about initial teacher training courses leading to extra workloads for schools. The reforms upon which we have already embarked have drawn considerable commitment from schools. Strong partnerships are already being formed and schools are seeing the benefit. After all, as I said earlier, there is no compulsion on them to be involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, wanted clarification on research as proposed in the Bill. I am delighted to give the noble Lord that clarification. The great majority of funds are now allocated on a formula basis, not for projects. That will remain true under the teacher training agency. Academics currently choose their own topics, not the Higher Education Funding Council. That will also remain true under the teacher training agency. Assessment of research and research quality currently involve peer reviews and safeguard independence and academic freedom. All of that will remain the same under the teacher training agency.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in answer to much that was said by my noble friend Lady Cox, asked where we would find such good and bad schools. Well, if noble Lords support us in the establishment of a systematic approach to inspection of the quality of teaching and learning we shall learn a good deal about where the good, bad and indifferent performance is in fact taking place. We now have a system of measuring performance and we will have to make a judgment on the suitability of a school, university department, and/or college, to provide initial teacher training. My noble friend Lady Cox has always brought to our debates her own experience—which I believe is considerable—of training not just in education but also in health. I welcomed all that she had to say tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was concerned about nursery education. No doubt we will return to this matter in some detail but it needs to be repeated that over half of all three and four year-olds are in education. With other group provision, mainly pre-school playgroup provision, the figure rises to over 90 per cent. Some 82 per cent. of all four year-olds are in nursery or primary schools and that does not include rising fives. When one includes rising fives, one can see that almost all of them are in school.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, talked about research. It is clear that it is over the agency's research remit that passions run fairly strong in this House. I share the view that it is important that we get this aspect right. First, I wish to remind your Lordships of how we see this bit of the agency's remit working. This is something I touched on in my opening remarks. It is not quite as proposed in the consultation paper and
924
it may be that some noble Lords are not fully aware of what we intend. We do not propose to split education research as between the Higher Education Funding Council and the agency. We propose that all the £26 million now allocated to education research should transfer to the agency. We do not propose to alter the dual funding system in any way. The teaching training agency will not take any funds, or any part of the role, of the Economic and Social Research Council in funding education research.
We do not propose to require the agency to allocate funds on a project basis. Indeed, we would expect it to allocate funds, as the Higher Education Funding Council does, on the basis of a formula driven by research quality. We do not intend to suggest that quality should be defined in this area in a narrower, or more utilitarian, or less rigorous way than in any subject areas. Indeed we see attractions in the Higher Education Funding Council's suggestion that the agency should share the council's assessment arrangements to that end. If, despite these assurances, noble Lords still remain concerned, there will be every opportunity at the next stage of our deliberations to return to this very point.
Our position remains, as far as a general teaching council is concerned, as I stated in a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, at Report stage of the then Education Bill on 21st June at cols. 39 to 42 of the Official Report. I stated that we believe that a body for advancing the professional development and interests of teachers should come from the teachers themselves and not from government. As regards criticism of this being a centralising measure, I have already said that the TTA will remove the Secretary of State's direct responsibility for funding school-centred courses. It will give statutory independence to the functions of the Teaching as a Career Unit, currently carried on by a limited company set up by the DFE, and it will remove the Secretary of State's current direct responsibility for approving every course of initial teacher training offered in every university and college.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, was concerned about the splitting of teacher training and other topics concerning higher education. A different funding agency in this area will not lead to fragmentation. Universities and colleges are used to their activities being funded from a number of sources. Initial teacher training already has a distinctive funding methodology within the Higher Education Funding Council for England because of the need to cope with the national intake targets. Initial teacher training and related courses form part of a distinctive academic subject category within which both teaching and research are separately assessed and central funding decisions taken.
We were accused of destroying partnerships between teacher training and higher education and schools. The agency will not destroy good partnerships: it will not force schools to take the lead responsibility in training. It will, as the right reverend Prelate would wish, build on good practice wherever it occurs which may be in volunteer schools as well as in higher education, and it will be obliged to act to improve overall quality.

925
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made important points about denominational and non-denominational providers. I will look again at the wording. I have listened with care to the points made by the right reverend Prelate. As we promised in our consultation paper, we have replicated faithfully in the Bill the safeguards for denominational provision which were secured through the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act.
