Sitting of 25 November 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 Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Lenient Sentences
    Sir George Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in extending the Attorney General's right to appeal against lenient sentences.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I expect shortly to be in a position to lay an appropriate order before the House.
    Sir George Gardiner: May I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's initiative as part of the continuing war on violent crime? May I also welcome the extension of the scope to refer unduly lenient sentences for indecent assault and cruelty to children? Will my right hon. and learned Friend not close his mind to further extending the categories? Is he aware of the extreme public anger over unduly lenient sentences on youths who are found guilty, for example, of theft and car crime that in some cases involve penalties of a holiday in the sun?
    Mr. Howard: I try to never close my mind. It is right that that power, which was first given to the Attorney-General in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in the teeth of most fierce opposition from the Opposition parties, should be reserved for the most serious offences. I shall certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Allen: In view of that answer, will the Home Secretary tell the House and the public why crime has increased by 124 per cent. since his Government came to power in 1979?
    Mr. Howard: Crime has increased by similiar amounts in almost every country in the western world. The Government have taken action to deal with crime by giving the police and the courts more powers and by giving the Attorney-General powers to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal—all taken in the teeth of opposition from the parties opposite.

    Stolen Goods
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made as a result of stolen goods being sold at car boot sales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): That information is not available. Records are not held in a form that allows the identification of such offences.
    Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing evidence that car boot sales are used to convert goods stolen from homes, factories, shops and vehicles into hard cash? Such sales are being used to fulfil the original purpose of the fence. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that that practice is stopped?
    Mr. Wardle: There is no doubt that there are instances of car boot sales being used to dispose of stolen property, but there is certainly no evidence that most traders at car boot sales are other than law-abiding citizens. If my hon.

    565
    Friend has such evidence, it is important that he gives it to the chief constable of Gloucestershire, as the police must make an operational judgment and decide what action to take at car boot sales. My hon. Friend will be aware that Gloucestershire trading standards officers are liaising with their counterparts in North Yorkshire to consider a registration scheme for such car boot sales and similar casual sales.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister admit that car boot sales can make a valuable contribution to local economies and are a good way of recycling household products that the owners no longer require and wish to sell? The Minister would be well advised to study car boot sales because, when they have sold off the national assets to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, the Government will have to come down to car boot sales.
    Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, if he or any other member of the public has reason to believe that there are goods of doubtful origin at car boot sales, the principle of caveat emptor applies, and the principle of partnership with the police applies, so that the police are made aware of cases where they need to take action.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anachronism whereby in a market such as Bermondsey, it is possible, between sunrise and sunset, to purchase an object and to obtain good title, even if the object has been stolen in the first place? Does my hon. Friend agree that such markets simply act as a conduit for stolen goods and should be abolished as soon as possible?
    Mr. Wardle: If there is any such evidence, it is a matter for the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the House is aware that the disposal of stolen goods through car boot sales is covered by section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 and that the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. That applies in other similar casual sales and markets.

    Police Clear-up Rates
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the six most successful police forces in England and Wales in terms of clear-up rate in 1992; and what is the establishment of each of those forces.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: The highest clear-up rate in 1992 was in Dyfed-Powys with an authorised establishment of 969, followed by Gwent with 1,010, Merseyside with 4,706, Lincolnshire with 1,206, Suffolk with 1,233 and equal sixth Cumbria with 1,187, Lancashire with 3,229 and Wiltshire with 1,181.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that the figures prove that small is beautiful in relation to police forces—not only beautiful, but efficient and effective? Will he now announce that Dyfed-Powys police force and Gwent police force in particular will not be subject to any amalgamation, because they are the two most efficient forces in the country?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the good performance by Dyfed-Powys police, who are to be congratulated on achieving the highest clear-up rate. The chief constable attributes his success to a combination of traditional community policing in
    566
    partnership with the public, and the use of the latest police technology. Those are precisely the features of policing that are enhanced by my right hon. and learned Friend's reform proposals. More police officers will be released for front-line duties, and chief police officers will have the freedom to spend their money where they judge best, whether on computers, on new technology and equipment or on anything else.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures are largely meaningless unless one has regard to the number of police per head of the population in a county force? With that in mind, will he take note of the fact that Cambridgeshire, for example, has fewer police per head of the population than is the case for any other county?
    Mr. Wardle: I hear my hon. Friend's eloquent bid on behalf of Cambridgeshire. It is true that the correlation between clear-up rates and establishment or strength figures depends, at least to some extent, on the type of area policed and on the type of crime that is prevalent. Some categories of crime have a far higher clear-up rate than others.
    Mr. Michael: Will not the Minister acknowledge that six of the eight highest performers among police forces are among the 11 smallest, and that all are threatened by his amalgamation plans? Will the Home Secretary now abandon his bid to take powers in the forthcoming police Bill to dictate police force mergers?
    As the Home Secretary has today claimed to support the police, will he also acknowledge that the latest figures for the police establishment, given in a parliamentary answer to me last night, show a drop of 224 police officers since the general election? Does not that make a mockery of the Conservative election promise to provide an extra 1,000 police officers this year?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government have increased the number of uniformed officers by almost 17,000 and, by the process of civilianisation, by another 6,600. My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals will allow an increase of a further 5,300. The hon. Gentleman talks about the reform proposals. The White Paper set out the conditions under which the ground could be cleared for amalgamations; no such amalgamations were suggested.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Derbyshire police force has again been refused a certificate of efficiency, and that it is still under establishment. Will he confirm that the principal reason is the repeated lack of funds granted to the police force by the county council, including reducing the chief constable's budget proposals by £6 million this year?
    Will my hon. Friend further join me in congratulating the policemen and women in Derbyshire on the excellent job they do in difficult circumstances? Will he assure me that our right hon. and learned Friend's proposals to separate the police authority from the county council will result in the force being able to recruit more policemen and women, which my constituents in Erewash and the rest of us in Derbyshire want?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will be aware that the White Paper proposals will allow chief officers the leeway and freedom of judgment that she describes. I am sure that she agrees that for Derbyshire, or

    567
    for any other police force, ultimately improvements in police performance and clear-up rates will depend crucially on locally focused policing and on working in partnership with the public to help to prevent and to detect crime, with more officers being away from desks and on the beat, and with modernised police management bringing offenders to the courts to be dealt with fairly, swiftly and decisively. All those circumstances are provided for in my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure of his Department on crime prevention measures in the west midlands in 1992–93.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: During the year, three safer cities projects in the west midlands received nearly £1·1 million. The region has also benefited from the £284 million spent on the West Midlands police and, in some part, from the £200 million spent by Government Departments on crime prevention related measures across the country.
    Mr. Burden: Will the Minister reflect on the case of one of my constituents, a pensioner who was mugged in her own home? That crime went undetected and unreported for two days, because she was afraid to go out and no one was around. She was finally discovered by the home help. Does not that indicate the need for a proper partnership between the local authorities, the police, the public and the agencies involved? When will the Government do something about it? Does the Minister think that cutting the safer cities programme will contribute to that partnership?
    Mr. Wardle: The safer cities programme has not been cut. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, in Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton, there have been 20 local projects, delivering more than 3,000 crime prevention schemes. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the need for partnerships, and I hope that he will support the Government's legislation when it is introduced later in the Session.
    Nationally, in the west midlands, Solihull and Birmingham we have the activities of crime concern schemes, and city challenge in Birmingham, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. We have some 23 safer car parks schemes receiving awards in the west midlands. As to the safer cities project, it was ever the plan that, after an initial period, it would move to other localities. The local partnerships to which the hon. Member has alluded can then carry on with crime prevention schemes, and people such as his constituent will feel safer, because everybody will then be involved in crime prevention.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it not becoming daily more obvious that one of the major reasons for the increase in crime in our society, particularly by juvenile offenders, is the constant diet of violence and depravity with which they are fed by television and video and computer pornography? Is not one of the strongest actions that the Government can take to prevent crime to ban this constant diet of trash that is causing so much harm, particularly among the young?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that we have the toughest laws in the world on video recordings, and it is a subject which will continue to
    568
    be kept under review. He will be aware that the British Board of Film Classification is even now reviewing the matter to which my hon. and learned Friend refers.
    Mr. Grocott: Many months ago, the West Mercia police authority took a decision to release 10 senior officer posts in order to request authority from the Minister's Department to appoint 26 constables for the same money. When the Minister looks at the level of policing in that police authority, will he urgently consider that request, because, many months later, it is still awaiting a decision from his Department? The money should be available for a further 26 constables, but only 10 have been allocated. If the Government are serious about cutting red tape, they could start by cutting it in the Home Office.
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman makes the most powerful endorsement of the Government's proposals which will be considered by the House. The whole purpose of the White Paper proposals is to get away from the idea of police chief officers having to bid for extra resources in terms of uniformed posts. Following the legislation, they will be free to make their own decisions about what ranks to appoint, how many police officers to have and how much of their resources to deploy on computers and other equipment.

    Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will have considered all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice and made decisions on them.
    Mr. Howard: I have already announced decisions on some 30 of the royal commission's recommendations. Other recommendations are still under consideration; but I cannot yet say when conclusions will be reached.
    Mr. Riddick: The right to silence, which the commission examined, has been the criminal's friend for many years now. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his decision to end it has been widely welcomed by police and public alike? Does he agree that, for the change to be effective, we need to end the right to silence not just in court but in police cells? Will he seek clarification from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is mysteriously absent today, and who was wriggling all over the place during Tuesday's debate?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has informed me of the understandable reasons for his absence today; but the substance of my hon. Friend's point is absolutely right. For some time now, I have sought to elicit the Opposition's stance on the matter. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has made his position clear: he appears to agree with me that the innocent have nothing to worry about. I wish that the hon. Member for Sedgefield and others on the Opposition Front Bench would agree with the hon. Member for Brightside.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that the trial of the murderers of James Bulger, which ended yesterday, might not have taken place? There were strong submissions from defence counsel that an impartial trial was impossible because of media speculation, hype and

    569
    investigation before the trial started. The judge had to give serious consideration to their plea, which he eventually refused.
    Is it not the case that, sooner or later, a trial will be refused because the media have carried out their own investigations? Will the Home Secretary ensure that, in introducing the Criminal Justice Bill, he takes another long look at what the media are now doing? Offenders can often get off, because the media have queered the pitch.
    Mr. Howard: The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers has caused us all to reach deep into the recesses of our hearts, and to ask ourselves whether anything could have been done to prevent it—and whether anything could be done to prevent any recurrence in future. I do not propose to rush into any snap judgments. I shall study very carefully what the judge said, and what has been said by others closely connected with the case, including the police superintendent who led the investigation. I shall take all those matters into account, including the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. If there are any lessons to be learnt from this unspeakable crime, we must certainly learn them.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many lawyers welcome the abolition of the right to silence, believing that it will lead not to any loss of civil liberties, but to a better criminal justice system—a system focused far more on the pursuit of the truth, and far less on the adversarial cat-and-mouse games that are so bad for our courts today?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. This proposal should not give rise to any concern. The innocent have nothing to fear from answering questions; they have nothing to hide. It will be for the prosecution and the judge to invite the jury to draw whatever inference they think fit from answers, or failures to answer. Those inferences will, of course, vary from case to case; but this is a sensible proposal to improve the efficiency of our system of criminal justice, and to make it much more likely that the guilty will be convicted and the innocent acquitted.

    Victim Support Schemes
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources he will be giving to Victim Support schemes.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We have increased our grant to Victim Support this year by £1·1 million—from £7·3 million to £8·4 million. I cannot give details of future funding for Victim Support in advance of the Budget statement on 30 November.
    Mrs. Mahon: The Home Secretary will be aware that Victim Support considers that far too little. Nearly 1 million people were referred to the organisation last year—a 19 per cent. increase on the previous year. In my constituency, three part-timers and four volunteers try to cope with the ever-rising numbers; sometimes they have to close the door and turn people away. Is it not time that serious consideration was given to funding this valuable service properly, rather than on a piecemeal basis?
    Mr. Maclean: It is not funded on a piecemeal basis. The hon. Lady speaks of a 19 per cent. increase. In the past two years, Victim Support has received a 48 per cent.
    570
    increase in funds, and it has received an increase of more than 60 per cent. over the past three years. That is a phenomenal increase for any agency funded by the Home Office, or any other Government Department.
    Two years ago, we told Victim Support well in advance that we would be increasing its funding from £5·5 million to £7·2 million to £8·3 million. We told it that there would be generous increases, and gave it time to plan accordingly how to use all that extra money.
    Mrs. Peacock: What other measures will my hon. Friend be introducing to help victims?
    Mr. Maclean: The measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend at Blackpool were not simply about reforming the criminal law but about accepting the recommendations of the royal commission on helping victims of crime. We intend to put them into effect as soon as possible. In addition to funding Victim Support, there is much that we can do to help victims have confidence in the criminal justice system, as well as having the most generous compensation system for victims of crime of any country in the world.
    Mr. Gerrard: Will the Minister give serious consideration to filling a gap which exists at the moment, either directly through Victim Support or through other schemes, to give some professional long-term support and bereavement counselling to those who have had family members murdered?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. My officials at the Home Office have talked to families for bereaved who came to see them specifically. I have studied what they had to say and I am sympathetic to the point that families who have lost relatives through murder or other circumstances are a special category with special needs. Victim Support does some very good work with them. However, I have an open mind on how we can best help that special category of people who have lost relatives through murder or manslaughter.

    Sunday Shopping Day
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he has taken of the level of support shown by the public on Sunday shopping day; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The Government introduced the Sunday Trading Bill on 19 November. It contains three options for reforming the law on Sunday trading. Hon. Members will take into account the popularity of Sunday shopping as well as many other matters when they come to choose among them.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend accept that the message from Sunday shopping day was that the overwhelming majority of people in Britain want the issue of Sunday shopping resolved in this Session of Parliament by the House and the other place? Does he further agree that the proposals in the Bill under the general aegis of the Keep Sunday Special campaign are too close to the present regime of the law to work, and that what the population said they wanted on Sunday shopping day was a thoroughgoing dose of deregulation to get this sorted out?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the overwhelming number of hon. Members and those outside want Sunday sorted out, but which way is of course a matter for debate on the Bill. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend will argue his last point vigorously during those debates.
    Mr. Cryer: Until the legal position is resolved, is it not true that, by opening on Sunday, the large stores are actually breaking the law and encouraging others to do likewise? As most of the questions to the Government today have been about breaking the law and catching criminals, is it not disgraceful that they have not asked local authorities to prosecute those stores that are continuing to break the law and flout the criminal justice system in quite a disgraceful way? Is it not an inducement to commit crime? Is there any connection between the Government's inertia and the provision by firms like B and Q of generous contributions to the Tory party?
    Mr. Lloyd: Two things are perfectly clear about the present law. First, it is the local authorities' job to enforce it; secondly, it has been widely breached. It was breached by many small shops long before it began to be breached by large ones.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the tens of millions of people who showed that they want Sunday to remain special by not turning out on Sunday shopping day?
    Mr. Lloyd: Everyone, whatever their point of view, can respect those who do not want to shop on Sundays for staying at home. Nor is there any question but that, from all points of view, Sunday is a special day. The questions are: what sort of special day and how far should the law prescribe it?

    Crime, North-West
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent crime figures for the north-west.
    Mr. Howard: Notifiable offences recorded by the police in the north-west region rose by 2·6 per cent. in the 12 months ending June 1993, compared with an increase of 3·8 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing number of drug offences in the north-west? In particular, is he aware of the number of drug seizures and arrests by the police, and the number of guns and other arms found by the police? Is the Secretary of State satisfied with law and order in the north-west, particularly Government funding on Merseyside and in Manchester?
    Mr. Howard: I am certainly not satisfied with law and order in the north-west and that is why I have announced a series of far-reaching measures to improve law enforcement and enhance confidence in our system of criminal justice in the north-west and in other parts of the country. We have seen an enormous increase in spending on law enforcement, on the police and in other ways, since the Government took office. We must ensure that the police become the most effective police force that it is possible to make them. That is the object of my reforms.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what people in the north-west really want,
    572
    including those in my constituency in Blackpool, is to see implemented all the measures that he announced recently, also in Blackpool? In particular, they want to see those who are convicted, especially of violent crime, serious crimes of dishonesty and drug-related crime, locked up because they know that custodial sentences are effective, not least because they ensure that offenders are kept in custody and stopped from preying on the victims?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has captured comprehensively the mood of the people of the north-west, and I took particular pleasure in the fact that it was possible for me to make my speech of 6 October in the north-west in Blackpool.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I was happy to hear the Home Secretary say earlier that he will not be making any snap judgments about the James Bulger case, but will he join me in condemning those who have already made snap judgments, particularly those in the media who sought to sensationalise the most sordid parts of that case? Will he also join me in extending the deepest and most profound respects of the House to the Bulger family who have shown such forbearance in their terrible tragedy in the past nine months?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in extending our deepest sympathy and consideration for his constituents, the Bulger family. The whole country has mourned with them in the terrible plight that they have suffered. It is understandable that there should have been the widest public interest in the case. I agree that we should not rush to snap judgments, and I have no intention of doing so, but it is entirely understandable that people should wish to explore the possible reasons, if they can be identified, for this dreadful crime.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, Macclesfield lies within the north-west. Will he accept that there is growing concern in my constituency and other areas of the north-west about the increased incidence of burglary, theft and car-related offences? I welcome the provisions in the Queen's Speech that will be part of the criminal justice Bill, but will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the best way to deter would-be offenders in those categories is for them to realise that if they are caught they will be severely punished, and that he must therefore give the courts, particularly in dealing with young juvenile offenders, the appropriate punishment to fit the crime?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. The objective that I seek to achieve with the measures is to make criminals much more afraid of the prospect of being caught, convicted and punished than they are at the moment. That is the object of the measures that I shall be bringing before the House shortly.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Home Secretary aware that many people throughout the region will join him in his remarks to the family of James Bulger?
    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also accept that many are concerned that the video that was mentioned in connection with the tragedy—the video "Child's Play 3"—was scheduled to be broadcast on Sky TV tomorrow evening? Does not that demonstrate that the levels of violence that are transmitted via video and televison have

    573
    reached unsurpassed levels, and that that does not square with the claim that was made earlier today from the Dispatch Box that we have the toughest laws in the world?
    Does not the Home Secretary accept that many will be looking to the Government, through the new criminal justice Bill, to find ways of dealing with gratuitous violence? Does he agree that programmes that revel in violence and harrowing scenes undoubtedly must have an impact on the young people who watch them, and that those programmes should be removed from our television screens?
    Mr. Howard: I have great sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed similar sympathy when the hon. Gentleman raised the point earlier this week.
    It is important that we should not rush into snap judgments on those matters. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was right a few minutes ago when he referred to the exceptional stringency of the regime that we have in place. I will reflect on what the trial judge said in the Bulger case and on what others have said, including the police officer who was in charge of the case. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the British Board of Film Classification is conducting research into that matter, and I shall want to take account of all the available material before I reach any conclusions.

    Bail Offenders
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to deal with those who repeatedly offend while on bail.
    Mr. Maclean: Offending on bail is a serious problem. We intend to use the criminal justice Bill, which will be introduced shortly, to remove the presumption in favour of bail in all cases where a person who is already on bail is charged with an offence triable on indictment.
    Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that the country will welcome the proposals, bearing in mind the cases that one hears of throughout the country of offences being carried out by people on bail. Is my hon. Friend aware that the bail measures are different in Scotland from those south of the border? Will he liaise closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the issues to try to ensure that the benefits are learned north of the border also? Will my hon. Friend give an indication of the impact on the crime rate that he expects from the measures?
    Mr. Maclean: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is liaising closely with us on the matters. My hon. Friend will be aware that Scottish law is different and that it would require a different criminal justice Bill to take the measures into Scottish law, should the Secretary of State wish to do so in the near future.
    We expect the measures to make a significant impact. I am alarmed by research that suggests that as many as 50,000 offences may be committed by people who have been charged with an offence, been granted bail, and have then committed more offences. The whole House will agree that that is unacceptable—and because I think that the whole House will agree, I look forward to the official Opposition supporting our proposals.
    Dr. Hendron: When the Secretary of State is considering his statement on those who offend while on bail, will he consider also making a statement on a constituent of mine by the name of Gerard Power who is at present in Belmarsh prison outside London? It is proposed that he be extradited to Germany. He has failed to get out on bail, and the Germans have said that they have been looking for him—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his question does not relate to the subject under discussion. His question relates to extradition. Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman makes a direct representation to the Secretary of State, who I am sure will deal with it right away? I cannot allow questions that bear no relationship to those on the Order Paper.

    New Prisons
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in providing more prisons.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Twenty new prisons have been built and opened since 1979. The 21st new prison, at Doncaster, is due to open in April next year. A further six new prisons are planned. Sites for the first two have been identified at Fazakerley in Merseyside and at Bridgend in south Wales.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend accept that it is a commonly held view that more prisons and more prison building will result in less crime, more fear among the criminals and less fear among our constituents? Will he also accept that Conservative Members want the Home Office to get on and build more prisons?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that prison takes the worst criminals out of circulation, while they are in prison, and it certainly serves as a deterrent for a considerable number of those contemplating crime. His view was well expressed in last Tuesday's debate by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who said:
    "Prison is necessary; those who ought to go to prison should be put there, and if that means more prisons, more prisons should be built."—[Official Report, 23 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 344.]
    We are building them.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Minister agree that one way of relieving the pressure on prisons would be to release the innocent? In that connection, when can we expect him to complete his consideration of the Carl Bridgewater case which, it is obvious to most sensible people, has collapsed?
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering that case at the moment.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the public realise that, even under this Government's measures, people who are sent to prison are given remission automatically without having to earn it, they find it a scandal? Is it not the case that one advantage of more prison places being available will be that people can serve their full sentence?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Criminal Justice Act for which my hon. Friend voted has brought more closely into line the sentences handed down by the courts and the time served. Every prisoner will serve at least half of his sentence and, in addition, time is spent on supervision after the prisoner

    575
    is released. It is essential that prisoners re-enter society being supervised to ascertain the kind of life to which they are returning. That is not possible if they serve the whole of their sentence in prison.
    Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister confirm that the present crisis of prison overcrowding in the north-west has led to the renewed use of police cells? Does he recall that, between April and July last year, the Greater Manchester force spent £7 million paying police officers to guard prisoners in police cells? Does he think that that is the best way of mobilising police officers in the fight against crime?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is not the best way of using police officers' time, but the Prison Service and the criminal justice system has to accept those prisoners sent to it by the courts. That is why we have announced an extra prison-building programme, why we are building new house blocks, why we are using the estate far more effectively and why we are considering other alternatives in the short term. We now have far fewer prisoners in police cells than two years ago and there is far less overcrowding. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept the great advances that have been made.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new private prisons at the Wolds and Blakenhurst have been an outstanding success? Does he share my confidence that the six new prisons, which he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary plan to build, will be more successful if they, too, are private sector initiatives?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that use of private management within the Prison Service is raising standards across the whole service. What my hon. Friend says about standards in the Wolds was borne out by the chief inspector's report. Blakenhurst will be inspected next year, and I have no doubt that the chief inspector will have equally complimentary things to say about it.

    Broadcast Interviews
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which he gave official interviews on national broadcast programmes on radio and television between 27 July and 18 November.
    Mr. Howard: I have no such list.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Home Secretary not realise that hardly a week passed during the long recess without his talking about shake-ups and changes in the police, the administration of justice or the Prison Service? Did not such talk, and the fact that his colleagues in other Departments controlling local government, social services and education were doing the same, precipitate uncertainty, lack of confidence and controversy in all those public services? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that when public services, including those responsible for the special needs of primary school children, do not perform as well as they might, the Government might take some of the responsibility?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's original question on the Order Paper was about my appearances on the "Today" programme. I have announced a comprehensive set of policies on law and order, in which there is considerable public interest. I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want anyone to know about those
    576
    policies, but I want people to know about them, and I have every intention of setting them out as vigorously and as often as I can.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Anglo-German summit in Cologne.
    Dr. Wright: What will the Lord President say to the 500 miners and their families at Littleton colliery in South Staffordshire? They were told a few months ago that Littleton was a core pit, and that was confirmed in the coal review, yet now they have been told that their pit is to close in a fortnight's time. When the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who cannot be here today, and I saw the chairman of British Coal this morning, he told us that Government action was the direct cause of the closure, and that only urgent Government action could stop it.
    Today, when the whole nation is in anguish following the events in Liverpool, I ask the Lord President: should not the Government do all that they can to strengthen families and communities, rather than destroying them?
    Mr. Newton: The whole House knows that the Government have put about £20 billion into helping the coal industry since we came to power and that we have offered additional assistance to help the industry to sell coal at world prices, but that, at the end of the day, we cannot insulate any industry in this country from the fact that people do not want to buy as much as is being produced.
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend drastically to reduce the number of police cautions given to young offenders? People in my constituency are outraged at the fact that such people get away with it, and they demand a return to basics—[Interruption.)—to the basic principle of making the punishment fit the crime.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend certainly may remind me of that fact, and I, in turn, remind him what the Home Secretary said a few days ago. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he believes that there is too much cautioning, and that too many young people have come to believe that they are virtually entitled to commit a crime and to receive nothing but a caution until something else happens. My right hon. and learned Friend believes that cautioning should be reduced, and his new guidance will reduce it.
    Mrs. Beckett: Returning to basics, does the Lord President agree with the Prime Minister that the national insurance Bill will mean that most wage earners will pay £3 to £4 more per week, and that the total effect of increases in value added tax and national insurance and of cuts in mortgage interest relief and tax allowances will be that a typical family will pay £8·50 more per week in tax from April?
    Mr. Newton: I should find a greater degree of credibility in the right hon. Lady if on this occasion—as on the previous occasion on which she and I had one of these exchanges—she showed the slightest understanding that increased funding of the national insurance fund is needed to ensure that we can continue to maintain our obligations to pensioners. As the right hon. Lady was for some years a senior Front-Bench spokesman on social security, I find it surprising that she does not understand that. Perhaps she needs to go back to basics.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President saying that he does not support what the Prime Minister said last Tuesday?
    Mr. Newton: I am saying that the Government are taking—as they announced in the last Budget—and will continue to take in the forthcoming Budget responsible action to ensure the future of this country's economy so that we can maintain our promises to Britain's pensioners.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Lord President remember that the last Budget was the biggest tax hike in British history, and put the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) narrowly ahead of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Howe, in the league table for increasing taxes? Would it not have been responsible of the Government to tell the British people that before the last election?
    Mr. Newton: What I remember about the last Budget was the Leader of the Opposition telling us that the judgment made in November would be whether the March Budget had brought down unemployment. He said:
    "If Conservative Members want that to be a test, we shall make it a test for the Government."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 199.]
    The Government have passed that test, have they not?
    Mr. Heald: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when Britain last had low inflation, low interest rates, falling unemployment and rising output? Does he agree that that is good news for Britain and for north Hertfordshire—and that good news is something which Opposition Members would not recognise if it jumped up and bopped them in the face?
    Mr. Newton: As I indicated in my previous reply to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), no doubt we shall soon have the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) trying to pretend that the test that he put to the Government earlier this year was not what he meant at all. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the lowest inflation for a quarter of a century and the lowest interest rates for more than 15 years. At a time when unemployment in this country is 10·2 per cent. and falling, in the rest of Europe it is an average of 10·6 per cent. and rising.
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.
    Mr. Newton: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Trimble: Recalling that we entered the talks process last year with the objective of replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement and thus reducing Dublin's role in our affairs, does the Leader of the House agree with recent editorials in The Times that the problem of disenchantment and militarisation of the Unionist community cannot be ended by the very diplomatic structures that created the problem? Does he agree that the only course that would command widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland would be to govern it fairly as part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman asked his question, as he always does, with genuine sincerity—and I hope that I will reply with equal responsibility by repeating what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only last week:
    "Nor will we compromise on the vital principle that there can be no change in Northern Ireland's status without the freely expressed consent of its people. It is for the people of Northern Ireland"—
    including the hon. Gentleman—
    "freely and democratically to determine their own constitutional future."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 28.]
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the pound has risen on foreign exchanges at a time when we have reduced British interest rates to the lowest in Europe is a tribute to the management of the economy and, in particular, to the reductions that we have made in inflation? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that only by continuing to reduce inflation will we be able to reduce interest rates further, to the benefit of industry and of the British economy as a whole?
    Mr. Newton: The short answer to that question is yes. As a result of our success, which I outlined earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has felt it possible to make a further reduction in interest rates. That is the background to the Budget and to the continuing policies that the Government will pursue to bear down on inflation and make further progress possible.
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Leader of the House think that it is fair for the Government to have broken their election promises by raising national insurance contributions and VAT at the same time as refusing to raise taxes for those such as the chairman of Direct Line Insurance who paid himself £18 million this year?
    Mr. Newton: I have already dealt with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He will well know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has frequently expressed the view that those responsible for determining rewards in the private sector should set a proper example to those in that sector. It is a matter for them to determine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the unusual background to this. Direct Line was started from scratch in 1985. It now employs 2,000 people, 900 of them taken on in the past year. It has 1·25 million