It is true that the wording differs slightly as between the two provisions. The fact that school-provided courses are in their very early stages suggested that we should allow for an appropriate balance to be established as well as maintained. But we have not tinkered with the wording of the denominational provisions, not least because we do not want by comparison to down-play the duties on the English funding council. That council will continue to have important responsibilities for funding the voluntary colleges. I expect that we shall hear more about the case for a stronger statement on denominational provision in our Committee debates. I shall, of course, wish to see the important role which the voluntary colleges have played, and must continue to play, as specialist providers of teacher training given the necessary consideration by the agency. The very fact that there is to be a specialist funding agency in that area should give those colleges some reassurance that their particular contributions will be recognised.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, made the very important point that national curriculum assessment and testing is changing initial teacher training. First, it is important to preserve the integrity of each subject—it is a factor that suffered over those years and it was rightly criticised by the noble Lord. We need better subject knowledge. We need teachers to be more skilled in the craft of teaching in the classroom in addition to having a wider knowledge of education. However, I despair when a professional association states, as one did recently, that it is unrealistic to expect a seven year-old to know the alphabet or to be able to write 30 simple words. High expectations of children are essential for teachers, and that has to be addressed in initial teacher training.
My noble friends Lord Quinton and Lady Cox referred to the importance of some structure in the system—the move away from the philosophy of leaving children to do their own thing and to determine their own readiness to learn. That is a belief which prevailed for far too long: that somehow children learn by osmosis. It is said that creative children do not need such a structured approach. Even creative children need basic skills of reading and writing in order to give full and exciting expression to that creativity. However, other children who are not naturally creative need those basic skills of reading, writing and basic number in order to live their lives competently and confidently. Therefore, the importance of and the case for the proper teaching of basic skills to our young people is absolutely crucial.
The teacher training agency was referred to by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. She asked whether it would prove to be a possible political channel for influencing teacher training in the future. I should like to say a
926
categoric no to that question. First, the agency must ensure that providers of teacher training conform to criteria which will be concerned with the skills, competencies and quality of teacher training. It will, of course, be subject to inspection and continuous, monitoring.
My noble friend also asked why the Higher Education Funding Council should not be required to do the job. The bureaucracy referred to in the debate yesterday evening was the fault of both the Higher Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Quality Council—a creature of the higher education sector. I hope that those bodies were listening as eagerly as I was to some of the criticisms made in this Chamber.
My noble friend was also concerned about Clause 20, as were some other noble Lords. I appreciate my noble friend's desire to help with the structure of Clause 20. However, I fear that attempting to list all the activities that students might wish to undertake and which should not be publicly funded would be an enterprise doomed to frustration. The range of student activities is too diverse. I fear in addition, that such a structure for Clause 20 would not provide for the voluntary principle. It would not achieve the Government's objective of extending the area of student choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked whether we shall gain a kind of Arts Council. Absolutely not, my Lords. First, the measures are subject to the Secretary of State's criteria, as I have said. The quality of provision will be monitored and inspected. The quality of the teachers as they qualify and take up their posts will continue to be the subject of supervision and indeed of external inspection. My right honourable friend and ministerial colleagues will be answerable to Parliament for the measures. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, also referred, I believe, to the content of the courses. I can assure him that all the things he mentioned will be addressed by the criteria governing the content of courses, including the ethos and moral and spiritual underpinning of education.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was concerned about Clause 22 conferring dictatorial powers on the Secretary of State. The intention of the clause is to allow for flexibility in different parts of the United Kingdom, rather than laying down conditions for each individual institution. That will permit variations to reflect any differing circumstances, for example, in England, Wales and Scotland. It is the plan, in any case, that each institution should draw up its own code of practice in the light of its own situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was concerned again about the teacher training agency. It will have to take account of the Secretary of State's forecast of demand for teachers for which he will answer to Parliament. That is secured under Clause 5. He will also be pressing the need to govern the content of courses.
As for accountability, the agency will not only be accountable to the Secretary of State, as some noble Lords claim, but the chief executive will answer as accounting officer to the Public Accounts Committee for the spending of public funds. The agency will also be liable to judicial review of any of its decisions in the light of its statutory powers and purposes. The Secretary

927
of State's own powers to direct the agency are subject to parliamentary procedures. It is simply not true that the agency will lack independence or accountability. Both are guaranteed by law.
There was great confusion, certainly on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, between circulars for primary education and secondary education teacher training and the Bill, which deals with the setting up of an agency to oversee both the funding and the quality. Degree courses will continue to be provided by higher education. Postgraduate courses will be provided by higher education. Higher education is working in partnership with schools, open university courses and consortia of schools only. The only exceptions are licensed teacher schemes which have been in place for some time and, I have to say, without criticism.
I have to put on record a retort to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who quoted my Permanent Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Holland, in the course of his speech. First, because it is important to put it on record, I wish to read to you Sir Geoffrey's own words in response to that printed criticism, the printed words of his. It is a letter written on 3rd December:
"Dear Madam,
Those who were present at the Girls' Schools Association Conference which I addressed will hardly recognise your report (TES, November 26) with its selective quotations taken out of context, its innuendo and a headline for which neither my presentation nor any of my subsequent comments provide the slightest justification. Far from attacking or criticising Government policy I was concerned to explain the relevance of everything that Government is attempting in the education and training field to the urgent need to create a world class education and training system in this country. I started by saying that so much had been happening in the worlds of education and training in the last 10 years that those engaged in any particular part of the sector often felt that initiative was following initiative, with no coherence or pattern. That was not the case. I sought to demonstrate that every action taken by Government in schools, further education and higher education was addressed to key major aims".
The letter goes on, but it refutes everything that was said and repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I should like to write to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, perhaps at some length, but he was wrong about Birmingham. Birmingham spent below its SSA and has done for some time. I need to make the point because it is important. The SSA is not a spending target. Birmingham chooses to spend well below SSA on education; that, of course, must be its free choice. But the independent commission said that the council could free up money within its existing budget by improving the efficiency with which it spends its money including better budget planning, streamlining the LEA's bureaucracy, rationalising adult education to end wasteful duplication, selling surplus lands to finance repairs to schools.
Perhaps I may give the figures for just three years: in 1991–92 it spent 14 per cent. below SSA, £64 million. In the following year it was £57 million, 11.8 per cent. This current year it is £29.6 million, 6.6 per cent. It is, of course, free to choose, but it was spending below SSA and spending well above on other areas of its spending.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and other noble Lords were concerned about core service details which should
928
be on the face of the Bill. The use of regulations is appropriate to allow eligible services to be set out in the necessary detail, and to allow the list to be amended, if necessary, in the light of experience. The detail of the core is still to be settled. I repeat my assurance that we plan to make the regulations available in draft form for the Committee stage. They will be published in draft form for consultation before a definitive set of regulations is put before Parliament for approval. The noble Lord, Lord Judd—
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister give way? I am very grateful. Will she just confirm that what the House is in fact being asked to do is to support legislation before the Government have decided what that legislation is for?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that the purpose of the regulations was to set out the distinction between core and non-core activities. I said that they will be before the House before Committee stage, and it will be for the House to make a judgment about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, went on to say that he was worried about my honourable friend in another place, Robert Jackson, and the reference to human rights and freedom of association. Our proposals are intended to protect freedom of association. Students will be able to associate for any purpose that they choose in any way that they choose. Our proposals are entirely in keeping with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the principle of freedom of association.
The noble Lord went on to say that he was concerned about the funding of higher education and about our proposals on grants and loans and the balance between the two being accelerated. I have to say to the noble Lord that the Labour Party is agonising over the funding of higher education. It knows that the equation simply does not add up. It wants, as we want, to see expansion in higher education. It knows, as we know, that it is a very expensive option. Expenditure is met by the taxes of many who will not qualify for higher education. Therefore other measures need to be explored and there is no fault in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was concerned about ballots on affiliation to external organisations on an annual basis. He said that they were unnecessary. It is unacceptable that students do not have the opportunity to decide regularly whether they wish their student union to affiliate in their name to external organisations of which they may not approve. The Bill will give them that opportunity to have a say.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned that the activities will cease, or students will not be able to offer them. Indeed, that was the misunderstanding in all parts of the House, including, uncharacteristically, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I said that societies can be paid for by the moneys that presently go to universities, but not necessarily through the students' unions. Public funding currently provided will remain available to the universities and the colleges—there will be no reduction in those funds—and they will be able to deploy those funds to the benefit of students outside of the campus students' union channel, but they will be there to support students generally.

929
We were told all the way through the day that somehow or other students are all very righteous creatures now, and there are no examples of the kind of behaviour that we saw in the 1960s. Michael Portillo, my right honourable friend in another place, was jostled by university students and had eggs thrown at him, which hit a member of his staff, during a visit in Liverpool only last week. Noble Lords will also recall a similar incident earlier in the year when my right honourable friend Peter Lilley was also attacked by students. Some 100 students, mostly members of the Socialist Workers Student Organisation, invaded and occupied the registry office of the University of East Anglia on Friday. They were removed only at 10.30 a.m. on Monday, when a writ was served on them.