    579
    customers and is growing at the rate of 25,000 customers a week. As a company, it has done a good job for consumers.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the purpose of the Anglo-German summit that the Prime Minister is attending today?
    Mr. Newton: The purpose of the Anglo-German summit is to continue and develop co-operation between the two Governments on a wide variety of matters of great importance to everyone in Europe and in the House, including the advancement of the GATT negotiations.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Has the Leader of the House had time to see the report of the Public Accounts Committee into what it calls a catalogue of mismanagement at the West Midlands regional health authority? What will the Government do about the culpable individuals and what do they intend to do to restore the accountability of public officials to the communities whose moneys they spend?
    Mr. Newton: I am aware of the report and I hope that I need hardly assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will consider it with great care. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that a great deal has already been done, nationally and in the west midlands, to address the problems raised by the report. The health authority already has a new chairman, a new chief executive, new senior managers and new non-executive members. None of the individuals criticised by the report is still with the authority.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I invite my right hon. Friend to turn his mind to the issue of animal welfare in Europe? Will he tell the House whether the European Commission reports about relaxing the European ban on the import of seal pelts and other seal products are true? Will he try to ensure that we do nothing to relax the battle against unnecessary suffering of animals in this country and the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Newton: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government, who have taken a leading part in Europe in encouraging greater concern for animal welfare, will continue to ensure that those interests are properly represented in European discussions.
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gerrard: Did the right hon. Gentleman see the report in Monday's Daily Express that the Prime Minister is determined to provide nursery education for every three and four-year-old and recognises the value of such education in preventing juvenile crime and delinquency? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the fact that, assuming that the report is true, it represents a welcome change in Government policy? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Education knows about it, because it seems that he knew nothing about it on Tuesday? How much extra money will there be next year for new nursery schools?
    Mr. Newton: I did, indeed, see the report. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in recent years there has been a substantial increase in the amount of provision of various kinds, both private and other, for children at school age. I also know that a crucial ingredient in countering the sort of argument that the hon. Gentleman seeks to advance is the fact that children start full-time school in this country earlier than in almost any other country in Europe.
    Mr. Allason: Following the conviction of Michael Smith last week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time the Security Service took full responsibility for all aspects of positive vetting? Is he ready to tell the House whether a decision has been taken by the Government to pass this case to the Security Commission?
    Mr. Newton: I would not wish to comment on the specific case, but my hon. Friend will know that in the past two days the Government have put before Parliament the Intelligence Services Bill, which it is envisaged will increase the openness, transparency and accountability of the services to which he refers.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Sunday Trading Bill.
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order.
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER—My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
THURSDAY 2 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
FRIDAY 3 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
MONDAY 6 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the debate on the Budget will be concluded on Tuesday 7 December. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 17 December until Tuesday 11 January.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10·30 a.m. to consider European Community documents as follows:
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER:
Committee B, document No. 8107/93 relating to the fourth framework programme for research and development.
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER
Committee A, document No. 7825/93 relating to school milk. Committee B, document No. 4569/93 relating to state aid to the coal industry.
[Tuesday 30 November:
European Standing Committee B-Relevant European Community document: 8107/93, Community Research and Development; relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-xxxvii and HC 79-xxxix.
Wednesday 1 December:
European Standing Committee A-Relevant European Community document: 7825/93, school milk; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxxvii
European Standing Committee B-Relevant European Community document: 4569/93, state aid for coal; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxiv and HC 79-xxix.]
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement.
Is it not unusual to hold a Christmas Adjournment debate on a Friday? Is not that debate limited to three hours? As the Government have named no other business for the Friday in question, does not that give us a finish at
582
12·30 pm for 1 pm, instead of 2·30 pm for 3 pm? Does not that represent an erosion of the time usually given to Back-Bench Members of the House?
Will the Leader of the House tell us something about Opposition Supply days? We would certainly like an Opposition debate before the Christmas Adjournment.
The Leader of the House has told us of the Budget debate next Tuesday, but the House has not yet debated the report by the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with the unified Budget process. I think it would be right to give the House a chance to debate these matters before we are launched into the new procedure.
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has announced a new system for the television franchises—taking advantage of the fact that the stock markets were open, but overlooking the fact that, unusually for us in recent times, the House of Commons was also open? The regulations to which he has referred have still not been laid before the House, but we will want an opportunity to debate them.
Mr. Newton: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's last point. Those regulations would indeed need to be discussed by the House, and we shall look for an opportunity to allow that to happen.
I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the unified Budget arrangements, but I am manifestly not in a position to offer such a debate at the moment, given that I am speaking on the Thursday before the Budget, which is to be delivered on Tuesday with the debate on it taking place immediately thereafter. No doubt the House will wish to make some progress with the Sunday Trading Bill on Monday, too.
I recognise the understandable desire of the Opposition for Supply days, although there seem to me to have been fairly substantial opportunities for debates in the past week that were not wildly different from Supply days and there will be substantial further opportunities for almost any argument to be made during the debate on the Budget, which we have extended by a day.
On the subject of the motion for the Christmas Adjournment, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is unusual to deal with it on a Friday, but I was grateful to note that he did not suggest that it was improper. I think that it is entirely suitable business to be done on a Friday. He is also right in saying, however, that Standing Orders limit the length of the debate, whenever it takes place, to three hours and I see no reason to alter that. If he is suggesting that private Members are losing time, I would point out that Friday is a Government day.
Mr. Robert Jackson: The Leader of the House must have seen the report of the efficiency unit on proposed changes in the central civil service. A report on that subject is due from the Treasury Select Committee early in the new year. Those are important impending changes in the machinery of the state. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance that there will be an early debate on these important matters.
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that they are important matters. I cannot, I am afraid, promise an early debate, but he may well be able to find an opportunity—for example, in the Adjournment debate to which I have just referred—to make the arguments that he wishes to make.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government intend to give the House an opportunity to consider options for Sunday trading reform? Will he therefore say a word or two about how he proposes to do that? Presumably that will not be embraced in the Second Reading, but some space will be allocated for the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members can choose between those options.
We have had a very good Procedure Committee report, considering the longer-term aspects of how we might debate the Budget motions. Will the Leader of the House give the House an undertaking to consider carefully what happens this year, with a view to perhaps bringing forward next year the type of reforms that were suggested by the Procedure Committee?
Mr. Newton: I genuinely note the latter point. I think—although I accept that not everyone would necessarily agree—that, although we have added a day to the Budget debate that will be especially directed at public expenditure, which in a way reflects a response to some of the Procedure Committee's points, on the whole it would be wise to consider our experience this year before coming to firm conclusions about every possible type of change that might be required.
It is unequivocally our intention to provide time for part of the Committee stage of the Sunday Trading Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. That will not be on the Monday that I have just announced for Second Reading, but I hope that at an early stage there will be time on the Floor of the House in Committee, during which the options can be considered and, one hopes, one of them decided upon. The hon. Gentleman has, however, been around long enough to know that the precise handling of those matters—for example, the question of the order in which things are done—is ultimately a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it would be a rash Leader of the House who would seek to tread on that prerogative.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Leader of the House inform the House what progress has been made towards the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have always made it clear that we would not rule that out, but that we feel that it needs to be considered in a wider context. He also knows that the Procedure Committee has been considering, once again, the question of the way in which such a Committee might be composed. Obviously we shall study with care any suggestion that it makes.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the announcement by the Secretary of State for National Heritage of the removal of restrictions on takeovers for ITV companies will take regional diversity by the throat and squeeze the life out of it? Especially because the Secretary of State has not come to the House to make a statement so that we can question him, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, when the regulations are laid before the House, we shall not be confined to an hour and a half's debate but will have a whole day in which to debate that issue, which is so vital for the people of the country?
Mr. Newton: I accept the hon. Gentleman's wish to ensure that there is proper opportunity for debate when these matters are brought before the House. However, it does not follow that we should make special arrangements relating to the amount of time; we should simply stick to our usual procedures.
Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing public concern about the Child Support Agency. May we expect a Government statement before Christmas about the changes that should be made to that agency?
Mr. Newton: I shall draw my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend referred to the concerns felt about the agency; he must be equally aware that my right hon. Friend is aware of those concerns and is examining them.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will there be an opportunity next week—and, if not, before the Christmas recess—to discuss agriculture? Perhaps a day could be devoted to that, as is usually the case. There is great controversy in Wales about the discrimination in the payment of support for cereal growers, which is substantially less in Wales than in England. We need an opportunity to discuss that and other vital matters.
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find time before Christmas for a debate confined to agriculture. However, I foresee one or two opportunities when the hon. Gentleman can make the points that he wishes to make.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the spate of serious mechanical failures that have brought huge stretches of London's underground to a halt—most notably yesterday—putting at some risk not only the economy of London but, more seriously, the potential safety of passengers, will my right hon. Friend suggest to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that he comes to the House next week to make a statement on how the serviceability and the fabric of London Transport underground can be maintained at current levels of Government investment?
Mr. Newton: The whole House will understand why my hon. Friend has raised that point—the considerable inconvenience, to put it no higher, caused to many Londoners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked London Transport for a full report on the incident as a matter of urgency. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Indeed, he will be in the House to answer questions on Monday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has turned down 10 separate requests for time to debate various matters? Nevertheless, at the beginning of his statement he said that the House will rise, all being well, on 17 December. Is he aware that that means that this Parliament, in the calendar year 1993, will have sat for no more than seven months? Parliament will not have been in session for five months, which must be the longest period in 20 years during which Parliament has not been at work in a non-election year. All the important matters that have been raised need to be debated. It appears that all this Tory Government are concerned about is getting away from here so as to avoid criticism from the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Newton: To borrow the hon. Gentleman's elegant terminology, what this Tory Government are concerned about is, as far as is possible, responding to the understandable wish of hon. Members to have as much advance certainty as possible of the dates of recesses—something for which there have been extensive demands. We also recognise that, for the great majority of hon. Members, a very large part of their work is conducted within their constituencies and needs to be combined with their duties here.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the first 21 years of the work of the Open university? I declare an interest as I am in my 14th year as a member of its council—unpaid, of course. The work of the university has been admirable in so many ways, in particular among the unemployed and with second-chance education. This House should debate that matter, which would also give us the opportunity to welcome you, Madam Speaker, as chancellor of the university.
Madam Speaker: That is an appointment of which I am very proud.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the whole House would wish to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on that honour, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) whose work for the Open university—an institution that I greatly admire—is well known. Since my hon. Friend may not be expecting me to offer immediate time for a debate, he has made his point well in a more brief fashion.
Mr. Bryan Davies: During the debate on the Budget next week, will the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers take the opportunity to explain to disabled workers who are employed in Remploy establishments across the country and who are lobbying the House today why their 118 per cent. increase in productivity over 10 years should be matched by a 5p per hour rise in pay for those deserving workers?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Remploy aids many thousands of disabled workers with the help of a substantial amount of Government money. Rightly, the Government have taken the view that it is appropriate that the restraint that is being applied to public sector pay generally should also apply to institutions that are funded by Government money.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week to consider the water charges regime in the south-west? Does he agree that a debate would provide an excellent opportunity for the Government to bring the House up to date with the worthwhile initiatives that have been taken in Europe and that it will enable the people of the west country to understand that those efforts have been criticised rather than supported by the Liberal Members in the area who say that they are also concerned?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the way in which my hon. Friends have sought to raise in European discussions the issues arising from the urban waste water treatment directive, which have been substantial and will continue to be so in the south-west. I can assure him that those efforts will
586
continue. It would not be beyond my expectation or comprehension if Liberals in the south-west were in effect pursuing one policy in what they said here and another elsewhere.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to promises that the Government have made that next Monday's Second Reading of the Sunday Trading Bill will be a free vote for all Members? Will he also use his influence and ask his Cabinet colleagues to stop undue pressure on workers, especially those employed by Woolworths, who are being compelled to sign contracts before the Sunday Trading Bill is even discussed? I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that there should be more time made available for discussions, especially of the Sunday Trading Bill, rather than curbing debates to one day for Second Reading.
Mr. Newton: The Government's position has consistently been that the appropriate course was to ensure a free vote on the options—on one of which the hon. Gentleman is a considerable protagonist—of the various ways of carrying out reform. The Government are firmly of the view that it is necessary to make some changes to the existing Sunday trading legislation, which everybody acknowledges is unsatisfactory and why the Bill has been brought before the House.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the proposition that my hon. Friends have included in the Bill, related to the right of whether people work on Sundays.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on Government policy for encouraging the large-scale voluntary transfer of council housing to housing associations by district councils? Does he agree that such a debate would provide a valuable opportunity to highlight the advantages of such a policy to existing tenants and to the homeless in areas such as Wychavon district—whose application for such a transfer is currently before the Department of the Environment—to increase resources for repair and maintenance of the existing housing stock, to guarantee levels of rent and to provide 1,000 new houses for social housing in Wychavon?
Mr. Newton: It occurs to me that, given that we are approaching a unified Budget in which it will be in order to raise issues relating to public expenditure as well as other matters, my hon. Friend may find an opportunity in the next week or so to inject that point. If by some chance he does not find such an opportunity, he will have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment here next Wednesday.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on nursery education a few moments ago was profoundly unsatisfactory? Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available for an early debate so that the confusion about the Government's policy on nursery education can be clarified once and for all? Will he confirm that the pledge that all three-year-olds should have the opportunity for nursery education was first uttered by Baroness Thatcher when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science 21 years ago?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in the earlier exchanges this afternoon; nor can I promise an early debate.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As a large part of the purpose of politics is to reduce avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap, and to promote well-being, and as the family has a large part in that, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the House the opportunity of having a debate in the near future on the family perspective and the family life cycle in social and economic policy?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, whom I know well in relation to these matters, has been pursuing his philosophy about them for as many years as I can remember; I very much respect him for that. I cannot promise a specific debate between now and Christmas.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Leader of the House think again about his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies)? Has the right hon. Gentleman had any contact today with any of the employees from Remploy, who have come here from all over this country to protest about the 5p an hour increase in pay? Is it not intolerable that some of the lowest of the low-paid workers in this country, who also face cuts in their standard of living from the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity, and other new imposts, should find themselves, at a time when they have increased productivity, losing compared with many other people? Will he arrange for a ministerial statement next week in considered reply to the complaints that have been made in this House today by employees of Remploy?
Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman knows, perhaps better than anyone else in the House, that because of my having been Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I know a good deal about Remploy and have a very great regard for what it has done. Indeed, I have sought to encourage that in various ways over the years. Nevertheless, I think that my point in response to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) was reasonable. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Departments concerned will undoubtedly consider the representations made, and I am sure that they will reply to them appropriately.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the immense hardship and suffering endured especially by pensioners during the very cold weather, and recognising that most of them will not receive a single penny, is it not very important that the Cabinet tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no justification in putting into the Budget next week the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel? Is it not the case that, if there was a free vote in the House, any move to introduce VAT on gas and electricity would be defeated? We should bear in mind that the nightmare that so many pensioners now suffer will become that much worse if the Chancellor's plans go ahead.
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman has obviously noticed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here in person to hear his recommendation for the Budget and he will no doubt reflect on it. For my part, as a former Social Security Minister, I observe merely that the cold weather system to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been significantly improved in
588
recent times. Triggers that have already taken place this winter will result in almost 180,000 payments worth more than £1 million.
Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Leader of the House noticed that the Public Accounts Committee report on the West Midlands regional health authority recommends that officials should be reminded of the need for honesty, openness and fair dealing? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to follow the example set by the Secretary of State for Wales in dealing with the report on the Welsh Development Agency and to make a statement to the House about what she will do about the Committee's recommendation?
Mr. Newton: I have made some comments about the action that has already been taken in respect of the issues that the Public Accounts Committee looked at in relation to the West Midlands health authority. I will of course draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) about housing associations, will my right hon. Friend talk to our hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment about the possibility of a debate on housing associations in general? Many hon. Members whose constituencies are in London are concerned about the burgeoning power of housing associations. If we had such a debate, we would be able to tease out many of those problems.
Mr. Newton: I have already drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester the fact that the Secretary of State will be here next Wednesday, and that there may be an opportunity then to make that point. As for a specific debate, I cannot undertake to have one before Christmas, but I note my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As has been said, is it not a disgrace that people who are disabled and working for Remploy achieved a 118 per cent. increase In productivity but took home only £120 a week? Is not that evidence that we should consider introducing a minimum wage for such people in this country?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows our view very well—it is a view that is widely shared—that the introduction of a national minimum wage would do nothing more than reduce employment. That would not be to anyone's advantage. As to Remploy, I have adverted to it twice already. It is an important organisation and provides opportunities for many thousands of disabled people that they would not otherwise have. I think that it is right that it should operate within the framework of the public sector.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Leader of the House share my concern that Standing Committee A on European directives, which should have met yesterday morning, was cancelled at short notice? Had it sat, the Committee would have discussed the directive that will reduce the subsidy on the milk that goes to children in our schools. Such a reduction would deny many of our children school milk or a large burden would fall on the local authorities. As Europe is impinging more and

589
more on the lives of our people, will the Leader of the House arrange an early convening of the Committee before the end of this Session?
Mr. Newton: I will look into that request.
Mr. Barry Jones: Can I persuade the right hon. Gentleman to find time to discuss the termination of the iron and steel employees' readaptation benefit scheme, ISERBS? The scheme was terminated in a reprehensible way by his right hon. Friend, on a Friday afternoon in a written answer. There are still tens of thousands of steelworkers in employment in Britain, but the European steel industry is in crisis and it is likely that some British steelworkers will lose their jobs next year. If they do, that great scheme will no longer be available to them. Does the Leader of the House accept that what has happened is scandalous?
Mr. Newton: I certainly do not accept that what my right hon. Friend has done is scandalous, but I will bring to his attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is, together with the request that he has made.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why does this House meet so little nowadays? We have just had 14 weeks off in a 17-week period, and there will be another three and a half weeks when the House will not meet. It is no use the Leader of the House saying that hon. Members work in their constituencies. Everyone knows that the hon. Members who work in their constituencies are the hon. Members who work on behalf of their constituents in the House. Since the Prime Minister took office, the House has sat for only 60 per cent. of week-day time. It has almost packed up. At a time when there are many attacks on our democracy, such as the attack on the franchise, should not the House meet more frequently so that the subjects raised today can be discussed?
Mr. Newton: Of course I accept that hon. Members work here on behalf of their constituencies. The fact is that they work in two places, both here and in those constituencies. It is appropriate to strike a reasonable balance between the opportunities to work in both places, and I think that the Government have done that.
May I return briefly to the question asked by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty)? I have been advised that the debate on school milk is expected to take place next week.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Against all convention, the Secretary of State for Health has refused to meet hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies to discuss the proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital. On 8 November, Alder Hey children's hospital in Liverpool had to make an urgent appeal on Granada Television for staff to return to help in the intensive care unit that night. The Government's policy has brought about a scandalous position in the national health service in Liverpool. Should not the Secretary of State for Health make a statement to the House next week—or is she frit?
Mr. Newton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House without reservation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not frit. I shall draw her attention to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He will know,
590
however, that there has been a substantial increase in the number of places in paediatric intensive care—if that is what he was referring to—and that considerable efforts are being made to improve and extend the training of those who work in those places.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the financial consequences of schools becoming grant-maintained? The increased amounts being spent by those schools are no longer available to the education authorities, which must either win contracts to provide services or slim down their bureaucracies accordingly.
Such a debate would enable us to point out that Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council has done nothing either to win contracts from the grant-maintained schools or to slim down their bureaucracy. The natural consequence is that council tax payers are hit, or that economies are made—for instance, cuts in real education services in the remaining county schools.
Mr. Newton: I am well aware that many education authorities have responded very sensibly to the changes in the operation of education systems, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend clearly thinks right. That has been very productive. I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend's view that Kent has not responded appropriately, and I acknowledge the manner in which he has raised the matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I repeat the earlier request for a debate on the operation of the Child Support Agency? A debate would enable us to explain that, when we write on behalf of constituents who are worried sick about excessive claims, and excessive charges for making those claims, we receive bland, platitudinous letters telling us, for example, that there is to be a standard assessment. It is the standard assessment about which we are complaining.
We know that court orders are being overridden—ridden over roughshod, indeed. That is no response at all. There is an urgent need to modify the Child Support Act, and to clarify the agency's role, so that justice can be exercised. The targeting of people who are paying maintenance, and who have made sacrifices, should stop; the agency's real purpose—chasing fathers who are not making responsible payments—should start, because it has not started yet.
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let me repeat what I said earlier: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is aware of the concerns that have been expressed, and he is examining them carefully.
Mr. Tony Banks: In reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about yesterday's catastrophic breakdown in London underground services, the Leader of the House said that Transport questions would take place on Monday. Question 9 will be our first opportunity to raise the matter, and we may not reach it.
Madam Speaker: We will if I have anything to do with it.
Mr. Banks: We look to you, Madam Speaker; but there is sometimes a problem with the replies, not to mention the questions that precede them. We have Government

591
statements on all sorts of arcane, bizarre and Byzantine issues, yet after something as bad as what happened yesterday, with 20,000 people stuck in tunnels and millions of people delayed or prevented from getting to work at enormous cost to London's economy, there is total silence from Ministers. Will the Leader of the House prevail upon the Minister for Transport in London, who has a busy, not to say an exhausting schedule, we understand, to come to the House tomorrow and make a statement?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier, except that I have confidence in the ability of your vigorous chairing of our proceedings, Madam Speaker, to ensure that Question No. 9 is reached. I probably have sufficient confidence in the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity to suspect that he may find a way of getting the point in before Question No. 9.
Mr. Paul Flynn: As Government policy has failed to discourage young people from taking up smoking, and as there is proof that advertising encourages young people to smoke, may we have a debate on early-day motion 1 so that we may consider prohibitions on the promotion, sale and advertising of tobacco?
[That this House calls for a ban on tobacco advertising.]
Will the Leader of the House give a guarantee that there will be a free vote when that debate takes place?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who takes a keen interest in these matters, will be well aware that the Department's discussion document on the effects of tobacco advertising was published in October 1992 and comments were invited on it which are now being considered. He also knows that the Government have continued to oppose the draft EC directive ban on tobacco advertising on the ground that such action is not necessary for the completion of the single market.
Mr. Nigel Jones (Cheltenham): Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to look at early-day motion 44 dealing with software failures at the Sizewell B nuclear power station?
[That this House congratulates Computer Weekly on its concerted campaign to expose the serious deficiencies in the safety software at the Sizewell B nuclear reactor in Suffolk and on its recent decision to bring to the public notice a hitherto unpublished report by the Health and Safety Commission Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations which highlighted the lack of any evidence about the reliability of the primary protection computer software; and calls upon the Government to consider such reports when drawing up the terms and conditions for the long-awaited review of the nuclear industry.]
Will he find time for an early debate on nuclear power and the future of the industry?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to comment on the campaign that I understand is being run by Computer Weekly. As regards the 1994 review of nuclear power, the Government are considering options for the scope and form of that review.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 10 DECEMBER
Members successful in the ballot were:

Sir Donald Thompson

Mr. Ken Livingstone

Mr. Nigel Waterson

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SIXTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.]

  The Economy
  Madam Speaker: Before we commence today's debate, I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have also selected for Division at 10 o'clock the amendment standing in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
  But note that, to pay for Government mismanagement, election promises are being broken again by raising national insurance and other taxes; humbly regret that the Gracious Speech excludes a new industry, skills and employment policy for Britain; demand urgent measures to end mass unemployment and to implement the skills revolution; and call for the reconsideration of the policy of imposing VAT on fuel and the removal of the threat of further cuts in vitally important public services and in Britain's welfare state.
  Instead of a Gracious Speech whose individual measures do little or nothing for industry, nothing for employment, nothing for skills and nothing for rebuilding the economic and social fabric of Britain and that does nothing but pursue the old, tired and crude dogma of privatisation and deregulation, the British people need a new Government programme.
  Looking to Tuesday in particular, we need a Budget that first acknowledges and faces up to the mistakes of the past, secondly takes new measures to strong recovery now, and thirdly, tackles the fundamental problems of rebuilding our economic capacity for the future.
  We need a Budget that is pro-fairness, pro-industry, pro-jobs and pro-investment. We need a Budget for fairness that will bridge the gap between rich and poor by attacking poverty and therefore promises to abolish VAT on fuel. It would therefore reduce the £8·50 burden that the typical family will have to pay in higher taxes on what they spend and in their pay packets as a result of the Government's economic mistakes.
  Secondly, we need a Budget that is pro-jobs and pro-industry, and therefore not only releases past capital receipts so that we can build, and introduces the energy-saving and job-creating programmes that we have put forward in our submissions, but encourages employers to take on many of the long-term unemployed by rebating the national insurance contributions.
  Thirdly, we need a Budget that is pro-investment, with not just the working party but a task force that will get

  593
  public-private partnerships moving quickly, a small business grant scheme, a technology investment allowance so that we can move ahead in innovations, and the creation of regional development agencies in England to match those in in Scotland and Wales.
  We therefore need a Budget that faces up to our three problems of a trade deficit, a borrowing deficit and a jobs deficit with 2·8 million people unemployed; which recognises that the root of our problem is the smallness and diminished capacity of our economy; which understands that the deficit will return, as will the trade deficit, and unemployment will remain high, unless we tackle those basic and fundamental issues, and which recognises the importance of Government having a role in helping to ensure the investment that we need in people, industry and our social and economic fabric.
  The Government talk about people accepting personal responsibility for their actions. Is it not about time that the Government and Ministers assumed some personal responsibility for their actions? This month, Japan, with 2·5 per cent. unemployment, has introduced its third programme to inject resources into the economy. This month, America, with far lower unemployment than ours, is planning a world employment summit. This month, a new Government in Canada are announcing a programme that will bring more people back to work. Yet only this Government believe that it is better for the unemployed to be doing nothing, because they do not believe in the case for Government doing anything.
  The Opposition's argument is that, after all the economic experiments from 1979 onwards—monetarism, the medium-term strategy, the 1988 Budget, the promises of a balanced budget that have led to the biggest deficit that we have ever had—here in Britain, the Government, if they do not change course, are about to repeat the mistakes that gave us the stop-go economics of the 1980s.
  That is why we need a Budget that faces up to the reality that our economy is suffering from a diminished capacity. It is 5 per cent. smaller than it was at the beginning of the 1990s. Manufacturing, which lost 15 per cent. of its capacity in the recession of the 1980s, has lost another 5 per cent. of its capacity already in the 1990s. During 14 years, our manufacturing industry, even in the oil-rich years, has grown by only 5 per cent., while in Japan growth has been more than 50 per cent. and in America, more than 35 per cent.
  But the problem that the Chancellor and previous Chancellors have refused to face up to is that the economy will remain smaller than it should be unless we have a strategy for investment and a policy for industry for the future.
  Investment in manufacturing workers is now half the world's best. Investment in manufacturing has fallen in real terms since 1979. Investment in manufacturing as a share of our national income has been falling, while in Japan, Germany and France, it has risen. This year, business investment is a smaller proportion of our national income than at any time for the past 30 years.
  Mr: Nigel Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman and perhaps educate him on some of our policies.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance to the Opposition of investment, particularly in manufacturing, but how will the European socialist manifesto, with all its extra costs for employers to which his party is committed, help investment and net return?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has come into the Chamber late, and I suspect that he has not read the manifesto that has come from Brussels, so let me tell him what it says. It says that we are committed to jobs, industry and investment for the future, and that is more than can be said for Conservative Members, who have presided over the worst situation for investment in the recession that we have had since 1990.
  The problems of the British economy are, first, diminished capacity, secondly, lower investment than our competitors, but, thirdly, which the Chancellor must face up to next Tuesday, the fact that investment in our economy is still falling despite an autumn statement that was meant to enable private investment to take off.
  Since the autumn statement and the Budget, investment has continued to fall. Investment in private industry and manufacturing, and investment generally in business, are still falling. If the Government do not face up to that, they will be sowing the seeds for the next recession. Our measures for industry in the Budget would include enhanced capital allowances, a small business grant scheme, new investment agreements between banks, financial institutions, and industry, measures to improve the social and economic fabric, and to take the European regional and social fund money that the Government have failed even to collect over the past few months.
  The measures also include those which would enact the skills revolution and would end the discrimination against the unemployed undertaking training. Measures would be included to regenerate regional, industrial, and investment incentives for training and education, and to create a new partnership with business in a new university for industry for our country.
  The tragedy of the Government is that they cannot even begin to think of the measures which are necessary for the future. All they are doing is giving the country the plight of having to pay the bills for their past mistakes. That is what taxing pensioners for their fuel is all about. That is what threatening even more tax rises to the tune of £8·50 per week is all about. That is what taxes on what we spend and taxes on our pay packets from April will be all about. Those proposals are all to pay for the mistakes of the past, and they go against every promise made by the Conservatives at the general election.
  The issue of the Budget is whether the Chancellor will listen to the British people and whether he will now change his mind as a result of those people telling him what is right for the country. The first thing that I want the Chancellor to do on Tuesday is to abandon the proposals for VAT and to be fair in his taxation policy.
  Let us just recall the background to the subject. The increase of VAT on fuel is unfair. It will affect pensioners severely and will hit the weakest and the frailest most. The severely disabled and the housebound, who rely on heating for more hours per day than many others, will be hit harder than anyone else.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the Labour party would meet Britain's commitments on carbon emissions that were made at the Rio summit?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who speaks for the Opposition on the environment, issued proposals at the previous Budget that would do four times as much to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as anything that the Government propose. Let us be absolutely clear that the VAT proposals did not arise because the Government had suddenly gone green. They arose because the Government moved the nation's finances into the red.
  Mr. Arnold rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give way again, as he has just done so.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should be reminded of what the Prime Minister said at the general election about such a proposal for VAT. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Gentleman shouts, he should listen to what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said that the Conservative party had no plans to increase VAT.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to answer the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman would have an answer if he read the energy and environmental programme that was put out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. The energy efficiency measures included the insulation of people's homes to cut the amount of energy that people would have to use. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are in a difficult mood this afternoon. Perhaps that is because they are waiting to cast their ballots at 6 o'clock in the 1922 Committee.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Labour party specifically excluded VAT on heating and fuel from those areas which it would exempt from VAT? Fuel was the only area where VAT did not apply, and the Labour party refused to say that it would not put VAT on fuel. Does not that suggest that it was planning to do just that?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has got it absolutely wrong. The Labour party was not committed to putting VAT on fuel, and I challenge him to produce such a commitment. I will happily give way to him if he can read the commitment out.
  Mr. Hendry: The Labour party specifically stated a number of areas where it would not impose VAT. The only area not mentioned and which is currently zero-rated for VAT was fuel and energy. That suggests to many of my hon. Friends that the Labour party had plans to impose such a tax.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may have convinced himself, but he will never convince the country with such
  596
  statements. He knows perfectly well that I asked him to read out Labour's commitment to put VAT on fuel but that he could not do so because it does not exist.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Brown: Oh, the hon. Gentleman has it.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am happy to read an extract from "Looking to the Future", which states:
  "Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children's clothing should remain an essential part of the VAT system. We will use the tax system, as well as regulation, to help protect the environment".
  The document did not mention fuel, but it did mention protecting the environment; what conclusion are we meant to draw from that?
  Mr. Brown: I notice that, when challenged, the hon. Gentleman could not read out our commitment to put VAT on fuel. He should apologise to the House for wasting time.
  Hon. Members: Answer the question.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must stop shouting from a sedentary position. The quality of our debate is not improved by it.
  Mr. Brown: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can explain what I am about to read out from his election manifesto in Colchester, North. He said that there were 10 good reasons to vote Conservative; the fourth was "low taxes". Can he explain that?
  Let us be clear about the nature of the pledge made before the election. On 27 March, the Prime Minister was asked:
  "Can you give the same pledge that Mrs. Thatcher did in 1987 that you will not extend the scope of VAT to children's shoes and clothing, gas and electricity and food?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "I've made the pledge in the past. I have made it clear"
  Why did he then break election promises made by the Conservative Government?
  Before the Chancellor announces his Budget on Tuesday, let him be absolutely clear about what people will think of the compensation schemes he is suggesting. I warn him against VAT compensation schemes which will be the minimum he can get away with rather than the best that the Government should be doing for pensioners and others. I remind him of the motion signed by hon. Members, even Conservative Members, who said quite clearly that they would not allow such a compensation scheme to go through and would not support VAT in its present form unless every pensioner were given compensation for the rise in VAT.
  Without a compensation scheme that involves every pensioner, the Chancellor has no majority in the House for pressing ahead. The best compensation for which 10 million pensioners and others who are worried about VAT will be looking would be the abandonment of VAT on fuel altogether.
  Let us be clear not only about promises on VAT but about other promises made by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on tax generally. Let us be clear about what was said during the election campaign, not in offhand remarks made casually around the country at late-night meetings but as the central element of the Tory campaign on television and in the newspapers.
  The then Chancellor was asked on "Channel 4 News" whether he would increase taxes. He said:

  597
  "We will not have to increase taxes. I cannot see any circumstances in which that will be necessary."
  He was asked:
  "Does that mean direct and indirect taxes?"
  He said:
  "Yes."
  The Chancellor will never be able to persuade the country, much as he has tried, that the Government have not betrayed a very clear promise that they would not increase income tax. The Prime Minister said at the time not only that taxes would not rise but that they were going to fall. He said:
  "We will make further reductions in the rate of taxation, but perhaps not at the rate of a penny a year."
  Was not that supposed to be taken as a commitment?
  Mr. John Townend: The hon. Gentleman criticises the increase in taxes announced in the spring Budget. Will he tell the House how a Labour Government would deal with the budget deficit if they did not increase taxes? Does he support the Conservative Members who advocate cuts in public spending?
  Mr. Brown: The first thing that I would do is to refrain from breaking promises made to the electorate during a general election campaign.
  Mr. Michael Bates: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the election campaign, his party advocated the abolition of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions. For the sake of clarification, I ask him whether that is still his party's policy.
  Mr. Brown: Our policies are going before the Commission on Social Justice, and we will produce—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that it is the Conservative party, not the Labour party, that has broken all its promises on tax.
  On 28 January, the Prime Minister made another promise. He said:
  "There is no plan to raise the level of national insurance contributions".
  Yet now the Government are not only increasing national insurance by £3 to £4 a week for the ordinary employee, but are considering reducing the benefits that people receive from their contributions. I can think of no situation more unacceptable than having to pay £3 to £4 a week more in national insurance contributions while, as is suggested by some members of the Conservative party, any unemployment benefit that one might receive is cut by half.
  Before Ministers feel that they might have escaped, let me remind the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what he said about national insurance in his personal election manifesto:
  "Higher tax and national insurance would hit those who work harder and do overtime".
  What does he say now? In America, George Bush said, "Read my lips; no more taxes," increased taxes and lost an election. I predict that the Prime Minister who said, "Read my manifesto—it is all mine—no more taxes," will also lose an election because of what the Government have done.
  The fear is not only of what the Government have done on taxation but of what they are doing to public services,
  598
  despite all their election promises. Their manifesto made promises on child benefit. Under the heading, "Supporting Families," it said:
  "Child Benefit will remain the cornerstone of our policy for all families with children…Child Benefit will continue to be paid to all families, normally to the mother, and in respect of all children."
  If that promise was made to the electorate, why has a review been set up with the specific object of examining the case for withholding child benefit from people with income or capital above a specified level? Does that not show that the Conservative party is prepared to break yet another election promise to the country?
  What about the Conservatives' promise on pensions? Pensions were to be the foundation of the Government's policy for retirement. Yet what is the object of the review that has been set up within the Department of Social Security? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know about it. Its brief is to consider the idea of opting out of contributory benefits—unemployment, sickness and invalidity benefits, and especially retirement pensions. Does the Chancellor wonder why the country will never trust the Conservative Government again?
  What about the public spending cuts that the Chancellor says he will announce in various departmental budgets next week? A few weeks ago, he talked a great deal in interviews about blood on the carpet, and said that Departments' budgets would be cut by millions of pounds. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said this about the Conservatives' public spending commitments:
  "We will stand by the figures in the Red Book. I see no reason why we should not meet our promises. We have allocated our reserves; we have seen these concerns in the past; it has not been necessary to change plans".
  What are we to make of a Government who are now cutting public spending? What do they say now? If incompetence was their excuse for being guilty of breaking promises, perhaps we should have to take what they said into consideration. As we saw this afternoon, the Government bluster all the time about broken promises for which they do not even begin to apologise to the country for having broken. The Chancellor was at it again recently, when he said that we should not take him seriously when it was a matter of
  "half-sentences taken from shredded speeches that someone delivered on a wet night somewhere in Dudley and then quoted out of context in order to maintain the pretence that we have broken our promises."
  I suppose that is a case of, "You can read my lips, but not on a wet night in Dudley."
  We will quote not half-sentences from Dudley but full sentences. I have the manifestos issued in Dudley, where the Chancellor thinks it is not important to examine what was said. The Conservative candidate for Dudley, East promised in his election manifesto:
  "We will get taxes down to 20p in the pound."
  Does anyone think that he would have secured 20,000 votes if he had told the voters of Dudley, East that the Conservatives would increase VAT and taxes all round?
  The Conservative candidate for Dudley, West began his manifesto:
  "You can depend on John."
  He was referring to John Major. He continued:
  "The Conservatives have the policies, the will and the leadership to see Britain through."
  The main brunt of that candidate's manifesto, which was issued to people not just on wet nights but every night in Dudley, was:
  "Tax is the dirtiest word in the Conservative philosophy. Unlike the Socialists, who are going down the disastrous pathway

  599
  of higher taxation and national insurance contributions, taking money out of your earnings, we have started on a pathway to 20p in the pound."
  The Conservative candidate for Dudley, East won by a majority of 5,789 votes. Would any of Dudley's 12,000 pensioners have voted for that candidate if they had known that VAT would be imposed on fuel?
  The Chancellor, instead of telling the people of Dudley that they should not bother to listen to Conservatives, should go to Dudley to apologise to the people there for what is happening. The Conservative victory in Dudley was won on a complete fraud.
  It is not only Labour that is unhappy with the Conservative Government. I have just read an extract from a letter sent to Conservative supporters by the treasurer of Hornchurch Tories, in which he askes them to buy tickets for the Christmas raffle. He writes:
  "You may ask, why I should buy anything from the Conservative Party, given the way that they have managed the country recently? We believe that the message to the Government is that you do not want VAT on fuel, you do not want any more tax increases, and you do want services such as the National Health Service improved."
  He goes on to pledge that the money raised by the Christmas raffle will go not to Conservative central office but to a campaign to mount opposition against Government policy. Astonishingly for the Government, Essex man has become the enemy within. Perhaps the attendance in the Chamber now reflects the fact that divisions in the Conservative party on economic policy go far deeper than Hornchurch.
  This week, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) completes three years as Prime Minister. Not one celebration is planned, not one party. There will be no street parties, and there are no calls for 10 more years. There is not even the faintest, tentative whisper of "Three more years." Not even a slender commemorative volume has been published, though perhaps it would have to be entitled, "Major: The Forgotten Years—1990–1993."
  How is the Conservative party celebrating the three years of leadership? It is having a battle over who controls the 1922 Committee because of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership. The country is raging at the imposition of VAT and public services are under attack, but uppermost in the minds of Conservative Members this afternoon, and the struggle that is concerning them, is who will be running the 1922 Committee. I must warn the Chancellor that, if he speaks at any length, Conservative Back Benchers may start to get restless, and he should prepare himself for an exodus at 6 o'clock as they troop towards the door to cast their votes in the election.
  The argument in the Conservative party and in the 1922 Committee goes to the heart of the Government It is a battle between the forces represented by the Chancellor and those represented by the Chief Secretary, with the party leader not so much above the struggle as simply at its mercy.
  If one considers what the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have been saying about economic policy in the last few months, one discovers that the Conservative party is fundamentally divided, not between Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members, not between one or two people on the 1922 Committee and one or two others, but between the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary. The division is right at the heart of the Treasury.
  The Chancellor tells us that he supports a single currency and big moves towards European integration, but
  600
  the Chief Secretary cannot abide the idea. The Chancellor, understandably, wants to abide by his promises on pensions, but the Chief Secretary wants an opt-out scheme for young people to be taken out of state pensions. The Chancellor tell us that there will be no hotel charges for hospitals, but the Chief Secretary says that we must consider further charges in the national health service. The Chancellor said that the poll tax was a bad idea, but the Chief Secretary has never stopped supporting it and wants to get back to it.
  What is happening in the Treasury as we prepare for the Budget? The right hand of the Conservative party simply does not know what the extreme right hand is doing. The Chancellor considers himself to be pro-European, pro-public services, pro-fairness, moderate rather than extreme, and centrist rather than right-wing—that is the image that he wishes to convey to the public—but is anybody in any doubt about what the country thinks about the Conservative party? It believes that the party is anti-European, anti-fairness, anti-public services, extreme rather than moderate and lurching all the time to the right. That is the direction in which policy is moving in the Conservative party.
  I have one message for the Chancellor as he considers the other measures that he can introduce in his Budget next Tuesday. He must remind people of his views on VAT. He certainly has a one-club policy, which is to extend VAT to all the essentials that he can get his hands on. Is, he reluctantly implementing policies that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) imposed in March, or is the Chancellor the rnost enthusiastic adherent of the policy on VAT?
  Let us be clear where the Chancellor stands on VAT. He wanted VAT on fuel before now. He said in an interview a few weeks ago that VAT on fuel was much overdue. So the issue for the Chancellor is not that it should be introduced, but that it should have been done sooner. That is hardly in line with Tory promises to the electorate.
  The Chancellor also said that he wanted the immediate imposition of VAT at 17·5 per cent. and that it should not be imposed in two stages—first at 8 per cent, then at 17·5 per cent. He said:
  "With hindsight, it would have been politically advantageous to go to 17·5 per cent. straight away and bring it in this April."
  So nobody should be in any doubt that this Chancellor would have imposed more misery on pensioners by raising VAT on fuel to 17·5 per cent. immediately.
  What is the Chancellor's attitude to VAT on other items? He said:
  "I have always thought we exempt far too many goods, and services from VAT in this country. VAT is still imposed on little over half of all sales, which is much more restrictive than the sales tax in most other countries."
  Again, let us be clear about the Chancellor's views on VAT. He wanted VAT on fuel earlier, he wanted it at 17·5 per cent. from April and he wants to extend it at the earliest possible opportunity to food, transport, children clothes and to books, publications and newspapers.
  Given what the Chancellor has said in the past, it is now not a matter of whether he will extend VAT but when; not how little VAT he will impose, but how much; not whether there will be further rises in VAT, but how many, and when. This is a Chancellor with a dangerous dependence on VAT.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman increase or

  601
  reduce public expenditure if he were delivering the Budget? If he would increase it, what taxes would he raise to pay for it? If he would reduce it, what public services would he cut?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not seem aware of what is happening in this country. Public spending bills have risen in the past three years chiefly because of what has happened to unemployment, which is costing £9,000 per person. Any sensible person with a strategy to reduce the deficit and to get the economy moving again would cut unemployment—so much is clear. If the Government had any sense of priorities for the tax system, they would not impose VAT on pensioners' fuel. They would close the well known tax loopholes and anomalies that have been opened up over the past 14 years by themselves, prey as they have been to the financial interests in this country.
  I have a number of questions for the Chancellor today—
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Before the hon. Gentleman gets to those questions, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that there are measures that could affect a significant reduction in unemployment but which can be achieved without any extra taxation or extra borrowing?
  Mr. Brown: Of course there are—I was coming to that before I concluded my speech.
  Let me tell the Chancellor what any Government could do tomorrow. They could rebate national insurance to employers who take on the long-term unemployed. They could introduce energy-efficiency measures to insulate people's homes and to get people back to work. They could release local authorities' capital receipts to allow them to build homes using the resources that they have accumulated.
  To pay for these things, a Government could not go ahead with the plan to abolish stamp duty on shares—£1 billion would come to the Exchequer from that. Secondly, they could impose the windfall tax that we have proposed on the privatised utilities. Thirdly, they should bridge the gap in corporation tax receipts, of £1 billion. Fourthly, they should close down the business expansion scheme today and save millions of pounds before 31 December. That money currently gives top-rate taxpayers allowances for using repossessed homes as tax shelters to defray their tax bills. The Government could close the loophole in advanced corporation tax, which would raise large sums of money. I refer to enhanced share issues being granted instead of dividends.
  That series of measures would raise hundreds of millions of pounds, and eventually billions. The Government could implement them to reduce the deficit and to deal with our problems of unemployment.
  Given what has been said about the public spending reviews into which the Government have entered, is it now the Chancellor's policy to consider abolishing statutory sick pay contributions from the Government, thereby leaving employees at the mercy of their employers, afraid to be ill and eventually running the risk of being sacked simply for being ill? If that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy, how is it that he regards it as a higher
  602
  priority than pursuing the offshore and onshore trusts which defray tax bills to the tune of millions by not paying a proper share of tax?
  Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman considering—the review has made this clear—the ultimate transferral of industrial injuries benefit to employers? Or will he face up to the fact that companies such as Hanson Trust pay only half their proper share of taxation, using offshore tax loopholes to avoid paying? In this way they have saved themselves millions of pounds over the past few years, and they continue to do so.
  What exactly are the Chancellor's priorities? Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's priority to target the sick, invalids, the unemployed—or will he now target the tax avoiders and evaders who have been defraying their tax bills at the expense of us all?
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Having signed the European socialist manifesto, why will not the hon. Gentleman implement a mandatory 35-hour week?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework. That is not in the manifesto. The Government, on the other hand, should be ashamed of not supporting the 48-hour week directive from Brussels. People are now back to having no wage protection and less and less protection at work.
  I want to tell the Chancellor about the context in which he intends to formulate his Budget. No one is in any serious doubt that we are dealing with the problems of economic decline and social failure. A million children are being taught in classrooms built before the first world war. As a proportion of their age group, more young people are in higher education in Taiwan than in Britain. A third of our hospital wards were built in the days of the charity and voluntary hospitals. A million people live in slums. Rail investment is being slashed, and public investment in infrastructure is about to be cut again. The state of Britain, in short, is deteriorating because the Government do not believe that they have a responsibility to the community or to public services.
  Yet everyone knows that measures could be taken immediately not only to create jobs but to improve public services and infrastructure. Before he took his job, the Chancellor said that the Government were in a dreadful hole. He said that they had no medium-term view; no agenda for two or three years ahead. He said that they had to come to an agreement about how to present such an agenda in a way that gave the Government's followers back a sense of purpose. Where is the Government's purpose? Where is the new agenda, apart from the rhetoric of "back to basics"? Where is the medium-term view?
  Little wonder that, a few months later, when asked on 20 September whether the Government were still in a dreadful hole, the Chancellor said that they were. Since then, when has the dynamism and drive been shown? Where is the new energy, the new industrial policy that we need; where is the new deal for the unemployed? Have the Government dropped rail privatisation, or their proposals to extend VAT? The truth is that they have no long-term strategy, no real purpose, no medium-term or long-term view. There is no leadership, no new programme, in the Gracious Speech. There is no new purpose: for that, we will need a new Government.
  4.47 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The first decision I had to take on the first day I took up my new office as Chancellor was to take absolutely no notice of any advice that I would get from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I intend to stick to that decision. It was extremely difficult to find any coherent advice in his speech today or any clues about what the Labour party's policy towards the problems that we face might be.
  Given that the Opposition can choose the subject matter in our Queen's Speech debate, it was rather silly to choose a debate on the economy just five days before the Budget as there is no way a Chancellor or any other Minister can give the House any hints about what might or might not be in the Budget. It was silly also because some Oppositions might have been able to fill in the time by explaining what their own Budget propositions would be, by giving me advice, by setting out with clarity how the Labour party would grasp the present situation. We have just heard nothing of the kind. We have heard some good jokes, some bad jokes and material that was scratched about for in the most unlikely places.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline East leaves lying in front of him a most impressive pile of books. I was rather impressed by that when I saw it. I thought, "It is a pity that he has not given me notice of his authorities. He has been studying the way forward from our present position." I looked at them and could not make up my mind whether they were the House of Lords debates or whether they were statutes bound. In any event they are merely there to make it easier for him to read photostats of sales of raffle tickets in Hornchurch, which he was using as his principal authority to attack the Government.
  As to what he said, as well as what he did not say, occasionally he touched on what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends in office might do if they were confronted by the current situation in the country. Every time he opened his mouth and went into one of those lists for which he is rightly renowned, every item in the list seemed to me to cost public money. It is difficult to keep a running score, with the hon. Gentleman's rapid fire delivery of great long lists of great measures that he would take. By forgoing tax and spending money, he had got through £12 billion by the end of his third sentence. From there on, I abandoned any attempt to keep pace with it.
  When the hon. Gentleman gets up to speak on economic policy, he speaks like one of those till rolls coming out of a supermarket, with list upon list of high-spending commitments into which the Labour party would launch to tackle the economic problems of the day. He was given a further chance. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked him an extremely relevant and pertinent question, but it was not a very difficult question. It was not a difficult question when it was followed up by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on behalf of the Liberal party.
  Is the hon. Gentleman putting forward what he is proposing on the basis that he will increase spending or not, or that he will increase taxation or not? That is not a difficult question, I would have thought, for a shadow Chancellor who might have been thinking of his own shadow Budget, five days before the Budget. A crowded House heard that he was utterly incapable of giving an
  604
  answer to that question, except that he went rattling off again, shortly thereafter, into a list of measures which began to include public spending commitments again.
  Dr. John Reid: As to simple questions and till rolls, who created the £50 billion deficit that confronts us?
  Mr. Clarke: Every country in the developed world is in recession—[Interruption.] If one looks through the western developed economies—the United States, Germany, France, Italy, to the United Kingdom—one finds that a protracted recession has cut Government revenues, increased Government expenditure and caused a problem of public sector borrowing which all Governments in the developed world are having to tackle. Apparently, if we had a Labour Government it would be tackled by £12 billion worth of extra public spending by the end of the third sentence of the Chancellor's Budget speech.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way as generously as the hon. Gentleman did if I am allowed to make a little more progress.
  Let me just turn to the paucity of any response to that. It is no good trying to pretend that a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement is not relevant to the view that the principal Opposition party has to take about our present position. [Interruption.] It is no good laughing at it when it is mentioned, or pretending that if we had a Labour Government in the European Union we somehow would not confront the problem which all the other member states are confronting and all are having to tackle.
  It is not good enough to come back with answers based on photostats of election addresses in Dudley and the sort of tatty material that the hon. Gentleman used and, in the middle of what could have been a statesmanlike shadow Budget, actually to resort to making criticisms about our party elections, to which I personally am not party—I do not have a vote. The hon. Gentleman treads on some delicate ground. We have not had our party elections yet. We know that the Labour party has had party elections. It is clear that, to get northern and Scottish members of the Labour movement to vote for women, one has to give them no choice. That is what was revealed the last time they had internal party elections. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am finding it very difficult to hear what the Chancellor has to say and I am sure that many other people are trying to do so. The House must now settle down. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Clarke: Let me move on to the subject matter of the debate. Having just dealt with the one point that was trying to be made out of those election addresses for Dudley, the question of where taxation plays a part in where we are now, the hon. Gentleman plainly retreads the same speech when he comes here. Much of it he must have delivered on the stump of the last election, and much of it after the last election, trying to re-fight the last election. He had a shadow Budget at the last election—or, more to the point, the right hon. and learned Member for Monk:lands, East (Mr. Smith) had a shadow Budget.
  Under that Budget, every person earning £25,000 a year in this country would have paid £2,050 more a year in taxation. The reason was that the Labour party was fighting

  605
  the last election on the basis of hugely expensive spending promises—promises about pensions and about child benefit—all of which were designed to win votes. I will not re-fight the last election beyond that, but it is time the Labour party discovered what its policy is, addressed the issues which confront the nation and stopped trying to re-fight the last election on the basis of total mythology about the respective spending plans of both parties and the taxation consequences which might have followed its being elected.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will turn next to the current economic situation, but first I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Banks: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that if he had to re-fight the last general election, in view of what has happened since, the Conservative party would be destroyed? What other word would he use to describe a party which says during an election campaign that it will not extend VAT and that it will not increase national insurance contributions, and then after the general election does precisely that? What word would he use to describe such a party?
  Mr. Clarke: If we fought the last election against a Labour party with the high-spending and high-taxing manifesto that it has now scrapped and tried to forget, we would win again. We would win more forcefully when people could see the real economic problems that confront the country. We have not broken any of our manifesto commitments in the last election, and it is quite wrong to go scratching around for cyclostat material from candidates in the black country to try to prove the contrary.
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way, but the hon. Gentleman, having heard that I intend to move on to the present economic situation, is obviously now trying to prevent me getting there.
  Mr. Brown: The difference between us and the Conservatives at the last election is that we told the truth and they did not. Will the Chancellor now tell the public: does he accept that the Conservatives promised not to increase taxes, and will he apologise for breaking those promises?
  Mr. Clarke: We gave no commitment whatever to say that we would never increase taxation. It is descending—as the hon. Gentleman did in his speech—to the most puerile politics to claim that the Conservative party has ever said that in no Budget, at no time, will we ever increase any taxation. We have not said that. It is quite clear to anyone who objectively studies the present position, let alone the past position, of the political parties that in any circumstances a Conservative Government would have lower taxation than a Labour Government would have, tackling the same position, precisely because, every time they confront even a £50 billion borrowing requirement, Labour Front-Bench Members are quite incapable of stopping themselves just spending public money' as the answer to every question.
  Let me move on—
  Mr. Brown: On that question, so that we can clear it up, the Prime Minister was asked whether he gave the same pledge that Mrs. Thatcher did in 1987:
  "that you will not extend the scope of VAT to children's clothes, gas and electricity and food?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "I have made the pledge in the past. I have made it clear."
  Is that not the breaking of promises?
  Mr. Clarke: During the campaign, the Labour party made the strong assertion that it had costed our programme and we would have to raise the basic rate of VAT. That was spurious then and it continues to be spurious. I advise the hon. Gentleman to move on and to think about policy. He should stop fighting the last election because Labour lost it fairly and squarely. Indeed, it deserved to lose it because, while our aim was to come out of recession, Labour made hugely expensive promises that would have meant huge increases in taxation. It is obvious that, even now, it is still not prepared to forswear those increases.
  Let us now move on to deal with something with which, to my astonishment, the hon. Gentleman did not deal—Britiain's current economic position. He did not deal with that because it is now much more encouraging than in any other major economy in the European Union. I have been in opposition; I am one of those veteran Members who recalls the time when the Conservative party was in opposition. I understand the difficulty of having an Opposition day to debate the economy at a time when it is clearly recovering and getting better—[Interruption.] Labour Members are expressing disbelief.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: At the Engineering Employers Federation briefing in October, which I attended, its director said that the upturn was over. He said that it would be funny if it were not so serious, but that it was serious and not very funny. A few days later, he was then mysteriously asked to resign. Is the Chancellor not willing to face the fact that people in manufacturing do not think that there is an upturn? Indeed, they think that there is a downturn.
  Mr. Clarke: No one could accuse me of over-selling the present recovery. I agree with the sensible prevailing view that there is a recovery, but that it is fragile and needs to be stronger. If the leader of the EEF and the hon. Gentleman both believe that the recovery is over, it is my opinion that they are talking nonsense. Indeed, I do not know whether the EEF has been quoted accurately.
  I shall quote an unlikely source, the editor of The Sunday Times—[interruption.] Andrew Neil is an old friend of mine, but he and I are hardly in political agreement on a large number of issues. However, he pointed out this week:
  "Britain stands on the brink of a new era of growth and prosperity, built on a competitive exchange rate, the supply side reforms of the 1980s and the fact that alone in Europe, managers and workers here have grasped the realities of economic survival of the 1990s and beyond."
  Let us examine what reality lies behind that. Unemployment has fallen by almost 140,000 since January. It has fallen in seven of the past nine months. That is not happening anywhere else in Europe. It is happening in Britain only because we have a more flexible labour market than existed before the Government came to power. That is why there is increased employment and falling unemployment so early in the recovery.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend rejoice in the fact that the latest fall in unemployment, which was much larger than expected, will save the Government£180 million a year in unemployment benefit-not to mention all the tax that those affected will now be paying?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. One of the principal reasons, although not the only reason, why we have such a large borrowing requirement is that recession reduces the take from corporation tax, income tax and other revenue, while putting up expenditure—in particular, on unemployment. One way in which a recovery can be strengthened is that, with the falls in unemployment currently being achieved in Britain, forecast expenditure on unemployment will drop and we shall move into the early stages of what could become a virtuous cycle—if we behave sensibly, which is more than we can expect from the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not mention inflation. In his torrent of words, "inflation" did not cross his lips. Inflation has been below 2 per cent. in each of the past 10 months—something which had not happened since 1960. It has remained below the European average every month since August 1991. This month, headline inflation stands at the spectacularly low figure of 1·4 per cent. There are some good reasons for that. Pay is now under control and whole economy unit wage costs are down 1 per cent. in the year ending the second quarter of 1993. That is the largest fall since records began in 1960. Despite low inflation, however, consumer spending is rising. Retail sales are at record levels, even higher than at the top of the cycle when we last had good times. Car sales in October were up 17 per cent. on a year earlier.
  It is absolutely no good the Opposition dismissing all that. They cannot ignore the fact that, if we had taken various items of their advice, it is highly unlikely that the British recovery, which puts us ahead of the field in coming out of recession, would have occurred or been maintained.
  Mr. William Cash: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the award that he received yesterday. Will he add to the catalogue of reasons why the recovery is getting better the fact that Britain has left the exchange rate mechanism? In the light of remarks that he made—I hope off the cuff—at a news conference at the Confederation of British Industry, will he make it crystal clear that his enthusiasm for European economic and monetary union—and, by implication, the ERM—is not something in which he really believes? If we were to return to the ERM, we would lose all the benefits that he has just descr
  Mr. Clarke: With respect to my hon. Friend, the argument that the recovery started because we left the ERM is simply mythology. It is clear that the recovery that we are now enjoying began 18 months ago, a long time before Britain left the ERM. One reason why we are enjoying such a strong recovery and why we have done well both before and after leaving the ERM is our great success in bringing down inflation and lowering interest rates. When we lost the discipline of the ERM, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) wisely replaced it with the discipline and the monetary policy that we are now imposing upon ourselves. Successive reductions in inflation have helped.
  608
  What I have just described has preserved our competitive position. The changed climate in this country means that although we have had a devaluation of the currency and reductions in both inflation and interest rates, we have also had good management, successful control of costs and, in particular, unit wage costs being kept down so that Britain has been able to keep its competitive edge. All of that is apparent in a variety of other areas, although listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East we would never know that.
  Industry is doing better despite an exceptionally difficult exporting climate in our principal markets within the European Union. Export volumes are well up and our exporters have done especially well in non-European markets. Our manufacturing output and industrial production are up and the productivity record this year is extremely good. Our industrial relations remain good, with industrial disputes at their lowest level since records began.
  There is also the monetary position. I have said that I always ignore—although, of course, I listen to it with respect—the advice of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. His main advice, day in and day out, is to reduce interest rates. Day in and day out, he advised each of my predecessors to reduce interest rates. I do not know whether he would ever raise interest rates in any circumstances, but it seems unlikely. Even when inflation was running at 8 per cent. three years ago, he wanted to reduce interest rates. It is his automatic approach to life.
  I did not take the hon. Gentleman's advice and, consequently, monetary conditions in Britain have enabled me to reduce interest rates to the lowest level in the European Union. Taking all the available factors into account and paying regard to the monetary policy set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames, which I have followed, I was able to lower interest rates to 5·5 per cent. That was announced by the Governor of the Bank of England on Tuesday. It is the lowest rate of interest since 1977.
  When interest rate cuts since October 1990 are passed on, they will reduce the interest bill of companies in the country by almost £12 billion a year and it will reduce the monthly payments of the average mortgage payer by £170 a month. Sound money is worth real money to real people. The effect of what we have been able to do has been to stimulate the recovery to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred.
  Having listened to two minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, it is obvious that none of that would have been achieved if we had a reckless, high-spending, spending one's way out of trouble, high-taxation Government in power with Labour politicians who do not even mention the word "inflation" in any dissertation that they give on economic policy.
  Mr. Beith: Why does not the Chancellor seize the opportunity to lock in that monetary discipline and make himself the first Chancellor to recognise the merits of an independent central bank while still in office, rather than waiting until he has left it?
  Mr. Clarke: My joke the other day may have been misunderstood. There are some financial journalists in front of whom one should never make jokes. I do not wish to break the tradition of my predecessors by pronouncing on that subject while in office. I have made it clear—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support me on the point