A representative of the National Union of students, attending a subsequent meeting of the student union at the University of East Anglia, likened the position of students today to that of the suffragettes and told the meeting that obeying the law never achieved anything. The police had to be called on Friday to help my right honourable friend the secretary of state for Education to leave the parish hall where his constituency surgery was taking place. Students had surround the hall and were hammering on the walls and windows, inducing fear in constituents, who included—
Earl Russell: My Lords,—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may finish—who included in that room an elderly helper, a parish councillor in his 70s.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Secretary of State for Social Security visited my college on 23rd November, the meeting was entirely uneventful. Security was provided by the students' union. Will doing that in future be counted as a core activity?
Baroness Blatch: I was saying that such things still go on. If the noble Earl wishes to know whether rioting and attacking people is a core activity, I should like to think that no public money is spent in supporting such activities.
I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene again. I wonder whether he will forgive me. We will spend a great deal of time on this Bill and I am trying to do justice to the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, had some concern about subject clubs, arts societies and so forth. Our intention is that the voluntary principle should apply over as wide an area as possible. For the core we have identified those services to which we believe all students should have access where they are provided through a students' union. That is not to say that we believe that the activities outside the core are not worthwhile. However, we think that the principle of opting in should apply to them and we believe the public money can be spent on them. It is a matter of making them available to those who want them.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew, asked how many universities positively welcomed the proposals. We have received about 3,000 responses to the consultations. Most of the institutions that responded commented on certain aspects of the proposals while
930
remaining silent on others. The majority of institutions criticised the proposals for distinguishing between core and non-core services but many have welcomed the code of practice.
My noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lady Park asked why the guidance given by the Attorney General in 1983 is not adequate. I have made the point that reliance on charity law leaves too much of the burden of accountability outside the university or college.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon was concerned about community service. Those sorts of activities must continue. If the universities regard them as valuable and the students also regard them as valuable, there is no impediment whatever to funding them. It is just that the funding channel will not be the students' union.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, was concerned about student representation beyond the institution. Again, I appreciate the students' desire for representation beyond the institution. What we have proposed will not prevent that. But it will ensure, as must be right, that when students wish to undertake campaigning on a national scale, they will not be able to use public money. I take to heart the noble Lord's comment about representation funded by public money in the community around the institution on such matters as local transport. We shall be able to debate the detailed boundaries of the core at Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, talked about matters Welsh and said that there were different regulations for core services in Wales. I made the point that the issue is about size—it is a more manageable size in Wales. One is not adding too much to the burden of that organisation. He also asked how institutions will support activities outside the core. I believe that I have answered that point.
My noble friend Lord Limerick addressed Part II of the Bill and was concerned about moneys. I have made the point that there will be no reduction of moneys for either core or non-core activities. He was concerned also about the legal status of unions. Generally speaking, students' unions are the creatures of universities and colleges. If they feel that the status of their students' unions are unclear, the remedy is very much in their own hands. The purpose of Clause 18 is not to give students' unions new status; it is merely to provide a means to identify students' unions.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, told me that she was going to ask questions, but she did not tell me what she intended to ask. I hope that she will allow me to write to her with the answers.
There is clearly much that is misunderstood about Part I of the Bill. Secondly and more depressingly. there is a lack of confidence in the best schools and the best teachers to play a real role in teacher education and the training of their future peers.
My noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Skidelsky, Lord Quinton and Lord Pearson have made it their business to look across the field of initial teacher training. They have seen not only the benefits generally to initial teacher training but the specific merits of addressing teacher competences, skills and wider education, overseen by a single body—the teacher training

931
agency—properly focused and replacing the present fragmentation of the Higher Education Funding Council, the Department for Education, the Teaching as a Career Unit and the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Despite the level of misunderstanding, I shall do everything possible to address the anxieties of noble Lords by discussion and by the exploration of ideas during the passage of the Bill.
With regard to Part II of the Bill, I registered all the concerns of noble Lords from all parts of the House. There was much overstating of the case. Where were the arguments supporting the principle of democracy? How can the interests be served of those students who do not wish to be associated with the higher profile and sometimes unacceptable activities of the students' union and indeed the National Union of Students? Where were the arguments supporting the principles of accountability? Whether core or non-core activities, substantial sums of public money should be accounted for and should be subject to audit. Where in the debate was the support for personal choice where students have no interest, or, indeed, more seriously, wish to dissociate themselves from a specific activity? Is it such a bad thing, if a mechanism is established, to recognise the importance of personal choice?
I take extremely seriously the examples of the practical difficulties presented by noble Lords, many of them more imagined than real. Nevertheless, no stone should be left unturned to find a way to introduce those principles of democracy, accountability and choice in a way that does not inhibit the important extra-curricular activities of students in further and higher education.
Many suggestions were made during the course of the debate, especially from my noble friend Lady Carnegy. To that end I shall continue to discuss the measures in this part of the Bill with my right honourable friends and colleagues in the department, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other interested groups. I finish as I started, with the noble Lord, Lord Rix: my eyes are open, and so too are my senses. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
10.32 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I can be brief because this is a repeat performance of what I said on 26th May this year (at cols. 254–56 of Hansard). The noble Lord, Lord Graham, gave me unqualified support on that occasion and he has told me that I may still count on that support. I am grateful to him for that.
Briefly, almost alone of the public authorities, the Commission for New Towns, of which I am deputy chairman, does not possess delegation powers. That was brought to our notice and discussions followed with the Minister after legal advice had been obtained.
932
When the Housing and Urban Development Bill was going through this House, we attempted to include a clause which would cover this point, but the Long Title prevented that. My Bill, which had your Lordships' support, reached the other place too late for action—hence my efforts today. I hope that I shall not be like the late Dame Nellie Melba, having more than one repeat performance.
The commission deals with numerous transactions which now require ratification each time by the full board. For example, today when we had a board meeting 50 cases could and should have been delegated in a proper fashion—the undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on the last occasion—to the property committee or to a senior official. With the property market looking up the need will grow.
Only this month the Department of the Environment issued a publication, Responsibilities of Board Members of Non-departmental Public Bodies. It is dated December 1993 and states:
"Board members serve part-time and, to the extent that the NDPB's founding legislation provides the necessary powers"—
ours does not—
"must in practice delegate to officers authority for most decisions for the day to day operation of the NDPB. In some cases authority may also be delegated to individual Board members, committees or sub-committees … Any delegation of authority must therefore be properly documented and approved by the Board".
That is the intention of our board.
The Bill is identical to my last effort, although I suppose I should be accurate and say that I have incorporated some major changes required by the parliamentary draftsman. In the Bill I presented in May of this year one of the clauses was headed "Power of delegation". That has now been altered to "Delegation of powers".
The other very important amendment required by parliamentary counsel is to paragraph 8(a) which used the words "either generally or specifically". That now reads "whether generally or specially". Those are earth-shattering alterations, and those of us who have been Ministers know that we are all too often at the mercy of the parliamentary draftsman and parliamentary counsel, who do their best to make our Bills totally incomprehensible to the ordinary man in the street. But one has to comply from time to time. I have had to do that.
I stress that the Bill is wholly non-political and wholly non-controversial. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on this matter I speak personally and not on behalf of the Labour Party. We have indeed passed this way before—last May—as the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, says, and your Lordships—such of you as remain—may allow yourselves the modest luxury of a sense of déjà vu. Indeed, were it not for the fact that what may well be described as a little local difficulty in another place halted proceedings, we may very well have passed this Bill some time ago, which would have given the Commission for the New Towns a happy issue out of all its afflictions.

933
The New Towns Act of 1981 obviously does need amendment since, for reasons which are now lost in the dark backward abyss of time, incomplete provision seems to have been provided in it for the normal processes of delegation which one would now expect. The amount of work which the commission has been required to do has also increased to an extent which would have been unforeseeable in 1981 and it is therefore undesirable and unnecessary to require the whole commission to deliberate upon every question that comes before it. If the commission is to complete its work by the wind up date of 31st March 1998, it will need surely to parcel out its activities, and this seems to be all that this modest Bill seeks to achieve. It will, if your Lordships agree to its Second Reading, increase the efficiency of the commission without in any way, so far as I can see, endangering the proper exercise of its powers.
We on these Benches are well content to support the Bill and I hope that your Lordships will permit it to proceed to its Committee stage, which I trust will not be long delayed and will not, so far as we are concerned, be long protracted.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I give the Government's view on the Bill. The Government support the Bill, which gives the Commission for the New Towns specific powers to delegate its responsibilities. This will increase its efficiency, thus helping to achieve the wind-up deadline of 31st March 1998 set by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, while also reducing running costs by facilitating the more effective use of its paid officials.