  609
  —that decisions on interest rates are made on the grounds of monetary policy in conjunction with the Governor of the Bank of England, who now handles the operational end of those activities, precisely on the basis that we have set out.
  We considered broad money, narrow money, asset values and exchange rate activity before I decided that we could reduce interest rates by 0·5 per cent. in the past week. I made that announcement nine days before the Budget precisely because I did not wish anyone to think that the judgment of interest rates was affected by my equivalent of the knockabout political rubbish that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. It is a step in the direction taken by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but I warn him that there are much bigger and more serious matters of parliamentary accountability to be addressed before anybody makes a decision one way or another about the independence of a central bank.
  I remind the Opposition of our more serious economic achievements, on which everybody in the House should be concentrating on building. We are especially keen in the area of the manufacturing industrial base. At the moment, as we sustain the recovery, our performance in that area is better than any of our major competitors. Over the past year, industrial production fell by nearly 2 per cent. in Italy, by 3 per cent. in France, by 4 per cent. in Japan and by 7 per cent. in Germany, but in the United Kingdom it rose by almost 3 per cent.
  Our performance coming out of the recession is based on many things that the Government have done over the past 14 years and it is plainly necessary to keep to the instinctual policies of the Conservative party if we are to keep that good comparative performance. Having listened to today's debate, nobody in their right mind would contemplate the reckless step of putting the Labour party back into any kind of responsible office dealing with such an important and delicate situation as the revival of our industrial economy.
  Hon. Members: Try it.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that leaving the exchange rate mechanism has had an effect on the recovery and, if so, has that effect been beneficial or negative? Given the lessons that we have learnt since leaving the ERM and the occurrence of other events in Europe, would my right hon. and learned Friend say how those lessons will affect rejoining the ERM and, if we are to rejoin it, what benefits shall we receive from doing so?
  Mr. Clarke: Leaving the ERM has had some beneficial effects, although I do not agree with the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that the recovery somehow started when or because we left it. We were driven out and the whole mechanism was given wider bands 12 months later because of the totally different conditions that prevailed in Germany compared with those in the rest of the Community.
  I will concede to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), with whom I have had many interesting debates on the European question, that those differing circumstances in Germany and the wise policies that were being pursued by the Bundesbank to deal with the German domestic conditions were imposing
  610
  higher interest rates on the United Kingdom, France and other western European countries than our monetary conditions could justify. That began in the summer before we were driven out of the ERM and had a damaging effect on the performance of our economy.
  When we left the ERM, it would have been disastrous if our monetary policy were decided by a seat-of-the-pants response, in response to newspaper headlines or if it were in the hands of anybody like the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East who always wants to lower interest rates. That is why finding ourselves outside the ERM, which I have always supported because I thought that it was a discipline for monetary policy in the country that helped us to get inflation and interest rates down, it was right of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) rapidly to put in place a British domestic monetary framework by which we have successfully proceeded.
  When I take part in European discussions now, I say that it is wrong to go back to get fresh blueprints for fresh versions of the ERM out of the drawer since those events have taken place. I still believe in exchange rate stability. That is best when pursued by convergence and sensible economic policies that produce similar economic circumstances in the different member states, as we are now doing.
  I am surprised that I keep being asked about an aim of economic and monetary union. I made my first speech in the House in favour of it in 1971 or 1972 and have not changed my views. I have always thought, as have the Government, that the timetable for economic and monetary union set out in the Maastricht treaty was nonsense. That is now plain and we should not proceed on any automatic timetable and I do not know when we will ever get back into any process of that kind. [Interruption.] There has to be somebody in the House who puts an interesting question.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Mr. Clarke: With respect. I am delighted to see one of the intellectual heavyweights of the Labour party coming to the fore. I remember the hon. Gentleman putting forward his own shadow budget many years ago—and the last time he was totally out of sympathy with his own Front Bench. Now, the Opposition Front Bench could not possibly put together a shadow budget, so I am delighted to hear the authentic voice of the Labour movement.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the Chancellor tell us where is the real economic recovery? In the real world, there are 4 million without jobs. The Government have all but closed down the shipbuilding industry and they are shutting pits every week. People are lying in the streets. Old-age pensioners are dying of hypothermia and yet the Government are proposing to tax them more heavily. A Chancellor of the Exchequer in the real world should be ensuring that the £5·2 billion that has been handed out in tax cuts to the richest 5 per cent. since 1988 should be clawed back and used to build houses for pensioners, to rebuild the welfare state and to put people back to work. That is the real world.
  Mr. Clarke: The real world is similar to that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although he increases the figures. Of course, he is absolutely right to say that we are still facing the problem of there being far too many people

  611
  unemployed. I point out the good news that unemployment is now coming down. It is also true that we must achieve a higher industrial production, I point out that it is rising, unlike any other G7 country. I also appreciate that we must ensure that the wealth-creating economy produces wealth so that we can tackle some of the social problems that we face.
  We sharply clash, however, on the claim that the Government have done nothing to strengthen the welfare state and the social security system over the past 14 years. I strongly refute that. I am explaining the background against which I shall deliver a constructive Budget next Tuesday that will nurture what I have been describing.
  I have not said that there is no problem out there and that everything has recovered. We all meet business men and people working in industry who know that conditions at the moment are very difficult. However, we should not react to that in this country by pretending that there are no first signs of good news and that no recovery is taking place. This country's performance is better than that of our competitors. The circumstances here are more encouraging than those of our competitors. We need a view far more responsible than the view coming from either branch of the Labour movement if we are to move forward from here as we wish.
  As I cannot speak about my Budget, I shall continue to speak about the suggestions thrown out to me by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He could not answer the question about the Rio targets. He said that of course he was against VAT on fuel. He did not bother to listen to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) or to the quotations that my hon. Friend used, which were very pertinent. He asked why, when the Labour party committed itself at the general election to not putting VAT on exempt and zero-rated goods, it did not mention domestic fuel. Did the Labour party have the kind of thoughts that were also contained in Liberal Democrat policy documents?
  Labour's environment spokesman spoke about hitting the Rio targets by a combination of tax and other measures. What taxes, pray, did Labour have in mind for hitting those environmental targets, if not taxes on the fuels which cause the emissions? [Interruption.] It is not Labour Front-Bench Members who stir there. I debated against a Labour environment spokesman recently. Labour environment spokemen take to the hills when we tax them on such a question and when we approach them about a tax which still has the support of Friends of the Earth, but which does not have the support of environment spokesmen from the great Opposition parties, who plainly hinted at exactly what we are doing.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East criticised my views on the extent of VAT. I have no idea what the views of the Labour party are on the extent of VAT. My views, as slightly misquoted by the hon. Gentleman, sound like the views of Lord Desai, the Labour spokesman in the House of Lords. The poor chap found himself sacked for saying that we should extend the base of VAT. Never mind, Labour did not really know. He was put back on the Front Bench because the official spokesman for the Labour party does not have to have a view on the extension of VAT. We cannot tie down the Labour party on that or on anything else.
  When asked about tax, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has one response—loopholes. I hope that he does not try to pay his personal bills with such
  612
  loopholes. He thinks that loopholes would raise billions of pounds to pay for everything he promises. He tries to break down his loopholes which, he claimed at one time, would raise £10 billion. Every Budget we present keeps up with the tax avoidance industry and tries to close loopholes, year in and year out under every Government. Every Chancellor tries to do that.
  Let us look at the £10 billion referred to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. Some £2 billion of it is what he calls underpayment of corporation tax. What he means is that he intends to put up corporation tax on British business by £2 billion. When one searches the Labour party's policy documents, which are not lying in front of us, one finds that Labour still believes in demand management, although it does not explain how it would operate that. Labour uses phrases such as:
  "The public sector must become the engine of growth."
  There is no explanation of what that means. Earlier this year, the Opposition spokesmen for education and for employment committed the party to the renationalisation of gas, water and electricity—the great public utilities.
  We know that Labour talks about radical changes in the City. One of the novel ideas for the Bank of England, of all institutions—it will never be independent under a Labour Government—is that it should promote industrial investment. It is strange for a Labour Government to channel their intervention through a central bank into direct investment in industry.
  Labour is getting close to the Liberal Democrats. I must pardon the Liberal Democrats in some respects, because they gave us their Budget earlier today. We listened to the leader of the Labour party talking to the Trades Union Congress and one could imagine that one was listening to a totally different man from the leader of the Labour party who talked to the Confederation of British Industry. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is back on the cocktail circuit. He talked about his friendship for business, but when he talked earlier to the TUC, he talked about minimum wages, about statutory trade union recognition and about putting the old inflexibilities back into our labour market—the things from which we should now be getting away.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Chancellor accept that, because so many lies were told by the Tory party to get it into power, the habit of telling lies has caught on and the Tory party is now incapable of telling the truth but continues to tell a pack of lies?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) gets very exicted. He did not specify which of my various descriptions did not attach accurately to his party or to his party leader.
  Mr. Griffiths: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will not give way again. I can give the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse for my quotations from the words of the Labour spokesmen for education and for employment. I looked them up before I quoted them. Time does not permit me to go on to explore the previous occasion when it might have been possible to find out what the economic policy of the Labour party was.
  The European socialist manifesto, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East signed up last week, makes the position clear. It is said that the commitment to a 35-hour week is not in the manifesto—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it out."] The manifesto is said not

  613
  to have a commitment, although the whole tone of the document favours high spending. The manifesto is committed to the social chapter and to costs on employers. It uses the rather telling phrase that the principle of free trade should not interfere with social standards in Europe. I thought that that was a rather dangerous retreat from previous policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it out."]
  All right. I was doing the House a kindness by saying that I did not have time to go into the European manifesto. Opposition Members can stop smiling; I have found the relevant passage. I quote:
  "The principles of Free Trade must not be allowed to undermine social standards in Europe."
  That is a phrase of which Ross Perot or Mr. Chirac could be proud. Labour has joined the old protectionist tendency in western Europe although the general agreement on tariffs and trade is one of the most vital things affecting our well-being between now and the end of the century.
  I do not have time to tax Labour about the European recovery fund, to which it has signed up and to which it keeps referring. That fund is no less than a £77 billion recovery fund—a Euro-megaversion of the Labour party's approach to all such problems.
  I have described the present economic situation. As the House knows and as the Opposition knew when they tabled the amendment, that situation must be addressed in next Tuesday's Budget. I am working on my Budget speech and I strongly advise the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to go away and to work again on his. He cannot give another retread of the speech he has just used.
  The principles that we shall adopt—the principles that, in Europe and in this country, will take us back to economic health—are, first, the principles of free trade, of beating the single market in Europe, of getting rid of state aids in Europe, of having a competition policy and of keeping to budget disciplines in our national economies and in Europe as well.
  We must aim at conditions of low inflation and at achieving healthy public finances. We must seek to get stable exchange rates based on sensible, national economic policies which produce the right conditions. We must tackle the problem of the competitiveness of our economy, both in the short term and in the long term. That is what the Government will continue to do and part of that will be the Budget measures I shall announce next Tuesday. I shall come back next Tuesday completely untroubled by the prospect of the Opposition having any worthwhile or sensible economic ideas in their head.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly put on a good turn this afternoon. He is right to pick out the areas in which the economy is showing some long overdue signs of improvement, and to concede that the recovery is very fragile and that serious problems still need to be addressed. I shall argue later why I do not think that the Government have addressed those problems satisfactorily.
  I advise the Chancellor that he should give his driver the night off and go home on the London underground—if he can get home on the London underground. He will then experience some of the problems that one of a number of public 'assets up and down the country are having. Those assets are in a desperate state and in urgent need of new
  614
  investment and action. The Chancellor will know what happened a couple of days ago when the underground system was almost completely closed down.
  Construction work to rebuild our public transport system is clearly required, and is one of the ways in which the Government can accelerate recovery. If the recovery is not accelerated to a higher level than the Government have
  forecast, we will not deal with the deficit that the Chancellor has described.
  The Gracious Speech said that the Government would
  "bring the Budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term."
  That is a cunning rephrasing of what appeared in the Gracious Speech more than 18 months ago at the beginning of the Session that has just ended. The Gracious Speech at that time said:
  "They will balance the Budget over the medium term."
  Now we are only going to bring it back towards balance —and not very far towards balance, on the Government's own projections.
  I do not know what the Government mean by the medium term, but it is not the next three years or five years if growth is at forecast levels of about 2·75 per cent. Growth will have to be significantly above that level—and it certainly ought to be—if we are to get the deficit down.
  We have not only a public sector borrowing requirement, a public sector deficit, but a trade deficit on current account. The most recent figures do not offer a clear guide to the seriousness of that problem, but everybody acknowledges
  that it is a serious problem. It is one that has persisted even in times of recession. There is an extraordinary tendency in Britain to buy large amounts of consumer goods from abroad, even in times of recession.
  We also have the investment deficit that I referred to a moment ago—in the London underground system, in many parts of British Rail, such as the west coast main line, in housing, in schools and in hospitals. In all those areas, investment is needed.
  Our public sector net worth is steadily declining—public wealth minus public sector debt—and it will be at zero by 1998 from more than 100 per cent. of GDP in the 1980s. An item appeared recently in the Lloyd's Bank review which said:
  "the current mix of capital spending and borrowing implies a gradual reduction in the net worth of the public sector, i.e. a declining bequest of net public sector assets to future generations. We are consuming far more public goods than we are paying for in taxes."
  I hope that the Chancellor has noted the comments of the chairman of Ford of Europe, who, in addition to giving advice about the cutting of interest rates, said that the British Government should
  "spend much, much more on infrastructure and its education and training … Britain needs its people educated, motivated and trained to compete at world level."
  Indeed it does, but we cannot get those things without paying for them.
  I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), because I do not believe that his package of loopholes stands up to examination as a basis for paying for some of the things that he also agrees are necessary for our country.
  If we look at his package in detail, we find that the £10 billion is a two-year, not a one-year, figure. As the Chancellor has pointed out, it involves trying to get a lot of corporation tax out of companies that lost significant amounts of money in the recession. At best we might get £1 billion, or a little more, out of it, but certainly not £10

  615
  billion in one year. We will not get enough to meet the very important and urgent requirements of the public sector.
  Consideration of the Budget has been dominated by the size of the deficit. The Government helped to create that deficit and are now in danger of making it worse by a panic reaction in the Budget. There is no way that the deficit can be reduced to reasonable proportions without economic recovery; there is no way that by trimming a bit of capital spending here and current spending there we can achieve a reduction in the deficit of £50 billion and get it right down towards balance. When we talk about getting the deficit down towards balance, we mean a deficit that can be measured in single figures, or at least not much above £10 billion.
  We will not get anywhere near that figure by the Chancellor making the kind of public expenditure cuts that will be publicly acceptable—even within his own party, let alone in the country as a whole. If he makes significant cuts in capital expenditure, he will put more people out of work, increase the money spent on benefit and cut his tax revenues. If he cuts welfare benefits, he will reduce the spending power of the poorest. They are the people most likely to spend every penny that they get because of their desperate need to pay for the basic essentials of life.
  We have to put people back to work. In order to do that, it is necessary to invest money in the renewal of the public assets which have been so badly neglected. Now is the best time to do that. We will currently get the best deal and best prices possible from the construction industry—an industry which, as the Chancellor has admitted, is still not feeling the effects of the recovery.
  One of the classic things that we do in this country is wait until we have boom conditions, and then say that we can now afford to improve our schools and hospitals, and to invest in the public sector. We do that when to do so is to worsen the problems of scarcity, to pile on inflation and to push up wage pressure in these crucial industries. We should do that when the industry needs the work, the country needs the assets and the prices are at their most favourable. The best time to do that is in a recession or when we are trying to get out of a recession, which is what we are currently doing.
  I urge the Government not to cut capital expenditure in the Budget but to increase expenditure on the public transport system and on those parts of the road programme that are environmentally sensible. That programme could be brought forward and started now. That would help industry to get its goods to markets. It is ludicrous that, at a time when access to markets is crucial to our industries, we are so far behind in getting direct access to the channel tunnel.
  We should release council house receipts for house building and housing renovation. That would deal with the desperate problems of housing that the private sector is not able to meet. We should increase rather than cut the grants to housing associations that are engaged in this very important social housing.
  Another way, which does not cost money—on the contrary, it brings in money—by which the Government could give a significant boost to the housing market is to learn from the mistake of the former right hon. Member for Blaby, the noble Lord Lawson. Among many other mistakes that he made at the same time, he announced a
  616
  change in mortgage interest tax relief, which encouraged people to rush out and take on mortgages at the height of the housing market. That pushed the housing market further forward and generated some of the boom conditions that have led to the depth of the current recession.
  The current circumstances, with the housing market in serious difficulty, are the right circumstances in which to announce a change in mortgage tax relief at some date in the future, which I suggest should be 1 January 1995. It would not be a change that affected existing borrowers. The sort of change that the Government propose to make will mean that from 1 April existing borrowers will pay more because their tax relief will be reduced to the 20 per cent. level. The change that we suggest would provide that new mortgages after that date would not attract tax relief, but mortgages previously taken out would; otherwise, people would be locked into their properties. They will have to be able to carry their tax relief if they buy another house.
  I do not think there is any logical defence in principle for taking money from the not very well-off taxpayers and giving it to far better-off taxpayers, who are able to use the maximum relief and have the income with which to do it.
  The only defence for keeping that system is that it is difficult to get right the process of change and to ensure that people who made commitments on the basis of what they could afford when they took out a mortgage do not suffer. Such people have suffered a great deal during the period of rising interest rates.
  It must be done in a way which does not create problems in the housing market. The change I suggest would actually help the housing market by stimulating it at a time when it needs to be stimulated. It is a measure which, over the longer term, would reduce deficits. It would not bring in significant revenue initially, but as the years go by it would, and to a very considerable extent.
  As I said earlier, it is impossible to achieve some of what I believe is necessary without paying for it. I believe that tax increases are needed to finance extremely important measures. At the time of the general election, we said that we would be prepared to put a penny on the standard rate of income tax to fund drastic improvements in education. We stand by that commitment, and we would fulfil it if we were presenting our Budget now. We would also increase the higher rate, although we would also raise the threshold, so that those on the highest incomes made a greater contribution to the handling of society's problems.
  Incidentally, that suggestion has been backed by a number of Conservative Back Benchers. They have said that, in the current circumstances, those who have benefited most—the top earners—should surely be willing, as I think many are, to contribute more to extricating the country from its present difficulties. I expected to hear that view from Labour Members as well, but I have not heard it in the debate so far; it has been expressed mainly by Conservative Back Benchers and members of my party.
  We believe that everyone who pays taxes should contribute to our education commitments through the penny on income tax, but that only those earning over £27,200 a year should finance other changes through the increase in the higher rate. We think that such measures are necessary—and they can be backed by measures to tackle waste, of which there is plenty. The separate administration of income tax and national insurance is extremely wasteful,

  617
  particularly for Government but also for business. The two systems could be brought together: although complicated further measures would be needed, the end result would be a much more economical arrangement.
  As the National Audit Office has demonstrated, there is a tremendous amount of waste in the social security system. People are overpaid, and very large sums are involved. There are enormously wasteful Government-funded advertising campaigns. Huge departmental entertainment expenditures have come to light in recent months. Then there are policy reversals such as the poll tax mess, as well as unclaimed support from European funds for measures that we could be introducing in this country and many other examples of waste. I do not think, however, that measures to deal with waste would solve all the problems. We must tell people honestly that some things need to be done, and that they must be paid for.
  I believe that we must give at least some interim help to pensioners, who have fared very badly in the past few years. We would cost into our programme an immediate £2 increase over and above the price-related increase, and entirely separate from compensation for the imposition of VAT on fuel. In fact, we would not proceed with that; we consider it a particularly harsh measure, which, moreover, is not tailored to bring about changes in the amount of fuel that is used. It is not backed by measures to enable people to insulate their homes, which would have offset the cost of the tax.
  The Chancellor should not forget charities or the overseas aid budget, which is now under pressure as a result of the desperate situation in sub-Saharan Africa. It would be possible to provide at least a small measure of help, even within the current constraints.
  I told the Chancellor in an earlier intervention that I thought the time had come to lock in the monetary discipline against which any expansionary measures such as these need to be set. He may wish to claim some credit for having managed monetary policy cautiously over a relatively short period, but I do not share his confidence in all the members of his own party—let alone members of the official Opposition—in regard to the way in which other Chancellors might conduct monetary policy. I certainly do not believe that the market is entirely free of the belief that even he might, in some circumstances, press for or pursue an interest-rate decision whose timing was related to powerful political pressures, rather than to the longer-term objective of price stability.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe that the imposition of VAT on energy had had the impact that it should have had. The Liberal Democrats' document "Costing the Earth" states clearly:
  "The impact on consumers of energy taxes must also be recognised."
  In its 1992 election manifesto, the party said equally clearly that it would
  "support a Community-wide energy tax on all energy sources."
  Why is that?
  Mr. Beith: That was and is our policy. The hon. Gentleman must have missed several earlier debates in which his hon. Friends have read exactly the same passage to me, and have secured exactly the same answer.
  618
  What is so crazy is the imposition of VAT, which does not cover the whole area of energy at the generation end, but applies directly to consumers, on such a scale and with so little regard for their circumstances that there is no reasonable way in which they can adjust to it. Indeed, some of the biggest adjustments that could be made to reduce energy emissions would be made not in the domestic sector, but in the transport sector. Those least able to adjust are pensioners confronted with a rate of first 8 per cent. and then 17.5 per cent., who do not even own their houses and have not the means to insulate those houses effectively.
  An energy tax should not be a revenue-raising measure, as the Government's VAT is; it should be a behaviour-changing measure, preceded by provisions enabling people to insulate their houses, thus reducing rather than increasing their net gas and electricity bills. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has heard that argument several times before. If he cannot understand it now, I think that he is being a little slow.
  The Government must also consider smaller business. It is clear that the business expansion scheme, and the various other measures that have been tried, have not yet solved the problem of conveying venture capital effectively to small firms. Even the capital allowances that came to an end a month ago had a disappointing effect on investment. The Government should not give up the search for measures to help match venture capital, on sensible terms, with the businesses that can make use of it.
  By "sensible terms", I mean a greater dependence on long-term interest rates, rather than the short-term rates that have bedevilled small businesses and driven so many of them to the wall during the recession. At present many exist on overdrafts and other forms of finance that are peculiarly vulnerable to interest-rate changes. Nevertheless, I hope that a longer-term policy of consistently lower rates will be possible.
  I am arguing for a Budget for recovery. I do not believe that the Gracious Speech gives us any hope that the recovery will be the basis of the Chancellor's Budget; I fear that the Government will be panicked by the size of the deficit into introducing measures that will not help to lower that deficit, and may even make it worse. I want expansion that we know can feed back in tax paid by people who are back in work, benefits that those people no longer require and assets that will equip industry to compete more successfully in the future. I ask the Government to engage in longer-term investment in education, which I believe is essential.
  The Budget will be viewed against the background of a Gracious Speech that is in large part devoted to undoing the Government's past mistakes in regard to the economy and law and order. I am told that they have introduced more than 60 pieces of law-and-order legislation, but they have found it necessary to devote a quarter or a third of the legislative programme to law and order because they have got so much wrong in the past.
  This is a speech presented by a Government dedicated to the centralisation of power, desperate to centralise control of the police and magistrates courts; a Government who have opened up a whole system of appointed bodies —quangos to whom they appoint their friends to control more and more of people's everyday life; a Government hopelessly divided on the fundamental question of Britain's future in Europe.

  619
  Earlier, the Chancellor rightly remarked on the diffrence between the flavour of what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said to the TUC conference and what he told the CBI. There was an equally marked difference between the tone of Ministers' speeches to the Conservative party conference and their speeches to the CBI conference. One would hardly think that they came from the same Government —in some instances, indeed, the same Ministers were involved. The tone was entirely different, because the Government are deeply divided on an issue that is fundamental to our future.
  We certainly do not wish to give our support to such a Gracious Speech. We invite the House to support our amendment, by which means we seek to express our belief that the country could be run very much better.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Today's debate gives us a rare opportunity to take a broad view and to give our own views of which direction the Government should take. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if I do not confine myself to speaking solely about economic matters.
  The Queen's Speech is addressed to Parliament assembled of the United Kingdom and ends with the words:
  "I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels."
  That neatly encapsulates in a few words what a Conservative Government are elected to defend—the traditions of monarchy, the supremacy of Parliament, the unity of the realm, including Northern Ireland, and the moral authority of the churches. All four are under threat as never before, despite, or perhaps because of, unprecedented prosperity and materialism. However, all four need to be defended by Tories, even, sometimes, from themselves.
  It is up to us to defend the monarchy as a sacerdotal symbol of national unity and shared history and tradition. It is up to us to ensure that the supremacy of Parliament, so hard won by the Bill of Rights and civil war, cannot be the plaything of diplomacy or party management; it is probably our greatest gift to world civilisation. It is the nearest thing to an absolute in politics.
  We must retain a Union based on consent. Two truths are self-evident in the argument on the Union. Only the people of Northern Ireland can decide, and only they should be allowed to run their own affairs. That logic can produce only one result—a free Parliament or assembly for Northern Ireland. A deal cannot be brokered in Dublin or London—only in Derry and Belfast. Self-government will bring responsibility; with responsibility will come compromise; with compromise will come settlement.
  We must maintain the moral authority of the Christian churches not by preaching ethics as politicians—that is for the Churches—but by creating a social environment where Christian concepts of care for others by ourselves and our families, not by others and certainly not by the state, are the norm and where the material gains of capitalism are always balanced by the spiritual rewards of service. Capitalism is not enough. Left to itself, it can degenerate into destructive materialism.
  Such institutions are not swept aside in a moment. They are worn away by neglect. Can we, therefore, promise the House and our electorate that we shall never sleep on our watch?
  620
  The debate is an opportunity to reflect on the guiding lights for Conservatives that shine through the defence of the institutions I have mentioned. They are, first, the maintenance of national sovereignty that flows directly from the defence of the historical privileges of Parliament; secondly, the defence of the nation or its interests from external aggression and the preservation at home of freedom, under the law, from lawlessness; and, thirdly, the maintenance of sound finances—a balanced budget without increases in direct taxation.
  Any Conservative Government or legislative programme of a Conservative Government is judged by those three yardsticks. The first reminds us that power does not derive from some supranational institution, treaty or solemn constitution, but from the consent of the people at general and local elections. Thus, the essential building block is the local community and not the European Community.
  This year, we need to use the opportunity of the Boundaries Commission to break down the structures of government, remove distant layers in health care and local government and create unitary authorities based on whatever town, suburb, area or even large village that people relate to; we need enabling and not providing bodies, efficiently contracting out work on competitive tenders. As far as possible, they should be given such powers as they can finance from their own resources.
  We need to reinvigorate the Government as a vehicle for furthering consumer and local choice at the expense of impersonal bureaucracies or even ideologies. For instance, it is fashionable to argue that the march towards a liberal market world trading system is unstoppable and that, inevitably, more and more power will be diverted from local communities and national Parliaments into the boardrooms of multinational companies and the councils of international trade negotiators. I disagree.
  The people themselves will rise up against politicians who distance themselves from their needs. A parish council in Lincolnshire trying to achieve more control of its planning from a distant, bureaucratic council; a Nottingham miner operating a so-called uneconomic pit: further afield, a Neapolitan voter sickened by Mafia or city boss corruption; a farmer in the Auvergne trying to preserve his rural culture and employment; a steel worker in Pittsburgh
  threatened by cheap Mexican imports; or a fisherman in British Columbia rebelling against giving into to the distant Quebecois—they are all small and unfashionable people who are derided by the great and the cynical in their political and industrial elites, but their power is enormous. It is being heard with increasing force. It is a distant rumble, but it moves ever closer.
  Before then, the grandiloquent posturings of world-weary statesmen in their council chambers will be seen as the mutterings of emperors without clothes. A new force is arising in Europe and the world. It is spurred by mass unemployment and it is protectionist and nationalistic.
  Our duty is to acknowledge that force and to harness it into positive and creative channels—into a patriotism that is not fearful to fight for national self-interest, yet promotes free trade where it is fair, which is proud but does not dominate; that provides essential public services, but ensures that they are efficiently privately and competitively delivered to meet the needs of consumers and not the desires of producers.
  If we become so concerned with cutting sophisticated deals in the conference chamber of NATO, the UN, the EC or GATT that we lose touch with our electorate, their pride

  621
  and their prejudices, we will be swept away like the Canadian Conservatives or the French socialists. We have to remember and acknowledge that warning.
  Nowhere is the gap between the leaders and the led diverging so widely as in the development of European co-operation. We must gain support by saying that the drive towards European unity of purpose is essentially a process of equal peoples, from time to time co-operating on certain issues, but always preserving the power to act unilaterally and to take back control over a certain issue.
  Power and authority must flow up, not down. The essence of nationhood and Parliament is that, in theory, it is supreme under God. That is its magic and its imperative.
  We can and must gain support by saying that the drive towards greater free trade which is sensible cannot be seen as an end in itself or an inflexible ideology, but as a sensible device by sovereign nations reducing for a time barriers to the creation of wealth where essential self-interest and strategic industries are not threatened.
  It is absurd for us to argue that the small, traditional Japanese rice farmer should be destroyed by cheap American rice imports from California so that Detroit car workers are put out of work by imported Japanese cars. We can take the drive towards world free trade to ridiculous lengths.
  The first guiding light is that nations should seek not to dominate but to co-operate, not to pool sovereign power and thereby surrender it, but temporarily to accommodate themselves to others.
  It is permissible for Great Britain, as it has done for 400 years, to involve itself in continental politics and to preserve the balance of continental power—whether threatened by Philip II, Louis XIV or the Commission—and to promote trade. It is not permissible for one generation of parliamentarians to bind their successors or irrevocably reduce the sovereign power of a successor Parliament.
  Against the institutional bedrocks of Conservatism, the monarchy, Parliament and the Church, the guiding light of the defence of the nation is complementary; is, indeed, essential.
  The second guiding light is the defence of the citizen from external aggression and internal lawlessness. Yet in pursuit of cost cutting in the first, or liberal nostrums in the second, it is easy to lose sight of this essential light on the horizon to aim for.
  The Queen's Speech recognises that, and that is to the good, but the public will view with well-founded cynicism anything that smacks of gimmickry in any Queen's Speech. That should remind us that consistency and action —even, sadly and inevitably, sometimes the wrong consistency and the wrong action—are better than inconsistency and inaction.
  The jury is out on whether prison reforms or destroys, although it certainly deters and removes from society. It may be that the only sort of action that would really impress the public on law and order would be automatic custodial sentences for theft from private dwelling houses and violence against the individual.
  Equally, we should not be defensive about law and order. Perhaps we should have more of a can-do attitude in
  622
  crime prevention, whether by installing deadlocks or tracking devices in cars or greater security in the home. Such measures could make a dramatic difference.
  Once we are sure of our institutional support and the guiding lights are clear, we should ask ourselves why we want to be in office and what we want to achieve. Physical works are invariably a greater monument than a wealth of legislation. That is a lesson that we should have learnt during the past 15 years.
  One example is transport. We should be completing now, not in the next century, a new international railway station, preferably in east London, connected on a fast line to Dover. What a pity that we are consigning hundreds of thousands of people to dispiriting unemployment, dependent on benefits. Should we not be giving them proper training and community work in return for those benefits?
  People do not expect simply speeches, treaties or slogans from their Government. Oppositions must content themselves with that. People want action, and Governments who fail to provide it invariably become Oppositions. Action this day should not mean action until some Back Bencher threatens to vote against it. It is better to fail honourably in the Division Lobby than to languish as a weathercock of newspaper editorials.
  That sort of tough action applies to balancing the budget over the lifetime of this Parliament. We must do it and it must be done through cutting non-wealth-creating public spending. A Government who balance their budget exude confidence, responsibility and ability.
  But that cannot be done by raising direct taxation. Quite apart from its effects on consumer confidence, it knocks away the very bridge that connects us straight to the hearts of our supporters which, sadly, in this real world, a bad world perhaps, follow closely on from their wallets. From now until eternity every Tory Chancellor should read George Bush's lips and remember.
  That leaves the Chancellor between a rock and a hard place, and cutting public demand not directly linked to wealth creation is a hard place indeed, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary knows all too well. The only real opportunity lies in social security. That brings us up against our Christian conscience. Should the underprivileged, the weak, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed suffer because we have allowed expenditure to outstrip earnings? Of course they should not.
  But our aim in this Government, this year, in this Queen's Speech, in this House, must be to convince people that we are not just looking for cuts, because that will not get anywhere with the general public; we must convince them that we have a philosophy, a positive and creative one, to help people to help themselves.
  As Conservatives, we need the courage to argue our case for self-reliance and for family support. It is no kindness to substitute impersonal state support for our own personal responsibility. The very generosity of the state gradually erodes the traditional role of the extended family in providing for its most needy members. Where the state can intervene is to set people on the road to self-reliance, not trap them in terrible dependency which leads them to a state of despair.
  There is a role for the state in providing training and community work for people who cannot find it under their own resources. We do not need to attack any class or people, whether it is one-parent families or anyone else. We must nurture and not destroy the human spirit.

  623
  Government must be seen not as a struggle for daily survival but as a crusade for regeneration. If we remain true to the guiding lights of national sovereignty that I have mentioned, of freedom under the law and self-responsibility, we may suffer some short-term unpopularity, particularly if we seek to balance the budget, but in the long term we shall not founder; we shall prosper, and ultimately we shall win through.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The astonishing thing about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was that it did not deal with the central economic issue facing us today, and that is the balance of payments. The balance of payments deficit is £17·5 billion and it was not referred to once. I find that astonishing.
  We have a depression unequalled in our history. We cannot export enough and we continue to import. That is a fundamental change from previous depressions and crises in our history, not just after the second world war but before that.
  The automatic way to restore the balance of payments was to depress the economy. That was harsh medicine, sometimes wrongly attributed, sometimes wrongly phased, but it was medicine that everyone knew. That is the medicine that has been followed, but this time it has not resulted in any success.
  What has happened is that 14 years ago we had a reduction in capacity in our industry and that has not been put right. I can hardly ever contribute to an economic debate without mentioning that in my constituency we lost 30 per cent. of our manufacturing industry between 1979 and 1981—good firms, firms that every country has, medium-tech firms, one or two hi-tech firms, firms that had everything to gain, but they could not exist with a 17 per cent. bank rate, the highest rate ever, and a pound worth $2·40. They lost out.
  Now we have another recession. I notice that the Chancellor believes that it started to end 18 months ago. He had better get round the country pretty fast if he thinks that the recession started to end 18 months ago. Some would say that it has not ended yet. There are some signs of that, but to say that it ended 18 months ago is something of which the Chancellor would have a great deal of difficulty convincing anyone.
  For one calculation I can join my constituency with the area next to it—Tameside and Stockport. I join them together because a branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union used to be based on Ashton-under-Lyne, but we have lost the Tameside branch and it is now joined with Stockport.
  The Amalgamated Engineering Union used to have just over 20,000 members, highly skilled, the sort of people for whom the country is crying out. In the same area today, there were 5,000 when I investigated the matter a few months ago and I suspect that there are now fewer than 5,000. That reflects the level of skill that has been lost. We must remember that they were trained, highly skilled people, happy to give their work and achieve the kind of rewards that skilled people have traditionally always had.
  Manufacturing industry is important. I was pleased that, in some of the questioning that is even now being put, the Chancellor has accepted that. Manufacturing industry sells things.' By all means, let us sell other things. Let us sell services and insurance abroad. I am all in favour of that,
  624
  but the economies that are succeeding at the moment are those that continue to sell the products of manufacturing industry.
  Therefore, we need investment. It will not bring quick returns, but we need investment in our manufacturing industry. I hope that the Chancellor will say something about investment incentives. They are crucial. I would go beyond 40, to 60 or 70 per cent. What is important is the use of new machinery and equipment that can make goods and produce skills. New machinery gives rise to the skills that are commensurate with it. Of course, I also want a competitive pound which would help us to sell abroad and to stop imports.
  Production is required, not just because jobs are produced—that aspect can be overstated—but because goods are produced, and that affects our balance of payments. That is enormously important. More jobs will be produced over a period, but I accept that the number of jobs in manufacturing industry will decline as the industry becomes more efficient. People design machines so that fewer people are employed but the wealth which those people create will spread to other areas of the economy. However, goods must be produced. The failure to deal with the balance of payments deficit will occupy the Chancellor's mind and he will not be able to leave it alone when he comes to the Budget.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) rightly mentioned the £50 billion budget deficit. The Government talk of dealing with that deficit by cuts in the welfare state. The deficit is not due to the welfare state. Why are the Government talking now about cuts?
  I refer to pensioners. People of pensionable age were born in the 1920s and 1930s, and there was no baby boom at that time to bring about large numbers of pensioners. There has been an increase in life expectancy, but that is not remarkable, and there has not been a sudden surge in the number of pensioners during the past two or three years.
  The Government are doing quite well out of pensioners because they have not increased pensions in line with earnings, but instead have increased them in line with prices. As the economy grows, pensions will form a relatively smaller part of the cost of running Government. That is an enormous advantage for the Government. Although people will live longer, the benefit that the Government will get from linking the pension to prices is more than will be obtained from the greater expectancy of life.
  Where did the £50 billion deficit come from, and where is it going? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East rightly mentioned, the deficit comes from unemployment. My hon. Friend made a good speech, but I am afraid that the Chancellor's answer was a bit of knockabout stuff. I cannot blame the Chancellor, as it must be rather difficult for him with the Budget five days away. Nevertheless, the serious points raised by my hon. Friend will remain serious next week, whereas the knockabout stuff will be forgotten long before then.
  The deficit comes from unemployment, added to which we have council tax subsidies, a recession and incompetence. Those are the elements of the horrifying budget deficit. However, we must not be mesmerised by that figure, because we can still borrow for investment. We can do so even with the £50 billion deficit, but the

  625
  investment must be genuine. Anyone can go to his bank manager with cash flow problems as long as he has a good case to argue.
  There are some good investment opportunities available which will produce genuine returns. One example is repairs of council houses which are rotting away. The Government could borrow against those houses, and would save money in the end. Those houses cannot be demolished and they have long years of life ahead of them.
  The Public Accounts Committee has produced report after report showing how disgraceful the country's roads are. The Government's failure to keep the roads in good repair has led to roads having to be reconstructed at enormous cost. The worst thing is that they do not know which roads have to be reconstructed. Such work on roads is a sensible investment which can produce a return in a few years; the railway system is a similar example. Training people is a good investment, while education is a longer-term investment for which a good case can be made. Even with the £50 billion deficit, certain forms of expenditure can be undertaken which can produce returns.
  I will talk now about VAT, and the ending of the zero rating. It fell to me to take the chair during consideration of the sixth directive in May 1977 during this country's presidency of Europe. The directive went well, and a deal was done with the Dutch Finance Minister, as a result of which we kept virtually everything that we had. Few people realised that anything had changed in this country regarding VAT, although things had changed in other countries.
  I made the point strongly at that time—I have believed it ever since—that VAT is an important tax because it is broadly neutral. It is not a progressive tax—it never was —but it is not regressive either. The danger now is that by abolishing the zero rating, the Government are turning a broadly neutral tax into a regressive tax, which means that those with the least pay will suffer the most. If the Government start to move in that direction, they could make virtually all taxes regressive, such as taxes on petrol, tobacco, and alcohol, and vehicle excise duty. There are taxes the same for everybody, whatever their income may be. The poor will be taxed at the same level as the rich.
  All this country's taxes will be regressive, except one —income tax. That will remain as the only progressive tax, and it is the one tax which the Government are determined to reduce. Everybody knows that income tax is fair, although the rate can be changed. It can be argued that the rate is too high at some stages, and too low at others, but it is the one progressive tax.
  I will now say something about the proper conduct of public business, a matter which has been causing both me and the Public Accounts Committee concern. Today we have seen the Committee's report on the West Midlands regional health authority. It is right that concern should be expressed in the House about the serious shortcomings in that case.
  One official in the authority who was new to the NHS made a bonfire of all kinds of controls, while the chairman and the board seriously neglected public accountability. A total of £2·5 million was spent on consultants without the authority being notified, despite there being rules that any
  626
  expenditure of more than £50,000 had to be the subject of a special statement made to the board. However, £2·5 million was spent without that authorisation.
  The Carver committee, which was set up to inquire into the matters, said that a "new culture" had been brought into the organisation. That worries me greatly. Many public bodies, such as hospitals and schools, have people coming in to them who do not have the disciplines, do not have the "culture", of the civil service.
  I believe that those people can give certain advantages, but they did not give them to the Welsh Development Agency. The WDA was culpable, and it made a laughing stock of the rules by which public money ought to be handled. The agency had the disgrace of recruiting into a civil service post a conman who had served three prison sentences in the United States. That man came to Wales and took responsibility for publicity. He was spending money wrongly, with one example being that he interviewed a number of model girls in his hotel room on a Sunday afternoon. All that was paid for by the taxpayer. That is a scandal.
  I have expressed concern at a number of other cases that the Committee has looked at recently. People from the private sector can bring valuable skills to public office—there is no doubt about that. However, they do not seem in all cases to have regard to public accountability, of which I am aware every day in my room in the House.
  I have a splendidly stern Victorian room, and I always think that Gladstone knew something about the room when he set up the Public Accounts Committee more than 130 years ago. There is a sign at the top of the room which I see every day, which says "assiduity"—a splendid Victorian word. Some of us try to retain the concept of assiduity in our work.
  I used to say that the eradication of fraud and corruption was more important than anything else that I did, although it was a minor element of my work; much the most important element of my work was the securing of value for money. I cannot say that now. One hundred and forty years ago, Northcote Trevelyan highlighted the need for integrity and competence in public service and laid down the foundations on which we have been governed since. The standards in our civil service have not come easily. They have had to be fought and worked for and they have been adhered to. However, a number of dangers now face US.
  I see a danger in fixed-term appointments in the civil service. Who will the civil servant be most anxious to please when the time comes for reappointment or when he or she has to seek a job outside the civil service? Those who are perceptive have already seen signs of people being more anxious to impress than to achieve. Performance-related pay is also a problem. Who is to say what is the value of a civil servant who pleases only his or her political masters?
  Twice this week, I have spoken to delegations of visitors from overseas who are worried about the levels of fraud and corruption in their countries. I am used to that and meet such delegations frequently. They come here to see how we have managed to remain relatively fraud-free. How many countries have standards of probity which would satisfy the House? If one starts counting, does one reach a dozen, or 15, of 180 countries? We are rather special in terms of the standards that we have maintained, and we take risks with them at our peril.

  627
  The trouble with corruption in administration is not only a moral issue, which, as I know from our visitors, is serious; one aspect that should concern us is that corrupt administration is inefficient administration. Today, people who are not accountable take decisions involving public money. There are more than 1,000 public bodies and we are not able to discover what goes on in all of them, but we must retain the ethos that we have created and which we have so maintained successfully.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) mentioned Manchester airport yesterday. I was on the fringes of the argument when it was first actively discussed whether Manchester should have its own airport. The risks were enormous: Manchester would have been the only city to have control of such expenditure and the responsibility for creating its own airport.
  It was remembered that Manchester had created the Manchester ship canal which, in its own way, was an even greater venture in the early years of this century. Those involved were determined to prove that the imagination, strength and conviction of their predecessors could be matched. Over the years, the airport has turned into a magnificent international airport which arouses the envy of everyone in the country. What are the Government going to do? They are going to sell it, and those who have taken the responsibility and still bear it so well will be denied that satisfaction. It is a thousand pities that that is to be allowed to happen.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East said that there were no new purposes in the Government. Sadly, it is true. I can predict the way in which the Government will handle the Budget and our economic affairs in the months and years ahead—it will be a sad time for this country if their policies are not changed.
  6.23 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Gracious Speech from the Throne contained a paragraph on Northern Ireland. It read:
  "In Northern Ireland My Government will continue their efforts to defeat terrorism through impartial and resolute enforcement of the law, to uphold the democratic wishes of its people and seek political progress by broadly based agreement, to strengthen economic progress and to create equality of opportunity for all sections of the community. They will maintain positive relations with the Republic of Ireland."
  The gravity of the situation in Northern Ireland dare not be underestimated at this time. Those who would do so are deliberately blinding themselves to the truth. The darkest of facts stare us all in the face.
  We are facing a campaign that arrogates to itself the sign of peace in the name of two persons, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the leader of the IRA-Sinn Fein movement, Gerry Adams. Those who long and sigh for peace are told that the proposals are a recipe for peace in a week and peace's best chance for 25 years. The cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church has given his blessing and approval; Mr. Mandela has been given the details of the so-called peace plan; the Kennedy lobby in the United States has been made privy to it, as have the Dublin Government; and the army council of the IRA is aware of the details. But the people of Northern Ireland, whose safety, well-being and destiny are at stake, are not to be given the details. Rather, if they do not support wholeheartedly that which they do not know about, they
  628
  will be, and have been, castigated for throwing away the best chance of peace since the IRA commenced its hostilities.
  True peace cannot come through concealment, a hidden agenda or the buy-off of the men of blood. If anyone eke tried a con trick such as the Hume-Adams proposal on the public, he would be laughed out of court. Those whose destiny is at stake have a right to know what their planned destiny is to be, especially when its authors are both dedicated to the utter destruction of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. IRA-Sinn Fein is dedicated to the genocide of the Protestant population of Northern Ireland.
  The proposal is that, as soon as the IRA announces the end of violence, it will immediately have the right to the conference table to help decide the future of our part of the United Kingdom. Such a proposal is anathema to the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland. Those with blood on their hands and the guilt of years of devilish carnage have no right to be at that negotiating table, no matter what their religion may be or what votes have been cast for them at any ballot box. The conference table is for ever blocked to those murderous murderers.
  In his embassy in London at the weekend, Albert Reynold's cry that there could be no settlement without the IRA is in reality a plea to strengthen his hand by having his allies with him in the negotiations. Anything to weaken the Unionist position—even bloodthirsty murderers—is welcomed by Mr. Reynolds in his campaign for the destruction of the Union.
  There are two matters of which every hon. Member should be aware, and I draw the House's attention to them. The first is the recent visit to Washington of the Dublin Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Dick Spring, and the important speech that he made during that visit. I hear people on all sides saying what a gracious, understanding, conciliatory man he is, fully sympathetic to the Unionist position and most anxious to be helpful. He certainly did not have even a tiny vestige of those characteristics in Washington. He must have jettisoned them in the ocean on the way over there because, in that speech, he appeared in his true colours.
  I look in vain through the speech for any condemnation of the Irish Republican Army and its activities. Instead I find an indictment of the Unionist population. "No democracy" is Mr. Spring's thrust when he talks about Northern Ireland. He told his American audience:
  "an internal approach to Northern Ireland is unlikely to work",
  and warned the Unionists that their future depended on what he called
  "the growing nationalist community".
  In other words, "We are breeding faster than you, so you had better cut your losses before we take you over. You had better make a deal now."
  Mr. Spring went on to claim that his country was
  "a country in transition",
  moving towards
  "perspectives of a modern, self-confident and pluralist society".
  However, that self-confident pluralist society is encumbered with notions of political and territorial expansion, because it seeks to annex part of the island which does not belong to it, never has belonged to it and never will. Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution rob all the people of the island of Ireland of any notion of plurality, or even of accommodation.

  629
  Bearing in mind the society that Mr. Spring was addressing, he told his audience that he was dedicated to preserving their "cultural heritage"—that is, of course, the Gaelic Roman Catholic ethos. Mr. Spring went on to claim that the problem of Northern Ireland was about
  "the unresolved legacy of Anglo-Irish history".
  To Mr. Spring, the territorial question is unresolved. I have heard that idea continually from the hon. Member for Foyle. They both conveniently forget the truth of the matter. In the 1920s, the Irish leaders resolved the territorial question by signing the 1921 treaty and later the 1925 tripartite accord, which accepted the recognised boundaries and had them ratified in the three Parliaments —the Dail Eireann, the Stormont Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament. The document was then registered at the League of Nations as a record of international boundaries. Nothing could be clearer than that.
  The South, under the leadership of Mr. De Valera, then plummeted into a bitter civil war. We often hear in the House about the treatment meted out to Irish people by people from this part of the United Kingdom, but we are apt to forget that the bloodiest deeds ever carried out in Ireland took place when Irishman fought Irishman in the civil war, led by De Valera. De Valera was defeated, and the settlement was established and stood.
  However, when De Valera won power in the Irish Republic, he tore up the agreement and introduced the 1937 constitution, as a result of which we have the problem of the territorial claim in articles 2 and 3—the claim that Dublin, rather than the United Kingdom, was really the possessor of Northern Ireland, and that even the laws of the Republic had power over that part of the territory, which it neither owned nor controlled.
  Mr. Spring forgets all that. He went on to say that the nationalist community had
  "little sense of ownership of the structures set over them".
  That is an amazing statement. Unionists must rightly ask what those structures are. There are no Northern Ireland political institutions over the community in Northern Ireland, whether Protestant, Unionist, Roman Catholic or nationalist. Of course, the structures are joint Anglo-Irish structures, not only owned by the nationalists but controlled by Dublin. Yet Mr. Spring told his American audience that all those evil people in Northern Ireland set over his people institutions that they did not own. He said of the nationalists:
  "there is no prospect that they will ever redefine themselves as British to conform with the official doctrine of their state."
  So much for the nationalists. But what about the majority, the Unionists? Are they to be forced into a position with which they will not conform? Mr. Spring's answer to that question is yes. He even indicts the Unionist people as being responsible for the Irish civil war.
  That is the man who is supposed to be conciliatory, the man with such a great understanding of the Unionist position. He then declared that our Union flag, our symbol of identity, must be changed—the cross of St. Patrick and all. In all Mr. Spring's speech, there is no indictment of the Irish Republican Army, no catalogue of the dreadful crimes, that it has committed. But he did say this:
  "violence is not a problem which can be solved by security means".
  630
  Are we to take it from that that he considers concessions to the men of violence to be the only way forward?
  So much for Mr. Spring, who, I am told, held out his hand in the Senate of the South today and said that he wanted friendship with the Unionist people. That is not what he said when he was in Washington a few days ago.
  The second matter of which the House should be aware concerns the confidential document leaked in the Irish press. There was a furore in Dublin when it was leaked, and great denials. But in the Dail Eireann yesterday, the truth came out in the wash. Mr. Reynolds admitted that the document was absolutely authentic, and had set negotiations back by being leaked in that terrible manner. If he could find out who had leaked it, heads would roll, he said. At first the document was denied but now, on the floor of the Dail, it is admitted to be authentic.
  The document is amazing. Anybody who expected any Unionist who believed in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom—whether that person were a Roman Catholic or a Protestant—to find anything acceptable in the document would be out of his senses. The document tells us that British and Irish officials were instructed at the Anglo-Irish intergovermental conference on 10 September to use their best endeavours to draft the paper, and it says that the liaison group met and had discussions.
  Who is in that? I learned from the Secretary of State in Downing street yesterday that the liaison group consists of a number of civil servants from the Foreign Office, from the Dublin Government and from the Northern Ireland Office. The document was born out of those discussions and represents a hidden agenda—which is why the people of Northern Ireland are so angry about it. It states:
  "It is accepted on both sides"—
  that is, by the British and Irish Governments—
  "that this joint paper and the discussions related to it will not be the subject of discussion, still less negotiation, with the Northern Ireland parties unless both governments agree beforehand whether and how this should be done."
  That means that what is being planned for the people that I represent in the House will not be known without the consent and support of Dublin. That alone damns the document for ever in the minds of all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland. What do they take the long-suffering, law-abiding people of our Province for? They have suffered carnage for years, and have given their young men to fight against the terrorists and buried them in their graveyards. To think that those people should be disfranchised because the Dublin Government say so. Every right hon. and hon. Member should read that document and ask how there can be any settlement on such a basis.
  The intergovernmental conference on the Anglo-Irish Agreement will serve as the embryo of a united Ireland Parliament that could interfere in any other structures that might be established in Northern Ireland. It will have supreme authority to interfere in those matters.
  It is common knowledge that my colleagues and I visited Downing street yesterday and had a long discussion with the Prime Minister about those matters, which cause us great concern. When we raised the question of the paper, I noted the Prime Minister's remarks. I asked the right hon. Gentleman's permission to use that record, and he said that I certainly could—so I am not breaking any confidence. He said:
  "If this paper had been presented to me, I would have booted it out over the roof tops."

  631
  That statement leaves many questions unanswered. Who were the officials that discussed and agreed to that paper? How often does the liaison committee meet? Who agreed that the paper should state that no one in Northern Ireland should hear anything about it until the Dublin Government or the British Government mutually consented to that? The people of Northern Ireland are asking themselves those questions tonight.
  I welcome the Prime Minister's comments, but this is not the last of the papers. Another will soon appear from the same source, and it will have the same thrust—and that will be repeated over and over again. Unless the Government have the guts and the resolution to stand up to the Irish authorities on articles 2 and 3—which they are fighting desperately to save and for which they are making all sorts of apologies—and have them removed, there will be no solid basis for peace.
  Meanwhile—as was said by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who is the leader of the Official Unionists—deep concern is running right into the gut of the whole of the Northern Ireland people. Anyone from Northern Ireland who saw on television last night the array of seized armaments could do nothing but shiver, with every gun a potential murder weapon. One thinks also of the array of armaments already in the hands of the IRA. When no security spokesman can say whether that seized consignment was the first, or put a number to the number of consignments that have got through, the House will understand how people feel at this time.
  I say to the Government and to the House that the sooner that situation is dealt with, the better for us all. There is only one way, which is to establish that the Union is not negotiable, that no all-Ireland body can have any say in Northern Ireland's internal arrangements, and that there can be no advance by the Dublin Government towards achieving .the objective of articles 2 and 3—which is a constitutional imperative laid on every Irish Minister according to the Supreme Court in Dublin. Until those matters are laid to rest, the troubles, sorrows and bloodshed will continue.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: In normal circumstances, I would have preferred at this stage of the debate on the Loyal Address to speak on the effects of value added tax on fuel costs in Northern Ireland, particularly because of the unique situation that exists there. The cost of fuel in Northern Ireland is 32 per cent. higher than in England, Scotland and Wales, so when VAT is imposed, it will cause a substantial increase. That will be added to by the higher overall costs in Northern Ireland imposed by the necessity to import so many consumer items, which will have a particularly harmful effect on elderly people.
  I would have liked the opportunity also to speak not just about peace at any price—a phrase that is becoming increasingly clichéd—but the price of no peace, which is worth considerable scrutiny. A recent article in The Economist tried to analyse the net cost of the North of Ireland to the British Exchequer during the past year, and arrived at a figure of £6 billion. That figure is not verifiable, because many factors in the security budget are not made public. I would like the cost of no peace to be carefully analysed.
  632
  I listened with great interest to the version of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) of history and of current affairs. It depressed me almost as much as the account of current affairs given by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) when he spoke two nights ago. We heard the selective quotations given by the hon. Member for Antrim, North from a speech given by the Tanaiste in the United States. We heard also a garbled version of what is not an Irish Government document, and the conclusions drawn by the hon. Gentleman, with his usual sense of the dramatic.
  When the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the talks between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, I hope that it was with a supreme sense of irony that he said that the sovereign Government in Dublin were no more than a conduit for the IRA. He said that about a Government who are spending more per capita in the fight against terrorism than the British Government are spending within Northern Ireland—£1 million a day. He said that about a Government who have had to contend with IRA violence and what it has done to the good name of Ireland for so many years. He said that about a Government who have entered into discussions with this Government at the highest possible level and with the Prime Minister to try to ensure that there is a lasting peace.
  I was also struck by the concern of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley at what he termed the state of the "professional and middle classes." He said:
  "they are now in such a state of anxiety that they disbelieve any assurance, and suspect betrayal in every sentence they hear or read … something must be done to reduce the fever".—[Official Report, 23 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 362.]
  I am aware of the professional and middle classes in the Unionist and nationalist communities in the North of Ireland. I would never accuse them of fever in relation to anything that did not affect their economic and financial positions. However, if the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley knows something that the rest of us do not know, I should like him to explain it to us. He sees betrayal, disbelief and anxiety in everything that is said.
  Let us test that against some of what has been said about the present controversies. In a notable speech in the Guildhall on 15 November, the Prime Minister said:
  "there may be now a better opportunity for peace in Northern Ireland than for many years. There is a burning desire on each side of the community for peace. This strength of feeling is far more intense than we have ever seen before."
  I wonder how the Prime Minister has got it wrong. He sees not the anxiety or the sense of betrayal but an expectancy and deep feeling for peace. Are the Prime Minister's words causing a sense of anxiety and betrayal? Are they being doubted by those to whom the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley refers?
  On 2 November the Irish Prime Minister said:
  "I want them"—
  the Unionists—
  "to join us. I want the two communities to join us, in rejecting violence and in the search for peace."
  Betrayal? Anxiety? Disbelief? How can that be interpreted as anything but what it is—a genuine and sincere reaching out from the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic to the Unionist community in the North of Ireland?
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North quoted Mr. Spring at length. In the six principles that he enunciated, he stated, restated and defined as a principle the words:

  633
  "No agreement can be reached in respect of any change in the present status of Northern Ireland without the freely expressed consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland free from coercion or violence."
  Betrayal? Anxiety? Are those the words that are causing the anxiety and fever that has engulfed the professional and middle classes in the North of Ireland?
  Let us go further. The hon. Member for Antrim, North was at great pains to labour the position in relation to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. The six principles enunciated in the Irish Parliament contain the words:
  "If we believe in consent as an integral part of any democratic approach to peace, we must be prepared at the right time and in the right circumstances to express our commitment to that consent in our fundamental law".
  The fundamental law is the written constitution of the Republic of Ireland. It is a written commitment given solemnly within the Parliament of the Irish Republic. Is that causing the anxiety and sense of betrayal? Is it something much more potent? Is it the fear or apprehension that there just might be peace? Is that frightening people?
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mallon: I will give way later.
  I see nothing in the statement or actions of the Prime Minister, the Irish Prime Minister or the Irish Foreign Minister that could in any way be interpreted as creating a sense of anxiety, betrayal and fever that is engulfing the professional and middle classes.
  What about the other people—the vast majority of people in the North of Ireland who are not professional or middle class? They have suffered most during the past 25 years. Perhaps they are not worthy of consideration. I shall give them that consideration in my speech.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman asks many questions, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to some of them. If one argues from the wrong premise, it does not matter about the logic of one's argument. Therein lies the feeling of possible betrayal. The whole idea of peace seems to emanate from some fallacious assumption that Mr. Adams, Sinn Fein and the provisional IRA want peace. We have not seen a single shred of evidence that that peace is on offer. Hence we do not want decisions made on the wrong premise.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation. Neither would I. I do not care who delivers peace, as long as it is created, and more power to the people who try to bring it about. I will give them every support and all the help I can. I will do that at all times, because I am not particular about who is the hero. I am concerned about peace for the people in the North of Ireland and the whole of the island.
  What is the recipe that we have heard from the leaders of the two Unionist parties for the ending of violence and the creation of peace? We have a document from the party represented by the hon. Member for Antrim, North called "Breaking the Logjam." Anyone who bothers to read it will see that it says, in effect, that one sets up a little body in Belfast, gives it some type of name and it will have friendly relationships with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Where is the solution? How will this solve the problem or end the violence? How will it create permanent peace on the island of Ireland?
  634
  Much more subtly, in his speech two nights ago, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley repeated almost word for word what we had read in "Breaking the Logjam". He seemed to be saying in a more sophisticated way, "Let us set up a county council structure in the North of Ireland and then enjoy a neighbourly relationship with the Republic, and then everything in the garden will be rosy." It will not: peace will not come that way. It will have to be created. Peace will involve all of us making concessions and biting our lips, politically speaking, because it will not be easy.
  This is why there is a sense of anxiety—it is where the fever derives from. There are those in our community who cannot accommodate the idea of compromise or of thinking themselves into a new peaceful century. They prefer the stagnation of the status quo with which we have lived for so long. That is the cause of the fervour; not the Irish Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister, or the leader of the SDLP, who has made honest and valiant attempts to bring about an end to the violence.
  There is a fear that, if peace comes, the central basis of Unionism will be weakened. So it will: as will the basis of my party, and the basis of the British and Irish constitutional positions, as Mr. Spring showed in the six principles. The price of peace is the ability to compromise and to be imaginative, instead of sticking in the morass in which we have been stuck for so long.
  Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to modifications in the constitutional positions of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. What is his response to the proposition that future constitutional structures relating to Northern Ireland are a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide, and for no one else?
  Mr. Mallon: I have already answered that comprehensively. The first article of the Anglo-Irish Agreement answers the hon. Gentleman's point, restated by Mr. Spring in his six principles:
  "No agreement can be reached in respect of any change in the present status of Northern Ireland without the freely expressed consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland free from coercion or violence."
  Mr. Trimble rose—
  Mr. Mallon: I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wants a constitutional debate on this issue, let him visit the people who have invited him to have one—the Irish Government—and hold his academic debate with them. He should be listening to this political message, but he is afraid to listen to anything positive, just as he is afraid of the notion of peace.
  Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mallon: I will not, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Ever since I entered the House, I have consistently asked the Prime Ministers and Governments of the two countries to take upon themselves the task of solving the problem of Northern Ireland. It is the duty and business of Governments to do that. I have criticised them in the past for not doing so, but this was a guiding principle on which the Anglo-Irish Agreement was based.
  That principle underlies every intergovernmental meeting between the Irish and British. It underlies the joint statement issued by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Brussels. I hold to that principle, because only the two

  635
  Governments have the power and authority to effect the changes that will create peace and build new political structures. If the Governments undertake the task, will give them my full support. I offer them the full support of our party to try to solve this intractable problem. In the Brussels statement, they said that only the two Governments can produce the necessary initiatives to solve these problems.
  I give the two Governments credit, at a time when they are not getting any credit. We have seen the Unionist reaction to the Prime Minister's attempts, even though they have a close relationship with him. We have also seen the reaction of the other form of Unionism, which is even more loyal than the official kind. The Unionists have beaten a path to the Prime Minister's door—it is even rumoured that there is now a Molyneaux room and a Paisley room at No. 10.
  What are they doing if they are not listening to the Prime Minister? Are they agreeing with him that only the two Governments acting together can solve the problem, or are they talking about fervour and the sort of potted histories that we heard today from the hon. Member for Antrim, North? Are they giving the Prime Minister the version of current affairs that we have heard from both the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Antrim, North?
  In their attempt to create peace, the two Prime Ministers have the full support both of my party and of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, be they professional or middle-class people, or Catholics or Protestants. People are watching closely, believing what the Prime Ministers said in Brussels—that it was their business to get on with solving the problem.
  This is an urgent matter. If we needed proof of that urgency, we had only to look at the television footage from yesterday showing the interception of the arms haul. There is more proof of the urgency when we recall how quickly peace initiatives and momentum towards change can turn sour. There will be people in both communities who do not want peace, and who try everything they know to ensure that violence continues.
  I ask the Government to respond to this urgency. If they do, history will judge them as people of courage and imagination who took us into the next century without the stain of blood on everything to do with Northern Ireland. If they run away from the problem—to use the vernacular, if they funk it—history will judge them harshly, as will the long-suffering people of the North of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic.
  Will there be a way back if a mistake is made now? Another such chance may not come for 25 years. Those are the stakes that we are playing for; that is why it is so important to move forward.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I have met no one, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, who is not totally committed to peace, but I wonder whether the hon. Member will tell the House what price of peace—his price, the price for the SDLP—is to be exacted before there is full commitment to the security forces, to the RUC, to bring an end to terror?
  Mr. Mallon: That is a valid question, and I will answer it honestly. We have paid part of our price. We take no satisfaction in entering into discussions with those who publicly support violence. We will talk to anyone in our
  636
  community if we believe that we can stop violence. We recommend to representatives within the Unionist community as well that they talk to loyalist paramilitary groupings.
  When we get that type of peaceful basis, we can all start to negotiate in the proper way of negotiating—not through this type of intervention. We do not know what the outcome will be, any more than the hon. Gentleman does, but the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has a certitude at bottom which is so frightening in terms of that absoluteness which blinkers him on many occasions. That is the type of thing that should be broken down.
  We have heard of the Unionist position—the Prime Minister must be sick of hearing about the Unionist position. The Unionist position is discussed almost daily in the Irish Parliament, and discussed at great length. May I remind people that there are two communities living there? I have the honour to represent the other part of the Northern Ireland community.
  I represent a nationalist position. That is a legitimate position, and the aspirations of the nationalist community are legitimate. Let not the way in which the IRA have devalued and debased nationalism be reflected in Government thinking or thinking in the House. Let it be said—and be seen—that the aspiration to create a united Ireland, to create unity of the Irish people, is a legitimate aspiration, pursued by peaceful, democratic means without violence and without coercion, and is a crucial factor in what is happening now.
  Do the Government believe that? Or are the Government now so frightened of some of the ancillary factors in what has been happening during the past months that they will not recognise that basic point? I repeat it: will they state that the desire to create, and the aspiration to create, Irish unity through peaceful means is a legitimate political process? I believe that it is. I believe that the Government believe that it is. I believe that that is part of long-term Government thinking. Let me tell hon. Members why.
  I refer hon. Members to a statement that was made by the Foreign Secretary in the House:
  "I do not agree that partition can be the basis for a settlement. My hon. Friend's underlying thought is perfectly right—there are two communities on the island and they must be given rights as two communities—but if there is to be a lasting settlement, it must be within the sovereignty of one Cypriot Government " —[Official Report, 28 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 1006.]
  May I refer that statement of the Foreign Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the entire Government. I ask him to apply the principle that is involved in that statement of that senior member of the Government when dealing with the problems that we are dealing with at present, conditioned only by that one single factor which I have already quoted twice—that there can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland without coercion and force.
  Is that not something that the Government must honestly answer for themselves? Is not that the type of thinking that will ultimately solve the problem? Or will the Government, like so many other Governments down through the decades and the centuries, be caused to deviate from making the fundamental decisions for peace and development by the type of bluster that we have heard from the Conservative Benches and the type of attitudes that we have heard from the Opposition Benches? Time will tell whether the Government and the Prime Minister are up to it.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg (Milton Keynes, South-West): I shall confine my remarks this evening to the economy.
  I begin by recalling events that took place earlier in the day and the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Once again it has been a sad day for the Labour Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman was unable to put forward any coherent alternative economic policy. One tries to detect an alternative economic policy from the mists which surround him. If one can detect anything, it is that he is in favour of a bigger Budget deficit. A Budget deficit of about 7 per cent. of GDP does not seem to be big enough for the hon. Gentleman. Running higher Budget deficits, as he will learn one day, leads to higher long-term interest rates. If Governments borrow more money, they must finance that in international markets and pay the appropriate rate. A higher Budget deficit, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East advocated, would be harmful to the wealth-creating sector of the country and harmful to the manufacturing sector which he claims to support.
  The big idea of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East seems to be loopholes; loopholes will provide the answer. I have here Butterworth's yellow tax handbook. I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that tax handbook. It runs to 2,142 pages.
  Mr. Eric Maley: What is the orange one?
  Mr. Legg: Thank you very much. The yellow book is a small book compared with the orange book—the orange handbook runs to no fewer than 3,822 pages. We therefore have nearly 6,000 pages of tax legislation and the hon. Gentleman says that the answer is the loopholes in that legislation. Again, I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine the detail of that legislation. If he thumbs his way through the 6,000 pages he will find page after page of anti-avoidance legislation. His answer seems to be, if it is not working, regulate it, regulate it again and regulate it some more—more regulation, more tax legislation, more anti-avoidance legislation.
  All Conservative Members know that that is not the answer. There is a vacuum at the heart of Labour's economic policies. There is not only a vacuum; Labour Members have also become disoriented because the economy is not performing in the way in which they thought it would and it is not performing in the way in which they wanted it to perform.
  First, Labour Members were hoping that unemployment would carry on increasing throughout this year. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East had his speeches on his word processor to back up what he thought would be months of increasing unemployment. Instead unemployment has come down steadily. That has been a disappointment for him. Last month's unemployment figures were the best for many years, with the non-seasonally-adjusted figures decreasing by 100,000 and the seasonally-adjusted figures decreasing by 49,000. There has, therefore, been good progress on unemployment.
  Secondly, there has been good progress on inflation. Inflation is much lower than the Treasury or any independent economic forecaster foresaw about six to seven months ago. It is running at 1·4 per cent. The figures last month were the best for October for 30 years.
  638
  The current account has shown a marked improvement. At the time of the Budget the Treasury was forecasting that the current account deficit for the current year would be about £17·5 billion. That is running at about £1·5 billion a month. Recent figures show the current account deficit running at the much lower level of £0·5 billion per month. Worst of all for the Opposition, growth is performing much more strongly than commentators thought it would a few months ago. Only six or seven months ago, the consensus was that the economy would grow by just under 1 per cent. However, it is now likely to grow by some 2 per cent. in the current year.
  What do all those improved indicators tell us about the performance of the British economy? It is that the supply side is performing much better than anyone had anticipated. All the reforms and all the legislation put through this House in the 1980s is bearing fruit. All the legislation that was opposed by the Labour Members is bearing fruit. The deregulation of the labour market and the reform of the trade union movement, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East fought tooth and nail, are now bearing fruit.
  The supply side is strong. The devaluation last year has not produced the inflation that some commentators predicted. That is because we are living in a competitive economy and are following sound domestic monetary policies. Inflation cannot be imported. The idea that the prices of imports will rise in these circumstances is not valid while we follow sound domestic monetary policies. Importers cannot sell goods at a price higher than the markets will accept.
  I want to refer to the output gap. Growth is coming through more strongly than anticipated because there is a significant output gap in the economy. Some commentators estimate it at about 5 per cent., others at 10 per cent. If we have a blend of policies designed to help industry and commerce in the coming months, that output gap should mean that the economy grows at above its trend level.
  In some ways, we are being modest in the economic strategy laid down in the Queen's Speech. First, it expresses the hope that recovery will be based on permanently low inflation. That is too modest an objective. Price stability is now within our grasp. We have been through a great deal of pain and difficulty to reduce inflation—initially at 25 per cent. under Labour, but even in recent years at 10 per cent.—to 1 per cent.
  Now our objective should be price stability, which would be good for the British economy. It would allow business men to plan against a background of stable prices. It would mean that businesses did not need to be so concerned about asset price inflation. During recent years, all too many business men have been more concerned about the value of their assets than about the long-term success of their businesses. Stable prices would be of great benefit to them. Therefore, I believe that further consideration should be given to the independence of the Bank of England.
  Secondly, the Queen's Speech stated the aim of continued economic growth. Again, the objective is somewhat modest—we can do better than that. As I have said, the output gap is at a significant level, so the British economy should be growing at an above-trend level.
  A number of years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said that he spotted green shoots. Since then, Ministers have been cautious in their comments about the prospects for the

  639
  economy—but unduly so. Certainly it was difficult to maintain green shoots during our membership of the ERM, but now that we are outside it and can set domestic monetary conditions consistent with what the domestic economy needs we can be a great deal more optimistic and realistic about our economic prospects. It would be good if we were to publicise more forcefully our confidence in the growing recovery of our domestic economy.
  Thirdly, the Queen's Speech states that the budget deficit should be brought back towards balance over the coming term. Those words are somewhat vague. We seem to have drifted away from the objective of balancing the budget over the cycle, which is something that a sound, back-to-basics Conservative Chancellor should have at the forefront of his economic policies.
  The budget deficit for the current year is thought to be about £50 billion. The control level for spending targets next year is to increase from £241 billion to £251 billion —an increase in cash terms of 4 per cent. In control terms, increasing our level of spending by 4 per cent. when inflation may be running at 1 or 2 per cent. next year shows that there is further leeway for controlling public spending.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly said that he does not want public sector pay bills to grow this year, which means that that significant portion of public expenditure will be kept under control. However, much firmer control needs to be placed upon the balance. If the spending totals are too generous, there is no doubt that the Department responsible will spend those sums.
  Running large budget deficits is not sustainable. As I said in the Budget debate earlier this year, delayed tax increases are a mistake. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees with that. Announcing tax increases for future fiscal years adds to certainty in the economy. It is an economic mistake to delay them and it is undoubtedly a political mistake to do so.
  We have further work to do on reducing the budget deficit. Not only are we planning to increase the control totals by £10 billion next year, but there will be an additional £4 billion debt clocking up from the extra borrowings needed to finance that deficit. The cost of our debt, in real terms, is currently about 5 per cent., while the growth rate is about 2·1 or 2 per cent. That means that our debt interest is running at a much higher rate than the rate at which the real economy is growing. That position is not sustainable.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: If the picture is as good as the hon. Gentleman paints and there is to be a reduction in unemployment, will not that reduction negate the necessity for an increase in tax, especially through VAT as the Government suggest it should be?
  Mr. Legg: Unemployment will continue to fall over the coming months. That will provide some improvement in our public finances, but not a marked improvement. It may improve the figures for next year's deficit from, say, £44 billion to £40 billion, but it will not produce a significant reduction in the budget deficit. Therefore, further measures must still be taken because the level of deficit, whether it is £50 billion or £40 billion, is not sustainable.
  Prospects for the United Kingdom economy are good. The supply side is performing well. We need sound Conservative policies that work with markets not against them. We need policies that work with labour markets, to make them flexible, and we need policies that recognise the
  640
  power of currency markets and do not seek to defy those markets. Sterling needs to be allowed to continue to float, and we should not consider rejoining the exchange rake mechanism.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier, in a speech which displayed both his idealism and his pragmatism, which we all admire, that it should be no surprise that he supports economic and monetary union, as he has been doing so since 1971. That is all well and good, but the world has changed significantly since 1971. Markets are now much more powerful and exchange controls that existed even in the 1980s have disappeared.
  I do not believe that, in the modern world, it is possible to have a fixed exchange rate system without exchange controls. I believe that Conservative Members are beginning to accept those facts of life, but I suspect that Opposition Members have not yet done so.
  Prospects are good and a significant recovery is within our grasp. If we stick to sound Conservative policies, bring forward a balance of economic measures, reduce public spending, and reduce the Budget deficit, and if we have the monetary policies that are needed for the British economy, success will be achieved. That success can deliver above-trend growth, higher employment, stable prices and a balanced budget. That is the agenda that we should be setting for the rest of the life of this Parliament. That agenda will generate economic success and it will make the comments and so-called policies of Opposition Members even more ineffective, hypocritical and irrelevant.
  7.32 pm
  Dr. Roger Berry: One of the most striking features of speeches by Conservative Members, which were reflected in the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that any good economic news is the Government's responsibility and the result of sound economic management, while any bad economic news is the fault of someone else.
  For example, we are supposed to give the Government credit for—in the words of the Chancellor—the faltering recovery, but not the blame for the recession that necessitated the subsequent recovery. We are urged to congratulate the Government on reducing interest rates, but not to criticise their policies that produced the high interest rates in the first place. Every month that the number of unemployed claimants is reduced is seen as a triumph for Government economic policy. However, an increase in unemployment is the fault of perhaps the world recession or even Labour Members who have been "talking Britain down".
  I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), who, I suspect, is rather more Milton than Keynes. I apologise for that joke, but representing that constituency, giving such a dry speech on the economy and receiving a response from a neo-Keynesian, he must expect that kind of crack. The hon. Gentleman let it out of the bag on a number of occasions when he said that the unemployment figures just announced are "the best for many years". There are 2·85 million claimants and it is the best figure for many years. Who has been in office over that period?
  The second feature of the Government's approach—I am learning quickly because I have been here for only a year and a half—to economic matters, as it is to so many

  641
  other issues, is the way in which they break promise after promise without the slightest evidence of shame. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer do so again today, so I do not apologise for repeating the point. At the end of January 1992, a few weeks before the general election, the Prime Minister said:
  "I have no plans to raise the level of national insurance contributions".
  On 27 March 1992, a few days before the election, the Prime Minister said:
  "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT".
  On 31 March 1992, even closer to the election, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "We will not have to increase taxes".
  I know that the Government want to go back to basics and if that means a bit more honesty and integrity, I say amen to that. It does not reflect a desire to return to those traditional values repeatedly to break promises. Anyone who now realises that they cannot trust the Government on taxation any more than they can trust them on anything else will not give credibility to that "back to basics" position. The tax hikes announced by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer will impose an extra tax burden of £8·50 a week on the typical family. Not only was that not promised before the general election: it was explicitly promised that it would not be done.
  Perhaps the most important area in which to go back to basics is on the Government's economic record. Recently, I have noticed a tendency to assume that the Government acquired office some time between six and 12 months ago. We ask questions and are answered by reference to an economic indicator that is slightly better now than it was six or 12 months ago. It is reasonable when the Government have been in office for 14 years to judge their performance over that period. It is long enough to judge the performance of any Government, and they cannot blame anyone else for their records of economic stewardship.
  Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I have been reading with great interest the memoirs of the noble Baroness Thatcher. In case there is surprise among Labour Members, I hasten to add that I have not bought a copy. I go into a book shop, read a chapter and pop out again. In that way, I have worked my way through her memoirs. I am reminded that, in 1979, unemployment stood at 1·2 million and was falling.
  The Conservative party was so convinced in 1979 that unemployment was too high and that the Government were responsible, that it made unemployment the central issue of the election campaign and promised to do something about it. Since then, as Lady Thatcher's memoirs remind us, we have experienced an economic miracle and, as a result of that miracle, in no single year since 1979 has unemployment fallen below 1·2 million, despite more than 30 adjustments to those figures that just happen, in all cases but one, to have brought down that official figure.
  Unemployment today stands at almost 3 million, using the current method of enumeration, and almost 4 million using the method that the Government inherited in 1979 —all despite the enormous, unprecedented benefit of £110 billion of North sea oil revenue.
  Mr. Pike: Is not the point that the difference between the 1979 figure and the present figure accounts for the biggest section of the £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement about which the Government are so worried?
  Dr. Berry: It is the case that unemployment at 3 million is costing the Exchequer about £30 billion a year, which is the bulk of the public sector borrowing requirement. An economy in recession necessarily incurs a higher level of public sector borrowing. Even the Government have appreciated that, albeit to their embarrassment. The party that was once—I notice that it tends not to do so that often these days—anxious to proclaim itself the party of sound economic management has given us unemployment on the scale of the 1930s, affecting not only my constituents in Kingswood, but millions of people throughout the country.
  However, the Government's appalling economic record does not end there. Fourteen years of Conservative rule have given us the worst rate of growth of any post-war Government. The Government will not tell us that at Question Time because they stopped measuring growth about six months ago. The Conservatives have also given us the two worst recessions since the war, and they have given us a record trade deficit in the midst of that recession.
  Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster questioned in the Chamber the assertion that the recession from which we were staging a modest recovery was especially severe. When I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter, he kindly referred me to last December's edition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication "Economic Outlook." I read it with great interest although, I confess, I had read it before I tabled the question. I read it again and saw that the OECD statistics—perhaps the most authoritative in the area—confirmed that this country had just been through the worst recession, as normally measured, of any major economy in 25 years. That is the OECD's view, which reveals the wretched state of the economy last year, the year before and the year before that.
  So appalling has the Government's record been that I occasionally lapse and wonder whether it might be better if the Government had no economic policy at all and if they simply left things to free market forces. It is difficult to imagine a record worse than the one that we have experienced. I note that there have been no Conservative interventions up to this point. Yet in debate after debate, the Government tell us that we have had an economic miracle. The Chancellor told us that again this afternoon. Even now, we are told that it is Government policy that is dragging us out of recession.
  Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that this country's record is worse than that of any other country. How many countries in western Europe have a high growth rate, falling unemployment and inflation at 1·4 per cent?
  Dr. Berry: The remarkable thing about that question is that, first, the hon. Gentleman attributes to me a statement that I did not make. I did not compare this country with any other; I compared the present Government's record with the record of all other Governments since the war. Secondly, I note that the hon. Gentleman confirms my previous proposition that Conservatives mainly want to look at the recent record rather than at the record of the whole period of Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman appears to be so embarrassed by the record of the past 14 years that he wants us to debate the snapshot position today.
  I am not at all surprised, as I have said, that, having come out of the worst recession in any major economy in

  643
  25 years, there is some evidence of improvement in growth and in other economic indicators. It would be astonishing if that were not the case and I shall deal with the reason why it is the case.
  It has been said that the improvement reflects the success of Government economic policy. All right, let us forget the previous 13 years and look at the past 12 months. Let us say that that reflects the success of Government economic policy. Being a bit of a reconstructed Keynesian, I have to say that, if one devalues the pound by 15 per cent., if one halves nominal interest rates and if one allows the public sector borrowing requirement to rise from a predicted £27 billion last year to £50 billion this year, it would be astonishing if there were not some signs of the economy being turned around.
  The Chancellor may wish to say that the Government do not engage in demand management. When one gives such a boost to the economy, what is remarkable is not the existence of some recovery, but the fragility of that recovery, given such a massive economic stimulus.
  What is truly astonishing is the Chancellor's assertion that all that reflects the success of Government economic policy. That does not reflect the honesty of a back to basics approach; it simply beggars belief. Until last September, the Government's policy was perfectly clear. Sterling would be set at 2·95 deutschmarks. Indeed, according to the Prime Minister, the aim was to replace the deutschmark as the strongest currency in Europe.
  The Government imposed record interest rates to prop up the overvalued pound, inflicting, as we all know, enormous damage on industry and on home buyers, and putting another 1·2 million people on the dole. If that was not bad enough, the ex-Chancellor, presumably regretting nothing, said in the House after the fiasco of September last year that, if holding the base rate at 15 per cent. on that day had worked and had kept sterling in the exchange rate mechanism at 2·95 deutschmarks, we should still be there.
  It is astonishing to reflect on the lunacy of that economic policy. Thank goodness that somebody, whether the men in red braces or someone else, prevented us from having a 15 per cent. base rate and a pound valued at 2·95 deutschmarks inflicted on our economy. I suspect that Conservative Members would not be saying today that there was a recovery if their policy had been successful last year.
  Devaluation and low interest rates were forced on the Government by sterling's ejection from the ERM. That was something to which the Government were totally opposed. We were told that all sorts of dire consequences would follow—that there would be inflation and high interest rates, which would be a betrayal of our country and goodness knows what else.
  A staggering indictment of the Government's policy 12 months ago and of economic orthodoxy in this country is that one cannot now find anyone who, 12 or 15 months ago, was defending that policy arguing now that, heigh ho, we should go back to 2·95 deutschmarks, even if that meant interest rates of 15 per cent. Nobody now will defend that position. It is thanks to the total collapse of Government economic policy and not to its success that we are now staggering out of recession.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: My hon. Friend has, with some ability, exposed the way in which we have come out of the cycle and the weaknesses in the Government's policy and their refusal to defend their
  644
  policy over 14 years. Some of us fear that we shall merely go round the cycle again and that no fundamental problem will be solved. We fear that the recovery will be short-lived and that our economic base will not be put right. We shall wind up in two or three years' time with the problems that we have had repeatedly under this Government. Is that not the case and is that not the scenario for which we are all heading?
  Dr. Berry: My hon. Friend is right, as I shall try briefly to explain by turning to some of the back to basics of the Government's economic arguments. First, the Government repeatedly assert that, if we simply eliminate inflation, we shall get economic growth and recovery. They say that eliminating inflation is all that is necessary to bring about higher growth and employment. It is a pretty hard-line monetarist position for the Government to be concerned merely with price stability and to do nothing to create employment or to have the economy operating at a high level of activity. It is, of course, true that high inflation has costs, but in seeking price stability—or zero inflation—the Government's strategy has been, both in the recession through which we have just come and in previous recessions, to achieve low inflation by pushing the economy into recession.
  Any idiots can achieve price stability if they are prepared to put enough people on the dole and throw away enough billions of pounds in lost output and national income. It is surprising that there are still some people who believe that zero or near zero inflation will automatically give rise to higher growth. We heard that from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West.
  Mr. Legg: I pointed out the merits of price stability for businesses and for the financing of businesses. I also said that we needed appropriate monetary conditions to reflect the domestic economy. Currently, those appropriate monetary conditions involve short-term interest rates and underfunding the deficit.
  Dr. Berry: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will come back to that in a moment.
  The point about low inflation is that there is no argument in economic theory—and certainly no evidence —that countries that achieve very low rates of inflation automatically subsequently achieve higher rates of growth.
  A recent exhaustive study was published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics that confirms the previous evidence in innumerable articles in the Financial Times over the years—that those who argue that low inflation automatically solves the problem of economic recovery and full employment are deluding themselves. There is no basis for that position in either theory or fact.
  The longer that resources are left idle in our economy, the more likely it is that when demand increases, inflationary pressures will be stored up. Ask any construction company or enterprise in this country of the problems that they fear they will have to face because they have had to lay off workers and operate plants at very low levels of capacity utilisation. It would be a disservice to the people of this country if anyone ever again trotted out the proposition that low inflation guarantees that everything else in the economic world will come good. That is not true.
  The Government appear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said earlier, to be unconcerned about the record current account