My noble friend has introduced the Bill because, as the New Towns Act is silent on the matter, the board feels constrained to deal personally with every minor issue relating to the disposal of the commission's assets. This is clearly not an effective use of board members' time and prevents them from deploying staff in the most efficient way. It is making it difficult to conclude sales of property and potentially impeding the rate at which the commission can dispose of its assets. Thus, as the sale of the commission's assets provides a valuable return to the Exchequer, your Lordships will appreciate that the Government are anxious to ensure that such an obstacle is removed.
I hope that the House will therefore give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can proceed in the usual way for more detailed consideration in Committee.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been said. Perhaps I may make one thing clear. The board took the decision to ask for legislation on grounds of legal advice. We were not prepared to run the risk of being taken to court for exceeding our powers. I ought perhaps to confess that, although I cannot remember the date, it may well be that I was the Minister in charge of new towns when the 1981 Act went through. If so, I apologise for the gap that now appears.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
10.38 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill amends the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, which is the main statute governing fishing operations in Scottish inshore waters—that is, within six miles of the Scottish coastline. It is an enabling Bill which gives the Secretary of State power to control the use of vehicles and equipment, including tractor dredgers, for the taking of shellfish, particularly cockles, from the foreshore in Scotland. The Bill also extends the enforcement powers of British sea fishery officers to such vehicles and equipment.
The 1984 Act allows inshore fishing within the six-mile zone of Scottish waters to be controlled by order. Fishing carried out from vessels can be controlled through prohibitions in respect of one or more species in certain areas, and at certain times of the year. It was not visualised that land-based fishing operations would need to be covered. In fact, there was very little activity of that kind in Scotland in 1984.
In recent years, however, there have been developments round the Scottish coast, particularly in the Solway, Cromarty and Dornoch Firths, of tractor dredging for cockles. This method has become particularly attractive to tractor fishermen over the past year as a result of a steep rise in the price of cockles.
Recent monitoring of the cockle stocks in the Solway Firth has shown that they are in a poor state. While those stocks can fluctuate considerably for natural reasons, the heavy fishing pressure, brought about largely by the influx of tractors, has undoubtedly had a significant impact on cockle mortality. An order did come into effect in October 1992 which prohibited vessel-based fishing. But because the scope of the 1984 Act only extended to vessels at sea, nothing could be done in that order to control tractors.
The tractor's activity is damaging for two reasons in particular: first, heavy dredging on the foreshore means that very few cockles remain untouched. Secondly, that dredging takes place at low tide which means that other aquatic organisms dredged up will be left high and dry, and that may kill them. That has a detrimental effect on the food chain for marine and shore wildlife.
The mass removal of shellfish has a damaging effect on another and important form of wildlife —birds. Shellfish are an essential part of the diet of certain seabirds including oyster catchers, eider duck and knots. Over-fishing of cockle and mussel beds would so deplete stocks as to reduce seriously the wild birds which depend on shellfish. I can tell noble Lords that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a strong supporter of this Bill, and so are the shell fishermen who use traditional methods from fishing boats, now prohibited until stocks of shellfish are considered to be satisfactory again.
As I mentioned, the prohibiting order under the 1984 Act has been in force for over a year, but it cannot apply to tractor dredging which was not contemplated in that Act. I understand that in England and Wales sea

935
fisheries committees already possess powers to control shellfishing with tractors. It seems that they could respond if dredging on a similar scale for cockles and mussels develops south of the Border. I do not know the position in Ireland, but I sincerely hope that there will be no developments there which could threaten the trade of the successors of sweet Molly Malone. Systematic dredging on the shore with tractors can virtually remove whole cockle beds. As with other fisheries, conservation measures are necessary.
The Government support the Bill, I am glad to say, and I have had the benefit, therefore, of the assistance of a Scottish parliamentary draftsman. I understand that any additional costs or manpower under the Bill would be insignificant. The Bill has been deliberately drafted to give the Secretary of State maximum flexibility in how he applies the powers. He could apply bans, either seasonal or for a year, on both vehicles and vessels—or he could differentiate between them. Equally, if future developments showed that certain types of equipment, whether marine or land-based, were more acceptable than others, those methods could be granted more favourable terms under such a control order. I am assured that Ministers intend to consult interested parties, making available scientific advice so that their responses can take that advice into account.