  645
  deficit. The Government also appear unconcerned about the need for a massive increase in manufacturing investment, in order to generate sufficient net exports to sustain a high level of employment.
  On 4 November I asked the Chief Secretary the following question:
  "Is the Chief Secretary aware that we have never before had such a large trade deficit at this point in the business cycle, and that, for the first time ever, we have had a record trade deficit in the midst of a recession? Who does he believe is responsible for this?"—[Official Report, 4 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 506.]
  It is hardly surprising that the Chief Secretary ignored the question of responsibility; he said that he would prefer the deficit to be less, but that there was no problem because the trade deficit is fundable. Of course it is fundable; if it were not, we would be in very dire straits. That failed to address the real issue, which is that the rates of growth that are necessary to significantly reduce unemployment will worsen the current account and create an unsustainable balance of payments position unless something is done.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its green budget, said at page 20:
  "it would be very optimistic of the government to conclude that the current account deficit will not prove to be a problem if the UK achieves a satisfactory rate of GDP growth over the medium term. The overwhelming likelihood is that it will prove to be a constraint on recovery in a way which did not apply in the 1981-88 period, simply because the starting position for the current account deficit was so much stronger in 1981 than it was in 1992."
  In terms of a strategy for full employment, manufacturing matters—not because it will directly provide all the jobs that we need, but because it is the major determinant of our performance on current account, net exports. Without a dramatic improvement in net exports of manufactures, we will not be able to sustain a credible balance of payments position at anything approaching full employment. That is why the current account matters, and that is why the supply side measures to boost manufacturing investment mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) are important.
  As hon. Members have mentioned, the Queen's Speech talks about setting fiscal policy
  "to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term."
  That is sufficiently bland, and so far away from earlier Government policy, that even I agree with it. Over the medium term, that is a reasonable thing to aim for.
  The issue for the Chancellor in his Budget next week is whether it is sensible at the present time to have a fetish about the PSBR and either cut public expenditure or increase taxation, or both. That would not be an appropriate response. The Government are concerned about public sector borrowing—after all, they are doing a lot of it. It was always suggested that sound Conservative economic management does not have to rely on it, so I understand why the Government are embarrassed. A £50 billion PSBR is a fair distance away from the £27 billion they promised at the general election a year or so ago.
  The point that needs to be stressed is that it is not the size of the PSBR that matters but how it is spent. We are in the absurd position where the Government prefer to borrow to finance high levels of unemployment rather than borrow to finance economic recovery and jobs.
  At the same time, the Government are desperate to encourage private sector borrowing and for consumers to
  646
  shoot out into the high street, with their plastic cards, and spend more money to get the economy going. The Government believe that for the public sector to engage in additional expenditure funded that way is wrong.
  Even if we were to get a consumer boom—which is unlikely—that would have a significant effect on imports. If we had public sector borrowing to finance investment, it would not only improve the supply side position and the competitiveness of our economy, but it would have no harmful effects on the balance of payments.
  If we wish to reduce the PSBR in the future, we must get unemployment down. One way of doing that reasonably quickly is to borrow to fund investment in the short term. I hope that next week—although I fear it will not happen—that we might see a programme for economic expansion, for investment, for recovery and for jobs. Such a programme is not shown in the Queen's Speech, and I fear that we will not see it. At some stage, we will have a Government that will aim for full employment. It can be achieved, and for the sake of our country it must be achieved.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I suggest that there is no expansion of speeches because there are a number of people who still wish to contribute to the debate.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: We have just heard a litany of gloom from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry), which was characteristic of most of the speeches that the Opposition have made. They have not mentioned the fact that recent figures show that our exports, particularly exports outside the Community, are at record levels. They have not mentioned that the trade deficit is coming down. They have not mentioned that we are the one country in Europe where unemployment is falling. We have the highest growth rate in Europe and, as the Sunday Times pointed out this week, the economic outlook for this country is better than it has been for many years. It is characteristic of the speeches from the Opposition today—party politics and point scoring, but no practical suggestions.
  The issue that most people in this country are concerned about is unemployment. I agree with one point made by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry): 2·8 million unemployed is 2·8 million too many. That figure is far too high—although the hon. Gentleman did not go on to say that virtually every country in the developed world faces the problem of high unemployment.
  In this country, millions of people who clock in each day face a nightmare. They do not know that they will still have a job by the time they clock out. Besides the 2·8 million who are unemployed, there are the millions of family members who depend on the people who are out of work and the millions who worry about retaining their jobs. The need to reduce unemployment is a central issue.
  People fear those euphemistic phrases "You are surplus to requirements" and "We are going to have to let you go". Unemployment may not be accompanied by the same level of poverty that was seen in the 1930s, but it means waste, deprivation and all the other social consequences. It

  647
  certainly contributes to the current high level of crime. Reducing unemployment must continue to be a central objective of the Government's economic strategy.
  There are practical ways in which the Government could reduce unemployment further. Let me start, however, by noting that it has fallen by more than 140,000 while in other European countries it is rising sharply. Today, the Prime Minister is talking to Chancellor Kohl. I think that Chancellor Kohl could learn something from this country. German unemployment is rising fast: a Financial Times survey showed that a third of all German companies are thinking of leaving the country.
  What can this country do to deal with unemployment? Most people would suggest that we adopt Keynesian techniques, as we did in the 1930s—that we spend more than we raise in tax revenues. That is exactly what the Government have been doing for the past two years. When the Opposition parties criticise the high level of the public sector borrowing requirement, they should ask themselves what would have happened if the Government had cut spending far more, or raised taxes by far more, in the last couple of years. The answer is that unemployment would have been far higher—perhaps 4 million or 5 million. I believe that the Government were right to engage in a period of high public borrowing.
  That policy, however, cannot be continued indefinitely. Although it brings short-term benefit—it certainly saves jobs in the short run—high public borrowing, if continued for a long period, is bound to push up long-term interest rates and crowd out the capital available for private investment. In the long run, it is bound to destroy jobs. That is why I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will introduce measures to reduce borrowing.
  I do not think that there is an easy way of borrowing more—although the Liberal Democrats produce absurd policies in the belief that even higher borrowing is possible. I think that even those on the Opposition Front Bench acknowledge, in their heart of hearts, that that is not the right way in which to deal with unemployment.
  What is the appropriate wage level to maximise employment? According to those on the Opposition Front Bench, we do not want to be a sweatshop economy; we want to be a high-wage economy. We all share that objective, but how are we to achieve a high-wage economy? Do we achieve it by passing resolutions at the Labour party conference, by signing declarations in Brussels, or by earning it?
  If high wages are earned through higher productivity and good quality, they are justified, and it is economic to pay them; but the only result of paying them in a low-productivity economy is to increase unemployment. The policy of a minimum wage which the Opposition Front Bench recommends is a policy for minimum employment.
  Many companies in my constituency do not pay high wages—for instance, a company that provides home helps for elderly people. If a minimum wage were introduced that company would be bust, jobs would be lost and the help for those elderly people would end. [Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers laugh scornfully; let me remind them of what their colleague the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said to Brian Walden on 24 May 1992.
  When asked what the consequence of a minimum wage would be, the hon. Gentleman said that of course there
  648
  would be some shake-out; any silly fool knew that. Any silly fool, that is, except some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who apparently do not realise what the consequence of a minimum wage would be.
  One Labour Member, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), has presented a number of radical and brave ideas for dealing with unemployment. He is one of the few members of the Labour party who think seriously about the issue.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: That is why he is not on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Milligan: Indeed.
  The hon. Gentleman has put forward some interesting ideas, and has recognised that lower wages may be a way of maximising employment. Wage cuts would clearly not be a good idea; they deflated the economy further in the 1930s. We need wage rises that are appropriate to the productivity of our economy. I believe that we are getting those now; pay rises in British industry are at a 30-year, low, which makes it economic to employ more people. That may be one reason why unemployment is falling and employment is rising.
  Job sharing has become very fashionable in Europe. Only today, Volkswagen put most of its workers on a four-day week and introduced pay cuts. Reducing the level of pay and the number of hours worked makes it possible to increase the number of employees; the trouble is that most people, quite naturally, want to maintain their current pay levels if their hours are reduced, which means that unit wage costs often increase. That is the way in which to reduce competitiveness and destroy jobs. I think it pretty unlikely that job-sharing policies will do much for employment.
  If shorter working hours and longer holidays lead to an increase in jobs, why is there far more unemployment in Europe than in America and Japan? In Europe, people work, on average, 10 per cent. fewer hours than are worked in America, and 20 per cent. fewer than are worked in Japan. Holidays in Europe tend to be long, and working hours tend to be short.
  What about incentives? Last year, measures were introduced to encourage companies to take on people who had been unemployed for more than a year. That is an interesting idea, and it will be interesting to see the result of the limited experiment that has been carried out; however, there are dangers. Pursuing the policy too far will simply encourage employers to shed labour, and then take on people who have been unemployed for a long time. That would not result in a net creation of jobs.
  Better training—the provision of better opportunities —is an essential component of any policy to reduce unemployment. Recent studies have shown an increasing demand for those with high skills or university education; there are fewer job opportunities for those with manual skills, or no skills at all.
  I was interested to learn the views of the chairman of a company in my constituency— Vosper Thornycroft, the shipbuilding firm, which has been outstandingly successful in winning new orders. It now has a record order book, and is creating 200 jobs. Incidentally, the company was privatised 10 years ago, and has been an outstanding success in my constituency.
  The chairman is concerned about a serious problem. If people are trained, companies that do not invest in such

  649
  training may have an incentive to poach the people who have been trained. We should consider introducing measures to discourage such poaching and to make it worth while for companies to train.
  What about helping particular kinds of firm, especially small firms? A couple of academics at Newcastle university carried out an interesting study of job creation between 1987 and 1989—a period when there was a large expansion in the number of jobs. They discovered that no fewer than 98 per cent. of all net new jobs in that period were created by companies employing fewer than 20 people.
  Only last week, my constituency produced exceptionally good unemployment figures: unemployment has fallen more in Eastleigh than in any other Hampshire constituency. In the local travel-to-work area, it is down to only 4·9 per cent.; the total figure has fallen by 1,000 since January. That is an excellent result. That is partly because Eastleigh is an excellent place to build a business—it has very good transport links, an airport and motorways. It is partly because it has an extremely good jobcentre, but it is also because small businesses thrive there.
  The local jobcentre tells me that most of the new jobs are coming from small companies—two, three or four jobs here and there—yet, in the past few months, 60 companies have been recruiting which had not recruited staff in the previous six months.
  It is important to encourage small businesses. Obviously, because of the financial situation, there is no scope for large tax breaks, but small companies could be helped in other ways, such as the forthcoming deregulation Bill. The reduction of paperwork is extremely important for small companies. A number of business men in small companies have written to me to complain about certain forms, particularly about the census form, which was ridiculously long.
  I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor agreed to consider imposing a penalty for those who do not pay debts on time. The late payment of debts is a huge problem for small businesses. The average period for the payment of debts is now 75 days. That is absurd. Although the Government have already taken some measures, we could do more to help small businesses to deal with late debts.
  The central issue is the flexibility of markets, particularly the labour market. There is a paradox, because flexibility is part of the disease, but it is also part of the cure. Let me explain what I mean by that. For many of my constituents, flexibility means they do not know whether they will keep their jobs. It is not attractive to be told that one's job is flexible and could disappear, but that flexibility could make it easier for companies to hire people. They are more likely to take risks, because if things go wrong they will have the flexibility to alter their employment level.
  On the borders of my constituency, Ford produces Transit vans. In the past couple of years, the factory has shed a number of jobs, all by voluntary redundancies, but in that period the factory has reduced the number of man hours it takes to produce a Transit van from 79 in 1991 to 62 today. As a result, the gap between productivity at the Ford Transit plant in Southampton and that in the equivalent factory in Belgium has been halved. The reduction in the value of the pound since we left the ERM
  650
  means that it is cheaper to produce Transit vans in Southampton than in Belgium. As a result, the jobs of those who remain working there are far more secure and Ford can invest in that plant. It is easier to fire in Southampton than in Belgium, but the flexibility may make the jobs in Southampton and the future of the plant more secure.
  The most striking statistics are found in considering Europe as a whole. Why has Europe created one third as many jobs as America in relative terms, and far fewer than Japan in the past 20 years? Why is the percentage of work force in employment lower in Europe than in America?
  I put it to the House that the reason is that Europe has become inflexible, that it still suffers from Eurosclerosis —too many regulations and too high burdens of social security. I am disappointed to hear that Mr. Delors, in the paper that he is producing for the next summit, does not seem to have reached a proper analysis of the problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who nods his approval on the Back Benches, was also hoping that Mr. Delors might have had a change of heart and realised that over-regulation and high social costs have been destroying jobs in Europe.
  The differences between European and American records of employment are striking. In Britain, we have been moving closer to the American pattern; we have been trying to remove regulation. We have made it more difficult for trade unions to hold the country to ransom, we have given managers more freedom, and we have tried to strip away unnecessary regulations. That may be one explanation of why unemployment has started to fall at a much earlier stage in the economic cycle than most economists would expect.
  No one has a complete reason why unemployment is falling, but the new flexibility of Britain's labour market seems to be the best explanation. The pattern of British employment is different from that in Europe, in a variety of ways. There are far more people working longer hours than in Europe. About 16 per cent. of people are now working more than 48 hours a week—far more than in France and Germany—and, at the other end of the spectrum, there are more people working shorter hours and doing part-time work, which is frowned on by European regulation but provides a necessary income for many people, particularly for working wives.
  The success of women in finding employment and the fact that unemployment rates among women are far lower than those for men suggest that flexibility is the key. In general, women are more willing to work flexible hours and to adapt their skills. Men have to learn a lesson from women. In order to get and create jobs today, it is essential to match oneself to the needs of employers. The flexibility of our labour market is in stark contrast to what happens on the continent.
  We heard a long speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was full of fury, but did not contain a single idea or suggestion—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It was rubbish; that is a very good description of it. It scored points, but most people are fed up with political point scoring. They want action to reduce unemployment, and that may require radical measures.
  The facts that there are more people in employment in the country than in most European countries and that unemployment is faling, although the recovery so far has been relatively fragile, suggest that the Government are on the right track. They could take additional measures, such as providing more help for training, and more help for

  651
  small firms which could do more to create jobs. However, the evidence is that our approach is the right way to create more jobs and that the approach of those on the Opposition Front Bench is antediluvian.
  I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood, which echoed those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, that the way to economic recovery is to cut unemployment. That blinding insight is rather as though the medical profession had suggested that the way to reduce measles was to cut down on spots or the way to reduce colds was to cut down on sneezing.
  Change is necessary to reduce unemployment; a policy to reduce unemployment is no policy at all. For those reasons, the Government are moving in the right direction, but I hope that they will keep the objective of reducing unemployment central to their economic policy.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: The Chancellor asked why Labour Members were debating the economy a few days before the Budget. The answer is that we want to draw attention to the number of pledges that the Government have broken in relation to VAT on fuel and other items.
  It is incredible that the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and denied that the Government had broken any pledges, especially when we are about to have VAT on oil and gas and we are contemplating VAT on books, newspapers, food and children's clothing. VAT is a tax which affects the least well-off in our society and the £50 billion public sector deficit that the Government have created will have to be paid for by people who can ill afford it.
  The Gracious Speech mentioned measures to bring the budget into balance and I shall concentrate on one or two measures that have been canvassed today. One example is the proposal to harass single mothers, who are to be taken out of benefit although the Government's evidence shows that single parents did not jump housing queues or get pregnant on purpose and that they are not responsible for the ever-increasing levels of crime in the country.
  The Government intend to save money by harassing people on invalidity benefit. We are to have a review of eligibility for benefits simply as a way for the Government to save money.
  The Child Support Agency was set up to find absent parents. It was revealed only recently that that agency has been set targets which it is seeking to meet by finding parents who already make regular payments to their former partners. They will now have to pay sometimes as much as three times their previous contribution, not to the child of the former relationship but to the Treasury coffers. The children will not receive any of that extra money because the parent with responsibility for the child is usually in receipt of income support.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Illsley: No, I shall not give way. Some Conservative Members have spoken for as long as 25 minutes and I shall not waste time by giving way to the hon. Gentleman who I do not think has been in the Chamber all that long.
  Court settlements where one parent gave up the right to a property are being ignored and the parent is being
  652
  required to pay additional money to the agency. In my constituency, new relationships are being torn apart when one partner to a relationship has to make such payments to the agency.
  The Queen's Speech mentions the sale of British Coal. How much that will raise is debatable, bearing in mind the current rate of pit closures. It is ridiculous to contemplate the sale of British Coal at a time when all will agree that the market for coal is deteriorating rapidly. Only a handful of collieries, if any, are likely to be left by this time next year.
  All Britain's coal requirements can be met by imported coal and opencast mining, so we no longer need collieries. It is sad that collieries are being closed when even National Power is talking about coal gasifiers being put on new gas-fired generators within 20 to 30 years. We shall need to turn coal into gas to put through the new combined-cycle stations. That is a disgrace. It is a crying shame that the President of the Board of Trade did not take action with regard to the French interconnector, licences for new gas-fired stations and the nuclear subsidy in order to assist the British coal industry.
  British Coal's unwillingness to allow collieries to go out to licence or to be bought, its lack of any sensible rationale, shows its desire to slim down the industry in advance of a management buy-out—a small industry sold off to the chairman and his fellow directors at some time in the future. So far, the Government have issued no consultation documents on any of the residual liabilities after privatisation. Those include concessionary coal, responsibility for subsidence and for the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, a major owner of land and buildings throughout Britain.
  The Gracious Speech refers to the further contracting out of local authority services, despite continued evidence of poorer services from the private sector and the fact that we are awaiting the government's review of standard spending assessments.
  My local authority has some 70 per cent. less finance than other metropolitan authorities for standard services. No one in government can explain why the SSA methodology allows such a difference between Manchester and Barnsley. Why has my local authority been starved of finance so that it will be forced once again to put services out to tender, which will mean a restriction of those services in the future?
  Sunday trading was also mentioned in the Gracious Speech. Most hon. Members have been lobbied to death on the issue, so I do not intend to spend long on it, but it would be nice if the Government would bring forward an option giving employees security, making work on Sunday voluntary and providing premium payments for such work. At present, the big supermarket chains are leading the way towards total deregulation. I have been lobbied by local shopkeepers, whose small businesses are likely to suffer from such deregulation. Already, companies such as Rumbelows and Sainsbury are making it clear that Sunday will be part of the existing working week. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) shakes his head, but he will know that Rumbelow's has now altered all its shopworkers' contracts, making Sunday part of their working week. Again, there will be no chance of premium payments for people who work on Sundays.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) said that deregulation would reduce industry's costs. I am extremely concerned about some aspects of the deregulation Bill. I

  653
  mentioned yesterday that the deregulation task forces have no local authority involvement. Trading standards officers throughout Britain, the people best placed to determine which regulations are redundant and which need enforcing, were excluded from the consultation.
  One idea to be canvassed is that flame resistant fabric coatings will no longer be a requirement, with the result that children's nightclothes will no longer have to be flame resistant—an incredible deregulation exercise. A company in my constituency has increased employment during the past year or so by about 150 employees. It manufactures chemical coatings for foam furniture. That company will have a bleak future if we deregulate safety regulations for such flame-resistant coatings. That could lead to a loss of jobs in my constituency—not decreased costs, but the closure of the factory and the loss of all the jobs, quite apart from the fact that we are increasing the danger to the average consumer by allowing furniture and clothing which is not flame resistant.
  Another area of concern is the deregulation of market franchise rights at the whim of a member of a deregulation task force who may be involved in private markets. The market in my home town was granted a royal charter in the 13th century. It is one of the biggest markets in the north of England. Yet the Government will seek to deregulate it, despite the fact that regulation enables a balanced provision of market trading within the area. Having a regulated market means that we avoid unscrupulous market owners and the type of weekly car boot sales that give no protection against buying faulty or stolen goods.
  Market traders are happy with the current market franchise rights. They are protected from private markets where rents are undercut and where they lose business. If the market in my home town loses its royal charter, trade there will fall off. We are doing all we can to encourage trade to come into my constituency rather than lose it to the large shopping malls springing up nearby, but deregulation will make a complete mockery of that. Before introducing a Bill, the Government should have sought a consensus with Opposition parties as to which regulations could be easily done away with.
  The Government have backed down on the Sheehy report, but they still intend to go ahead with the removal of local accountability for police forces throughout Britain. There is also the threat of the amalgamation of forces which may mean that my force in South Yorkshire will extend as far as Lincolnshire and the east coast. That is opposed by most people within the area and by the police authorities and it is a measure that the Government should withdraw.
  The Gracious Speech contains no measures to reduce unemployment or to try to rescue the economy. We have already heard how fragile the current recovery is—if, indeed, there is any recovery at all. The measures included in the speech are a ragbag of deregulation and a decrease in health and safety provision which pander to the self-interest of the business community. All in all, it is a poor programme for the forthcoming year.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I will refer briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). I thought his speech contained the most
  654
  disgraceful scaremongering which will put fear into householders who buy the furniture that is produced in his constituency. The company's employees will also now fear for their jobs. The hon. Gentleman might bear in mind that the safety regulations were brought in by this Government.
  In respect of deregulation, Ministers have said clearly that they will not put health and safety requirements presently in regulations in jeopardy. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a remarkable piece of scaremongering, and I hope that employees of the firm in question note what the hon. Gentleman said in the House and not just what is released to the Barnsley newspapers.
  Today's debate takes place against a new background in the economy which contrasts considerably with the background of a year ago. Inflation has been below 2 per cent. for the longest period since the 1960s, and is at its lowest for 30 years. Interest rates are at the lowest level that we have enjoyed for many years. It is worth noting that that has lifted £11 billion from industrial costs, and has saved the average mortgage payer £160 per month.
  Unemployment has been dropping steadily for months. In my constituency, 300 fewer people are unemployed than was the case at the peak last April. Notable improvements have been made in our balance of trade, and it is interesting to note that exports of our manufactures are up by 15 per cent. in volume terms on a year ago. The United Kingdom has the highest growth in the European Community.
  The scene is now set for a long period of growth and stability. We have great scope for growth, and a pool of talent among the unemployed. That is not least due to training programmes which have been instituted by the Government. However, that potential could be impeded by a blot on the landscape, and that is the scale of the current budget deficit which looms large at £50 billion. That subject was ignored almost entirely by Opposition Members.
  It is worth remembering that the budget deficit needs to be financed. Week in, week out, the Treasury must go to the City with its cap in its hand to get each extra billion pounds. That just cannot go on. Eventually the Treasury will be met with a higher price demand, which will mean higher interest rates. That would be disastrous for our industry and our home owners. If we end up with the City saying no, our only recourse will be to go to the International Monetary Fund. That may have been good enough for the Labour Government in 1976, but it is not an option for the present Government. We are not a banana republic, but a major economy. The Labour party may allow us to go to the IMF, but we should not, and that is why we must take steps to close the deficit.
  We must ask ourselves why we can finance the deficit. First, Conservative Governments have had a long-standing reputation for sound finance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) announced in his last Budget a package of tax increases which was worth £10 billion and which will take effect in April 1994. That shows the City and the financial community that we are in earnest. Secondly, during the recession the call for investment funds in the City has been depressed, leaving much more scope for the Treasury to raise the necessary funds.
  We must realise that, as recovery progresses, the taking up of funds by private industry will increase. That will limit the ability of the Treasury to pick up funds, and would

  655
  create extra pressures for higher interest rates. If we are to sustain the recovery, we must cut the deficit to clear the way for private investment.
  We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about genuine ways to cut the deficit. As a starting point, the hon. Gentleman would have to tackle that £50 billion, to which he could add a further £37 billion which, of course, was the cost of the promises the Labour party made at the general election. The Opposition said that it was not in the business of cutting promises, so let us add that figure to bring the total to £87 billion. Let us further extend it. The hon. Gentleman's opposition to the widening of the VAT net and the extension of national insurance contributions would cost another £10 billion. Therefore, a Labour Chancellor would have to finance a deficit of £97 billion.
  The hon. Gentleman's colleagues such as the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spray promises of vast spending left, right, and centre, so the hon. Gentleman would be in the business of trying to raise £100 billion. He did not address the present £50 billion, and certainly did not address £100 billion.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Not long before the general election, I had a conversation in a bar in this place with a junior Minister. He said to me that he was fast getting to the stage—and, in fact, had reached it—that he would rather "see you and Smith trusted with the nation's finances rather than that bunch we have in charge." Listening to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, I know just what he meant.
  Mr. Arnold: I was not in the bar with the right hon. Lady. All I say is that if she were to tot up the figures, she might realise the scale of the problem.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not try to tackle the deficit either at current levels or at the level the Labour party's policies would take us to. It is worth recalling that the deficit would have been wider still if this Government had not taken some sound decisions during the past 14 years.
  Take the nationalised industries, for example. In the last year of the Labour Government the nationalised industries took £6·5 billion at today's prices in grants and borrowing alone. British Steel alone took £1·8 billion in that year, and the National Coal Board took £.1·6 billion. Today most of those industries are privatised and are no longer a weight on the Exchequer. Indeed, they are profitable and contribute many billions of pounds to the Exchequer through taxes.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman refers to the costs of some of the public utilities. Will he take into consideration the fact that the poll tax cost this country £17·5 billion? Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?
  Mr. Arnold: I was not going to address it, but I will. That £17·5 billion went into spending by local government on education, social services, and the rest of the services. The figure which the hon. Gentleman dredges up is the total amount which was put into local government finance, the overwhelming majority of which went into services —even under Labour councils.
  While on the subject of public utilities, it is worth noting the impact of privatisation on prices to consumers.
  656
  Since British Telecom was privatised in December 1984, the price of calls in real terms has fallen by 14·9 per cent. Since the privatisation of British Gas in December 1986, the real price to consumers had dropped by a startling 20·2 per cent. Even in the short time since the regional electricity companies were privatised in December 1990, prices to consumers have dropped in real terms by 1·4 per cent.
  Those facts should also be considered in the context of VAT on energy. The purpose of VAT on energy is twofold: for tax-raising reasons to which I have alluded, and for meeting the Rio earth summit commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10 million tonnes. VAT on fuel will make a significant contribution to achieving that. All hon. Members know that, but I was somewhat surprised by the cynical reaction and the opportunism that has been shown.
  Before the previous Budget, when VAT on fuel was announced, the Labour spokesman on the environment told Green Magazine that Labour was thinking of a number of other "small but effective" tax measures which included increasing VAT on "environmentally unfriendly products." Of course, that was said before the Budget and the public reaction to it. Post-Budget, of course, political cynicism and opportunism have been all the rage among the Opposition. That was best summed up by the Leader of the Opposition on Radio 4 in October.
  "We wouldn't go back to zero-rating, it's as simple as that … but the Labour Party will be voting against VAT on domestic fuel".
  In other words, the Opposition will vote against it to obtain
  votes but they would hang on to it for dear life because they know that it is the right and necessary thing to do.
  The Liberal Democrats, whose Members, of course, are not here, are no better. This afternoon, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) attempted to rush past the matter, but he cannot overlook the fact that in his party's 1992 election manifesto the Liberal Democrats were absolutely clear about their policy, which is somewhat unusual for them. They said:
  "We will support a Community-wide energy tax on all energy sources".
  Then, however, the Newbury and Christchurch by-elections occurred and, needless to say, the Liberal Democrat candidates were against the very energy tax that their party had supported.
  What is the Liberal Democrats' position today? They have published a very glossy new document called "Facing up to the Future". I went to the Library to acquire a copy. The section entitled "The Environmental Challenge" contains some lovely apocalyptic quotations. It states:
  "Human-made emissions of greenhouse gases are now causing climate change at ten times the rate of any other period in the planet's recent history. Melting of the polar ice caps, thermal expansion of the oceans, rising of sea levels and disruption of weather patterns are expected as a consequence … Depletion of the ozone layer, originally detected over Antarctica, now occurs over Europe in the spring and summer. Increases in skin cancer and in damage to animal and plant species will result."
  I read further to find what the Liberal Democrats would do. They would do nothing. They have no proposals: they refer to the issue in apocalyptic terms but then duck it. That is always the way with the Liberals, I suppose.
  What of the other environmental organisations that are usually so vociferous—for example, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace? They could be described as the dogs that did not bark in the night. For many years, they have

  657
  complained about emissions from the burning of sulphurous coal, but when the reduction in the burning of such coal was announced in the past year or so, where were those two environmental organisations? They were conspicuous by their silence; and the same is true in relation to VAT on fuel.
  I searched hard for statements on VAT on fuel by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace but the best that I could do, with the help of the Library, was a joint letter from the two groups to The Independent on 13 July. It is noticeable that the letter, signed by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and a number of other organisations, mentions organisations
  "some of which are against the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and some of which are in favour of the measure."
  It does not specify which are in favour. The groups are right to express concern about the impact on poorer pensioners and the less well-off, but the letter does not mention the environmental advantages to be gained. I should expect organisations such as Age Concern, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to worry about pensioners and the less well-off, but the environmental organisations did not offer strong support.
  In a joint letter to The Times on 27 March, in which the organisations are semi-submerged, they state:
  "The decision to impose VAT on domestic fuel has led to considerable public debate and concern regarding fuel poverty. Along with increased transport fuel costs, higher energy costs will be an essential component of an integrated strategy aimed at paying a truer price for energy use (for example due to pollution damage) and encouraging greater energy efficiency and conservation."
  Having said that, it was rather churlish to continue:
  "The Budget measures barely scratch the surface of this issue".
  Are the organisations in favour of taking steps or not? They cannot welcome even those which they claim barely scratch the survace.
  Those organisations are right to express concern about the elderly and the less well-off, and all hon. Members share that concern, but we well remember what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last month:
  "No sensible person should condemn the tax before they have even seen our package of help for those least able to pay".
  The Government have also made it absolutely clear that extra help will be given—through income-related benefits—to poorer pensioners and other people on low incomes to pay higher fuel bills as soon as they arrive. This help will be additional to the automatic increase in pensions to reflect the impact of an increase in fuel bills on the RPI. We shall look forward to hearing the details shortly after the Budget.
  I enjoyed the Chancellor's speech this afternoon. As it continued, I saw something that I had also observed in my early days in the House in the mid-1980s when the economy was growing strongly: members of the Opposition Front Bench fell silent. They were gobsmacked by the nasty feeling that the political situation was slipping away. After only a few months, our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has shown that he is master of his new brief, whereas the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East does not have a brief, let alone a shadow Budget, to parade in this debate on a subject chosen by the Opposition.
  I found my right hon. and learned Friend's candour about the events of last autumn, and since, in relation to the
  658
  exchange rate mechanism and economic and monetary union most refreshing. Yes, in an ideal world, there certainly should be convergence of the European economies. That would be good, but economic policy should be set for Britain's interest and, to that end, we need to retain a sound British currency and a sound British economic policy. To achieve those, we need a central bank—the Bank of England—under the control of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a cop-out to hand monetary policy to uncontrolled bankers, although, were we to have a Labour Government, it would be an improvement. However, Britain expects a Conservative Government to run a sound monetary policy in conjunction with responsible fiscal and other economic policies. We cannot have the luxury of passing the buck.
  I should like to make a Budget plea on the issue of late payment, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan). Like other hon. Members, I have companies in my constituency which have carried out their contracts properly, largely in the construction and contracting business, only to have payment delayed to the point where they have collapsed. It is an outrageous state of affairs, and it is high time something was done to ensure that such companies are paid on time and without prevarication by smart alec treasurers in major companies.
  I have been encouraged by today's debate, and I look forward to the recovery broadening and strengthening.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I am sure that the House has listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Like other hon. Members, I should like to venture after him into the subject of value added tax on domestic fuel. It is a large topic and we have not yet discussed the insulation of existing dwellings and why and how we should upgrade the standard of those dwellings and those yet to be built. That is where the real savings in fuel and improvements in efficiency can be made but no one has yet thought it worth while to mention that aspect of the problem. However, it is too large an issue for what remains of this debate.
  The debate was supposed to centre on economic conditions and I shall, in the main, speak about them, although I confess that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has also sparked other thoughts in my mind, and I shall return to them if I have time.
  The Gracious Speech informed us that the intention in the coming year is to reduce public expenditure as a percentage of GDP, an interesting observation as it is currently down to what it was 14 or 15 years ago, to move back towards a balanced budget—there is certainly some moving to be done there—to keep permanently low inflation, and to increase tax on income.
  The Budget will no doubt start those processes next week, and I believe that the road towards their realisation will be financially painful for the taxpayer; it cannot be otherwise. The exact means by which the revenue-expenditure gap, now so large, will be closed is still a matter for conjecture, and will remain so until the Chancellor of the Exchequer finishes his speech next week.
  First, I shall glance quickly at the consequences of the change in timing caused by the amalgamation of the autumn statement with the Budget. That matter was explored and widely welcomed on both sides of the House when it was first announced, and in the spring Budget