The Bill has become necessary due to events unforeseen when the last legislation on the subject was passing through Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
10.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I should like to welcome this small but important measure which has been introduced by such a distinguished sponsor. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has described its purpose clearly and I note that the present Secretary of State for Scotland has said:
"Tractor dredging for shellfish has become an increasing problem in many parts of Scotland. Already stock levels are being affected and this has a serious impact on traditional fishermen in these areas".
The Bill will help to serve the long-term interests of cockle fishermen as well as helping to conserve marine wildlife. By conserving shellfish stocks, the Bill will help to conserve those species of sea-bird which depend on shellfish for food during the winter months.
The noble Lord mentioned the effect on birds. Although we cannot in all cases be certain that an observed decline in birds in estuaries is directly attributable to the over-fishing of cockles, there are some recent worrying examples. Studies in the Dutch Wadden Sea indicate that a shortage of shellfish contributed to the death of 10,000 eiders in the winter of 1990–91. Oystercatcher numbers in the Wash suffered a 50 per cent. decline between 1990 and 1991. This is thought to be linked to a reduction in shellfish in the Wash. Therefore, it seems necessary to adopt a precautionary approach. I am glad that this change has been proposed for Scottish waters. The essential thing is to have an improvement in controls on cockle fisheries.
936
We need to ensure that sustainable fisheries are properly managed, taking full account of environmental considerations.
In that context, I should like to mention briefly the similar problems in Wales. On the Welsh Dee, new by-laws have recently been advertised by the National Rivers Authority, which is the sea fisheries committee for that area. They are aimed at protecting the cockle resource and managing it more effectively, while at the same time taking into account conservation interests. They also seek to control vehicle access to cockle banks. At every stage in the drafting of the by-laws the NRA Welsh region consulted the conservation bodies, and I think that the result is a good one.
It is true that cockle resources are extremely important economically. On the Dee estuary, cockle fishing is now a multi-million pound industry which provides a great deal of work for fishermen, both local and from other parts. Heavy investment is going into it. Cockle fisheries along the coastline are growing in importance and integrating with the fisheries industry in Holland. But there needs to be a balance between the interests of the commercial cockle fishermen and environmental considerations. There is also need for research and for a greater understanding of what is needed for proper management of the resource. In this instance, greater management control should be of help.
The situation is different in Conwy Bay. There the authority concerned is the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee and not the NRA. It has recently granted licences to vessels to harvest cockles by suction dredging. I suspect that its consultation arrangements were not as thorough as those of the NRA. However, I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB have applied to the Secretary of State for Wales for a nature conservation order to stop further suction dredging from the SSSI and the special protection area. Apparently in the past eight weeks several thousand tonnes of cockles have been taken, which in the opinion of the RSPB has damaging implications for wintering birds, including oyster catchers. The RSPB believes that that may cause the UK to be in breach of the European Community birds directive. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to take up that matter with his colleagues in the Welsh Office and ask them to consider urgently the request that they have had from the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I must apologise for not having my name down on the list of speakers. That is entirely due to my incompetence in not telling our efficient Whips' Office in time. The fact that my name is not down may account for the empty Benches on the Government's side of the House.
Of course, we on these Benches—as they say—welcome the Bill. It is necessary, and it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, the result of a continuing advance in techniques, the ability to trawl and to use tractors in inshore waters and all the other appalling advances, which include seven-mile long drift nets in various places; the nylon nets that we have had for some time which enable salmon to be caught off the

937
Northumberland coast, to the great detriment of Scottish fishermen, about which the Government are doing nothing; and a whole range of dangerous practices which must be coped with. At present the tie-up policy does not seem to be working, and is now under legal threat before the European Court.
I welcome the Bill, but I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, should be able to tell us whether the Government are willing to spend the money to provide the people to police the measures necessary to assist the fishing industry. As I understand it, the fisheries protection fleet has not been increased. Is there any intention that it should be? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that the money would be provided. But we need an assurance that money will be provided for the people to police this measure and to deal with the many troubles we shall have in future in the North Sea, especially if EC legislation widens the field to all EC vessels. That is an important point and I should like the Minister to comment on it.
The Bill as it stands is good and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, deserves credit for introducing it and the Government for helping him to do so.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I was happy to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in order that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, could appreciate the unanimity of support across the Benches of this House for the measure which he has introduced. On behalf of my colleagues who normally occupy the Benches behind me, I am happy to express our support for the measure. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and thank him for bringing it forward.
As he said, this closes a loophole in the 1984 legislation, which I accept was not then foreseen. We are now faced with two significant problems in relation to shellfishing. The first is tractor dredging, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The second is suction dredging, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Both are highly economical methods of shellfishing but, tragically, they deplete the stocks at a rapid rate. If we are to have conservation, something must be done. That something is precisely the measure submitted tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
I know that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation strongly supports the measure. Certainly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds strongly supports it. The issue of sea-birds using shellfish for their winter feed puts in jeopardy the existence of the sea-birds because of the depletion of the fish as a result of tractor and suction dredging.
With those few words, I give our full support to the Bill. We shall do all in our power to speed its passage through your Lordships' House.
10.58 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, it may be appropriate if I indicate the Government's position on the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has indicated, recent experience—in particular since the matter was legislated upon—has shown that land dredging for
938
shellfish can have as serious an impact on stock levels as vessel dredging. It follows that if we are properly to protect shellfish such as cockles, we must be able to control the activities of everyone who fishes against the stock by whatever means.
It is also important that everyone involved makes their contribution to stock conservation. In general terms, noble Lords have referred to the effect which this kind of activity has on bird life. That can be seen as part of a pattern of protection throughout the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to an issue raised by the Countryside Council for Wales. I do not know the detail of that matter but I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for wales and ask that he replies directly to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also raised a number of issues. In particular, he asked what is being done for conservation. A great deal has been done by the Government. In connection with salmon, there has been the monofilament gill net order which the Government have pursued and defended all the way to the European Court.
The Government take very seriously the matter which the noble Lord raised with regard to the conservation of fisheries. They are satisfied that proper resources are being provided for the necessary measures. I should observe that the other place will have an opportunity to debate the matter next Monday.
My noble friend's Bill will enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to apply whatever comprehensive conservation measures are merited for a particular area. As my noble friend indicated, this provision contains a welcome and appropriate degree of flexibility. Existing powers do not allow the matter to be tackled, and I can therefore confirm the Government's support for the Bill before us this evening.
11 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for the welcome which they have given to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, raised a point about Wales and I am glad that my noble and learned friend has taken note of that and has undertaken to pass it on, as I felt sure that he would. Of course, that is very appropriate because in the near future he has the unexpected task of piloting through this House the Bill on the reorganisation of local government in Wales. I understand that he is already preparing and familiarising himself with the geography of Wales—and more important still, the pronunciation of the Welsh names involved. I congratulate him on all that.
In passing, I should mention that the National Rivers Authority has no functions in Scotland, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I was one of those who complained when it was named the National Rivers Authority because the media and the public in Scotland were completely misled and thought it covered the whole country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised wider issues which I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate on

939
other occasions. But I must emphasise that this Bill is restricted to the six mile band, six miles from the coast. That is an area which has little interest or effect as regards foreign fishermen unless they are working in co-operation with our own fishermen.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, raised the question of suction dredging. The present position is that if it is suction dredging from a vessel, it can be and is controlled by the present order. But if it is suction dredging on land, it will be possible to control it in future if, as I hope, this Bill is passed.
940
Therefore, the orders can distinguish between all kinds of fishing for shellfish, whether it is suction dredging on land or from vessels or whether it is tractor dredging on land. It gives the flexibility which does not exist in the present legislation. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate, and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY: UK CONTRIBUTION
  ENHANCED STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FACILITY: UK CONTRIBUTION
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893, SECTION 138: EFFECT
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893, SECTION 138: EFFECT
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
  INTERIOR AND JUSTICE COUNCIL 29 AND 30 NOVEMBER
  INTERIOR AND JUSTICE COUNCIL 29 AND 30 NOVEMBER
  GASTRIC SYMPTOMS: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT COSTS
  GASTRIC SYMPTOMS: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT COSTS
  HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT: COSTS
  HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT: COSTS
  A.34: TRAFFIC FLOWS
  A.34: TRAFFIC FLOWS
  AIRLINE FLIGHT CREW: CASES OF HIV INFECTION
  AIRLINE FLIGHT CREW: CASES OF HIV INFECTION
  PENSIONS: GOODE REPORT DISCUSSION PAPERS
  PENSIONS: GOODE REPORT DISCUSSION PAPERS
  REGENT'S PARK BARRACKS: GARAGE
  REGENT'S PARK BARRACKS: GARAGE
  KOSOVO: ETHNIC ALBANIANS
  KOSOVO: ETHNIC ALBANIANS
  UN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: RESOURCES
  UN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: RESOURCES
  UN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: MANDATES
  UN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: MANDATES
  SPECIAL PROCEDURES SECTION
  SPECIAL PROCEDURES SECTION