  659
  debate. However, as always, time and experience have brought to light consequences not foreseen by politicians. Those consequences may have been foreseen by Treasury officials, who perhaps do not think about political implications, but politicians—not least those on the Front Bench—should think about them. I must assume that politicians did not foresee the political implications, because nobody thought it worth while to mention them.
  First, it has been put to me that the general unwillingness of the population to go out and spend money in the high street over the past two or three months is partially due to the change in timing. People looking forward to a Budget in fairly stringent financial times have in their hearts and minds a fear of the unknown. Such fear is a powerful factor influencing human behaviour. People wonder what they will have left when the tax increases are announced.
  Until that unknown is resolved, which cannot happen until next week, people are unwilling to spend their money. They have held tight to it, and high street spending over the past month or two has slowed down and even dropped. Whether cash will be released when the Chancellor has finished his Budget speech has yet to be decided. I believe that, however good or bad folk may consider the Budget to be, they will still spend a certain amount of money for Christmas, so traders may yet get all the money back; it may simply have been dammed up.
  The second and more serious consequence for any Prime Minister, whatever party may form the Government of the day, is that in future we shall be locked into having general elections in spring or early summer. I have already referred to the reason for that—the fear of the unknown. The impending Budget will make it difficult for any Prime Minister to choose an autumn election unless circumstances are extremely favourable, which rarely happens. The Government would be open to attack on every side. The Opposition would attack, and scaremongering and fears would be fed by comments from every side. No sensible Prime Minister would be willing to go for an election in October, which in the past has been one of the favourite times.
  The election could not be held after the Budget, either. Who wants a snowman's election? We had one many years ago in Northern Ireland, and we do not especially want to be out electioneering in December, January or February again. In future, elections will take place in March, April and May; that will be the sensible time. However, it will also be far enough away from the Budget for any good to have been dissipated, and close enough to the next one to allow the scaremongering to start again. So, politically, the decision on timing may not have been the happiest.
  During the coming year, we shall see the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. In effect, that is a 1 per cent. increase in income tax, and it is only a forerunner of what will have to be done to national insurance contributions over the next few years. The aged population is steadily increasing, and that trend will continue for many years. The change in the balance of the population between age cohorts—between those who are working and those who have stopped working—will have profound consequences which it will not be easy to resolve.
  One sees all sorts of straws in the wind in the financial press about changes in the funding of pensions. Any such development will require a great change in the way in which people prepare for their old age, and that will have
  660
  to be a generational change; it cannot come about quickly or easily. There is no quick fix, and the sooner the facts are faced and the necessary effort made to educate the public, the better it will be for all of us. The problem will not go away.
  The finance required to support the number of people older than the normal working age will represent a large element of our national income in future. I put it in those terms because I do not think that it matters much whether the necessary sums are provided through a system of state pensions or through private schemes. In the end, that money will have to be provided by the working population at the time. Unlike the Japanese, we have not managed to play an immense part in industry overseas to help pay for our pensions.
  That is only one obstacle which has to be overcome if the Government are really to reduce public expenditure as a percentage of GDP, not to mention their commitment to return to a balanced budget. Given the present £50 billion deficit, cuts in the growth of public expenditure are certain. I must say in passing that it seems better to me for a Government to find their expenditure overshooting than to be accused of having a cut a year or two down the road, but whether they would be prepared to put up with the temporary problems created by an overshoot is another matter.
  Tax increases next week are certain. Even if we do the best that can be done both now and in the longer term, the best hope of meeting the Government's present commitments and those that will face any future Government must lie in faster economic growth and increasing employment. As has been said time and again, that is the best way of getting rid of a large part of social expenditure.
  This week's cut in interest rates was belated and, I believe, too small—perhaps the Chancellor is saving something for next week. Much more is needed—at least another 1 per cent., to bring the real interest rate down to continental levels, will be necessary at the beginning of next week. When I read that the Chancellor was saying that he now meant to leave such decisions to be made by the Bank of England, I was horrified. I was certain that he had painted himself into a corner, and that he would soon find himself not so much painted into that corner as entombed in it. However, sure enough, the paint has dried a little and today I noted the Chancellor tip-toeing gently away from Bank decisions and asserting once more that he was the one making the decision. That was not quite what we read in the press, and no doubt it will be made clear to us later which account was correct.
  The reality is that the Chancellor and the Government are elected to a position to take decisions by themselves in the best interests of the country, as they perceive them at any particular time. Whenever the buck arrives on their desk, they should deal with it. Given the Chancellor's behaviour in his previous incarnations, I always believed that he was a man who was prepared to stand up and take it on the chin, and to make the necessary decisions.
  It troubles me that if the remarks attributed to him earlier this week are correct, the only thing that can be downstream is a European central bank—which would find much less favour on this Bench than on most, not least because the Chancellor's words earlier today indicated that German decisions in respect of the exchange rate mechanism reflected Germany's interests rather than those

  661
  of any other country. That is evident to those of us who take a sceptical view of a European central bank in any event.
  The Government must create the conditions that will spawn a high-income, high-productivity economy, which in turn implies a considerable increase in our manufacturing capacity. We have not replaced the capacity lost in the early 1980s, and priority must be given to investment in restoring that capacity and to exports—not least those outside the EC, where we seem to be doing rather better than with exports within it. We should build on that success and not become too dependent on Europe, but look to the wider world and make full use of the sea lanes that are open to us.
  The Government might make a start by considering the hundreds, perhaps thousands of aging ships around the world and reviewing the recommendations for building new ships made by those in the shipping industry, for that would spawn an enormous amount of engineering work far beyond the confines of any individual shipyard. That would be of tremendous help to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Construction also offers potential, but unfortunately too many of the products used in that industry are made in France, Germany or elsewhere and imported into this country—products that we used to make ourselves, and which could be made here again, given some encouragement in the proper places.
  Others will have their own ideas, and the Government should be generous enough to acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House also want a prosperous and happy United Kingdom as we rush towards the end of this turbulent century.
  That returns me to my earlier remarks about the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who took considerable credit for his party's willingness to talk to Sinn Fein—which as far as anyone on these Benches is concerned is to talk to the IRA: if there is a thread between them, it is well nigh an invisible thread.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we on this Bench should talk to the Protestant paramilitaries. It is not all that long since spokesmen for the hon. Gentleman's party were wrongly accusing us—both in the House and outside it—of talking to the Protestant paramilitaries, and condemning us for doing so. The hon. Gentleman's party is now only too willing to urge us down a road that it once condemned because its members have talked to a group of the most murderous thugs in the western world. The House would do well to keep in mind the underlying reason for the urgings of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh.
  The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the situation in Cyprus, and said that a British Minister stated recently that there should be one Government for Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that so long as this nation was the protective power in Cyprus the situation which now prevails in that country did not exist. It was only when those who wanted union with Greece murdered our soldiers and fought us tooth and nail, so that the Greeks could take over the whole island, that the present situation was spawned and bore its evil fruit. That is an exact analogy of the situation in Ulster. That lesson should be learnt not only here but farther afield.
  662
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh condemned my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) for his remarks the other day, when he drew attention to the unease that has spread to what might be described as the middle class in Northern Ireland. He did not seem to think that the middle class was affected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley may have been wrong, but my experience suggests that his remarks were accurate.
  After yesterday, we can say one thing with certainty: there are people in Northern Ireland who are uneasy. Their attempt to import a large cargo of firearms is a direct reflection of that. It should concern us all. It concerns me and those whom I represent that such a thing should have happened. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, it was a preparation for war. Why would people take such action if they were not afraid of their long-term position in this nation?
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that he was speaking from a nationalist position. I and those who sit with me also speak from a nationalist position. We speak from the position of the British nation resident in Ulster. We are intensely proud of our membership of that nation. We are not prepared to give it up or to have it undermined. We are not prepared to accept a system of governance for our Province that will be used to undermine our place in this nation and take us into a nation and a society that we and our fathers have detested and in which we will have no part. That view should be made clearly and bluntly in case anyone thinks that our resolution is weakening.
  We are British and we intend to remain so. That is the position of the Unionist People. They have shown what they believe over many years and will go on showing it. They will continue to elect Members such as myself and those who sit with me to represent their views in this House.
  9.7 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Government's programme, as embodied in the Queen's Speech, was rightly described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition as thin. Tonight, after six days of debate, we know clearly why. The real debate on the real agenda is taking place elsewhere, behind closed doors, away from the public gaze. That debate is about whether to get rid of state pensions, how to tax us even further by stealth and how to break up the national health service.
  The purpose of the Queen's Speech is to give the Government an opportunity to address the state of the country, to set goals and put forward proposals on the role that Government can play in meeting those goals. The purpose of this Queen's Speech has been to conceal those goals and to fob us off with rhetoric, sound bites and scapegoats.
  Instead, the nation awaits, with some trepidation, the real Conservative programme that may begin to emerge in next week's Budget. It will be set, of course, against the background of the ticking time bomb left by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). That time bomb is made up of the biggest tax hike in British history and is brought to us by a Government who fought an election promising no new taxes, no tax increases, no extension of VAT, no increase

  663
  in national insurance and no change to mortgage tax relief. We were promised cuts in income tax "year on year", to quote the Prime Minister, and no cuts in public expenditure.
  The Government have been more economical with the truth than they have been with our public finances. Furthermore, they fiddle the figures. The figure that they gave for public borrowing before the general election was £20 billion adrift of the post-election reality, a reality of which they must have been aware.
  That borrowing—£50 billion of it—is not to fund investment in Britain's future; it is to pay off the cost of the Government's incompetence. Over and over again, Opposition Members warned the country of just these dangers.
  But what about Conservative Members? How many of them voted for tax cuts before the last election; how many of them will vote for tax increases now? How many of them warned of VAT on energy before the election? How many will vote for VAT on energy now? How many of them warned of increases in national insurance before the election; how many will vote for such increases now? How many Conservatives warned of cuts in mortgage interest relief?
  I am waiting for volunteers from the Conservative Benches—I will give way readily to any Conservative who wants to intervene. [Interruption.] Here comes a volunteer now. Does the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) want to tell us that he warned his constituents of cuts in mortgage interest relief before the election? But will he vote for cuts in it now?
  Did any Conservative Member warn of tax increases through freezing allowances—because they will all vote for that today? How many of them, if any, warned the British people that they would be stung to the tune of £8·50 a week if they voted Tory? How many of them will vote for tax increases of £8·50 a week?
  Earlier today, the Chancellor accused my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) of searching for material in what he called the most unlikely places, by which he meant the election addresses of Conservative party candidates—a remark more candid than flattering. Every Conservative Member won his seat on a false prospectus, and they know it—and so do the British people.
  To give him his due, the Foreign Secretary seems a little shamefaced about this false prospectus. In the debate on Friday he said:
  "Words come back to haunt us if we cannot live up to the promise that they contain. We must be able to deliver what we undertake and not to undertake what we cannot deliver."— [Official Report, 19 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 114.]
  I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman said that. I can believe that it is what he really thinks, but if so, why is he still in the Government?
  By contrast, a far more authentic note is struck by the Chancellor's cheerful shamelessness. His reaction to the charge that the Government were elected on a false prospectus is as different from the Foreign Secretary's as it is revealing. Today, the Chancellor said that the Government gave no commitment whatsoever not to increase taxation. I could barely believe that he said that, and if I had not heard it with my own ears I would find it extremely difficult to believe.
  I remind the Chancellor of what the Government said:
  "We will not have to increase taxes. I cannot see any circumstances in which that will be necessary".
  664
  That was the Chancellor's predecessor. The manifesto said:
  "We will maintain mortgage tax relief'—
  not cut it,
  "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT."
  That was the Prime Minister.
  "I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions."
  That, too, was the Prime Ministser.
  The thesis that the Chancellor is advancing is plain: no one should take too seriously what Conservatives say during an election campaign—and no one will again. Il is clear that the Chancellor has a cavalier way with words, but, more worryingly for a Chancellor, he seems to have an equally cavalier way with figures. This afternoon, he claimed that in Labour's shadow Budget someone earning £25,000 would have had to pay £2,050 more in tax. That is just not true. I have here a copy of Labour's shadow Budget, with which I doubt the Chancellor bothered himself. No doubt such details of fact are beneath him.
  In Labour's shadow Budget, some people on earnings of £25,000 a year would have been better off and, in the worst case, a childless single earner would have paid no more than £250 to £;270 more a year. What will they be paying next April under the Government? I will tell the Chancellor: at least £300 and possibly up to £500 more, nearly twice as much, because that is the scale of the Government's failure.
  The Chancellor went on to speak about the decrease in the numbers of people who are registered as unemployed. That fall is welcome on both sides of the House if it is true. On 20 May this year it was reported, however, that
  "managers from about 800 benefit offices are receiving performance-related pay, directly linked to reductions in the unemployment register."
  That may, of course, have no bearing on the fact that during that period the figures of people who are registered as unemployed—not by any means the same thing as those seeking work—have decreased, but it is interesting that it is hard to reconcile those figures with the figures for people who are in jobs, because the figures for people who are in work decreased, in the year leading up to July, by 500,000 in full.
  Those are the facts on which the Chancellor touched so lightly and so inaccurately. Two Tory Chancellors now hold the record for the highest tax increases in any one Budget: the first, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames and the second, Lord Howe—two Tory Chancellors, who top the league table for taxation hikes.
  The question is: is there more to come? That is clearly the belief of the Daily Mail, which told us this week to prepare for "Mr. Clarke's stiletto". That is its description. I must admit, I had always seen the Chancellor more as a club and axe man myself—the man who took the truncheon to the police force, the man who took the cane to the teachers and the man who took the surgeon's saw to the national health service. The Daily Mail, however, with its intimate acquaintance with Tory thinking, clearly sees him rather differently, as the man with the stiletto, "a fine Italian dagger", which the newspaper says that he will use to
  "put the knife in subtly, apparently painlessly but with dangerous long-term effects."
  I am sure that the Daily Mail is right, because we see around us everywhere the dangerous long-term effects of the Government's policies—not just the damage that they

  665
  have done to the nation's budget and, as a result, to the budget of every British family. Far more serious, far more undermining, is the damage that they have done to the confidence and security of every British family.
  In Britain today, most people are worried about the state of our country. They feel nervous. They feel insecure. They are worried about rising crime, about their jobs and about their future and that of their children. They see around them rotting buildings, and those buildings are the local hospital and the local school. They see so much that they have taken for granted, at risk and under threat. They fear that they are being cast adrift in a hostile world and, in that concern and fear, they turn to the Government, in whom they placed their trust 18 months ago, for guidance, for reassurance and for leadership. What a waste of time it is to look for leadership from the Government. What do they get? Scapegoats and slogans.
  One reason for the scapegoating rhetoric of the recent "back to basics" campaign is that the Government know that many people, whether they live in leafy suburbs, country towns or major cities, live in the fear of crime that today touches every family in the country. And especially—[interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am seeking to listen to the hon. Lady. I do not expect to have to compete against a lot of Back-Bench mutterings.
  Mrs. Beckett: I think that my hon. Friends are objecting to the unusual use of the officials' box to pass suggestions to Back Benchers.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not see that; I was looking at the other side of the Chamber. However, I take the point.
  Mrs. Beckett: The problem faced by many families in Britain is that they live in fear of crime that touches us all. In particular, they live in fear of the apparently random, almost casual, attack which appears increasingly to be drugs-related. "Back to basics" is a slogan which acknowledges that things in Britain are falling apart.
  The Conservatives, turning and turning in the widening spiral of Government detachment and deregulation, now need to put together that which for 14 years they have torn asunder. They call for community spirit when no Government in modern times have done more to kill it. They have grown bloated, complacent and insolent in office. They have grown so insolent that they reject all advice from business, large and small, that Britain needs a Government who will frame a partnership with industry, not a Government who wash their hands of industry's problems.
  The Government are so insolent that they plan to dodge their obligations for sick pay and instead dump them on small businesses. While doing so, they defend tax loopholes for rich contributors to the Tory party, at home or abroad.
  That is not the only example of their insolent disregard for standards, whether in business or in public life. The proposed reorganisation of local government in Scotland and Wales to the diktat of the Ministers responsible is one of the most shameless pieces of gerrymandering that this House has ever witnessed.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Lady alleges that the plan for local government reorganisation in Wales is shameless gerrymandering. In that case, can she explain why the changes in my constituency involve putting five wards that all contain Labour councillors into my seat?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should direct that question to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who clearly knows more about the matter than I do. If the hon. Gentleman doubts my claim about gerrymandering, I draw to his attention the observations of The Scotsman that the proposals for Scotland represent
  "a map drawn to no higher democratic principle, no deeper logic, than the electoral advancement of the Conservative Party in Scotland."—[Official Report, 22 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 210.]
  The hon. Gentleman will find relevant examples in Monday's Hansard showing how ridiculous many of the proposals are.
  The extraordinary thing is that the proposals would not have been acceptable to any previous Government of any political shade. It is an example of how this Government have grown swollen with insolence in office. With each Queen's Speech, they relinquish more and more responsibility for the nation's affairs by the privatisation of assets that most people believe the Government have a duty to manage—for example, British Rail; but also the Post Office, the Royal Mint and the Inland Revenue. Who in this country wants his taxes handled by a private company? It is certainly not the British people or Members of Parliament. I am right, am I not, in saying that it will not apply to Ministers or Members of Parliament?
  The proposals are unsought, they will be unpopular, they are unworkable and they are one more example of the Government's insolence and folly. Yet the Government are so insolent that they utterly refuse to listen to others and demand blanket support for this year's criminal justice and police Bills, when the 64 pieces of legislation that went before those Bills have failed to stem the rising tide of lawlessness that so troubles the British people.
  Meanwhile, the Government are cutting programmes such as those for drug education, for better street lighting and for video surveillance—programmes that work to help to tackle rising crime. Of course, the reason for such action is that we have a Government for whom catching criminals takes second place to catching headlines. As the chairman of the Police Federation, Richard Coyles, pointed out, the Government are
  "conducting a war against lawlessness by press release and good intent".
  He continued to cast even more light on the validity of the Government's claims in that regard by saying:
  "If you add up all the extra thousands of bobbies that the last seven Home Secretaries claim to have put back on the beat there would be no room for pedestrians on the pavement."
  The Government, who preach responsibility in others, shirk all responsibility themselves. That abdication of responsibility comes from the very top. When he was asked about the state of the economy, the Prime Minister said in The Independent on 4 March:
  "I think you have to consider firstly the inheritance I had when I became Prime Minister: we had 15 per cent interest rates, inflation just under 11 per cent".
  That inheritance was from himself as Chancellor. When the Prime Minister was asked about rising crime, he

  667
  blamed it on Labour local authorities in the inner cities. In fact, crime was rising faster in Tory rural areas, which, as a consequence, are Tory no more.
  When concern is rising about standards of education for children, every one of whom has had their education under this Government, the Prime Minister blames it on parents. The Home Secretary blames it on grandparents.
  What should be in the Queen's Speech is an industrial policy to promote investment and expansion in British industry. There should be an industrial policy that has as its aim the promotion of long-term sustainable recovery that will bring the stability that British industry so badly needs.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: That is not good enough. We need more detail.
  Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman does not know of what an industrial policy consists—I can well understand it, if he has been following the Government for many years —he needs only to turn to bodies such as the Engineering Employers Federation or the CBI. All have been giving the Government advice about the need for an industry policy for many years and not one piece of that advice has been heeded.
  What should also be in the Queen's Speech is an employment policy to offer hope and purpose, especially to the young. A balanced programme for investment in our infrastructure is greatly needed, as the million people who could neither get to work nor get home in London yesterday will testify. We need a programme for the environment that does not leave all the consequences and all the responsibility with the private sector. The British people pay a heavy price daily for a Government who shirk their proper responsibilities.
  The Queen's Speech betrays once more the Government's poverty of ambition for the British people, who are rightly ambitious for themselves and for their families—people seeking hope, purpose, and self-confidence and looking to their Government to provide the framework in which that hope can be realised and that purpose expressed; people whose hope for improvement depends on deliverance from this Government.
  The Queen's Speech fails utterly to address in any respect the condition of this country. For that reason, we shall vote tonight not for the speech, but for our amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Before the Leader of the House starts his speech, may I make one point very clear. As the House knows, I did not see a certain incident that took place, but may I, for the record, make it clear that notes of guidance for a Minister coming from the civil servants' Box are for the use of that Minister only, and under no circumstances must they be handed to any other hon. Member.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, you have just rebuked an hon. Member. Instead of taking that rebuke, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) sits there laughing and joking. You should make clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, what action you will take unless some apology is forthcoming from the hon. Member concerned.
  Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologised to you and I thought that the Leader of the Opposition heard
  668
  that apology as well. I certainly apologised, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will confirm and I am happy to apologise to the whole House for an exercise in excessive enthusiasm.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). The incident is now closed.
  9.31 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): We have had what can properly be described as a long and, at times, lively debate, inaugurated some considerable time ago, on this day last week. It was started with considerable wit and style by my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). Once again, I congratulate them on their speeches in immediate reply to the Gracious Speech.
  In the intervening week, we have had a number of interesting moments. There may be some that even the participants might rather forget, including the venture of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in seeking to prevent the Secretary of State for Wales from speaking at all or from putting his points in the debate.
  There have been others that have undoubtedly given considerable pleasure to all hon. Members, including, certainly—I was not able to be present—the speech yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and, undoubtedly, the exchanges today between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
  To seek to sum up after such a debate is rather a large task. Before I begin to do that, I should acknowledge and, to a degree, respond to the convention that on these occasions, the Leader of the House says something about one or two House of Commons issues which have featured in the debate. On this occasion, it would have been difficult to avoid doing so given the forthright comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the opening day of the debate.
  The whole House is well aware of the way in which my right hon. Friend has put immense effort into and has subsequently pursued with vigour the issue of the reform of the sittings of the House, which is the subject of the report that is most frequently referred to by his name. The whole House takes the view that it owes him considerable gratitude for that effort.
  The point that my right hon. Friend has always emphasised and which I must emphasise again tonight, as he did in his speech last Thursday, is that the proposals hang together as a balanced package which recognises, on the one hand, the interests of the Government and, on the other hand, the interests of the Opposition and of Back Benchers. To cherry-pick from the package and, above all, to ignore the recommendations made about automatic timetabling would rapidly destroy that balance. He has rightly pressed me to take this matter forward, and he knows, and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) certainly knows, that I have attempted to do so in concert with her. It is proving more difficult than I had hoped—and possibly more difficult than the right hon. Lady had hoped—and, as my right hon. Friend understands, I am currently looking for further ways in which we might make progress.

  669
  It remains my hope that we will be able to achieve agreement on a balanced package of measures that can be brought before the House, but, after the long period in which I have sought to reach an agreement, it would be wrong of me to underestimate the difficulty that there appears to be in doing so. That is not to say that I shall not continue with every effort to do so, but had it been easy I would have brought proposals to the House at a much earlier stage.
  As to the current Session and the period immediately ahead of us, I assure the House that I will continue to do everything that I can, within our existing arrangements and procedures, to ensure that the business of the House is arranged for the maximum convenience of hon. Members. Obviously the Government must progress their business, but in doing so we will seek to be as helpful as possible to the House, and take into account all of its interests and the interests of hon. Members.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is grave dissatisfaction about changes in procedure which occasionally lead to the sort of unwelcome move that puts the Christmas Adjournment debate on a Friday morning, which is unheard of in the House? Will he give an undertaking that we will return to a situation in which Back Benchers' rights are protected as zealously by the Leader of the House as by Back Benchers themselves?
  Mr. Newton: This subject was raised at Business Question Time today, and I commented on it then. I very much respect the hon. Lady, even though I do not always agree with her, and I am sorry that she feels the way she does. To repeat the points that I made at Business Question Time, far from attenuating or reducing the rights of Back Benchers, the time for the Christmas Adjournment debate is not in private Members' time but on a Friday which would normally have been a Government Friday. That has enhanced and increased the opportunities for Back Bench Members to take part in discussions about matters that they value.
  There is one related issue in the context of the procedures and the Jopling report, to which hon. Members attach particular importance, and that is to have as much notice as possible of the dates of forthcoming recesses. I am always anxious to announce recesses as early as possible, and I was pleased this afternoon—this relates to the matter to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred—to be able to let the House know that, subject to the progress of business, it is planned that the House should rise on 17 December for the Christmas recess, resuming on 11 January.
  Looking further ahead, I will make every effort to give the House as early an indication as I can about the recesses for the rest of the Session, although there will be greater difficulty about the dates of the summer recess for some time ahead. I appreciate that this is very helpful and enables Members to plan ahead, and I will try to give as much notice as possible.
  Before turning to the wider issues of the debate, I will deal with the House of Commons front. I know that disappointment is felt in some quarters, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), although he is not able to be here, about the caution with
  670
  which the Government have approached the Procedure Committee report on the handling of the new Budget arrangements. As always, my right hon. Friend and his Committee have done a thorough job of examining the implication of the new arrangements. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and his Committee, they deserve the thanks of the House for all their work.
  None the less, I think it wise to proceed on the basis of gaining experience of how things go with the new unified Budget arrangements before seeking to make large changes in our procedures. I undertake, however, that, in the light of this year's experience, we will be prepared to reconsider —indeed, we will expect the Select Committee to play a leading part—to establish whether there are lessons to be learnt and changes to be made in advance of the second unified Budget in 1994.
  To return to the debate on the Gracious Speech, which has ranged widely over the proposals since we began it a week ago, my right hon. Friends have set out fully and clearly the main ingredients of the Government's programme. At the outset, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister identified the theme of our programme for the session—and, indeed, for a longer period—as "back to basics". The measures that we will present to the House in the coming months undoubtedly support that theme. There will be a criminal justice Bill to shift the balance in favour of the victim and away from the criminal, to clamp down on the abuse of bail and to deal with persistent juvenile offenders. There will also be a deregulation Bill to lighten the burden of regulation for businesses.
  Mr. Alun Michael: If the Prime Minister was indicating an intention on the part of the Government to clamp down on crime, can the Leader of the House explain why, instead of the 1,000 extra police officers for this year promised in the Conservative party manifesto, there has been a drop of more than 200?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman should read the proposals presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Those proposals, in various ways, will enhance the number of policemen still further—not least the number who can take part in policing on the streets, rather than dealing with paperwork inside police stations.
  I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman—in line, no doubt, with the wishes of his Front Bench—wishes to divert attention from a Bill to lighten the burden of regulation for businesses. As far as I can judge, such a measure is anathema to the Opposition: nothing that they say shows an inkling of understanding about the need for this Bill, which will enable our businesses to compete even more successfully in the world economy.
  We shall also present an education Bill—widely welcomed, I believe—to provide new and more practically based teacher training programmes to enhance the teaching of children in our schools. That is very much in line with what the Government have done—and, indeed, advanced further in the past few weeks—to provide more information to enable parents and others to judge what is happening in schools, and to take action where necessary to raise standards. That concerns parents throughout the country.
  Some of these issues—and, indeed, the very phrase "back to basics"—have provoked comment, even criticism, from Opposition Members. We have heard some

  671
  of that this afternoon. I have no doubt, however, that these are among the issues that remain of prime concern to the people of this country, and to many hon. Members. Time and again, the debate has returned to the subject of crime as a central concern; it is, I think, widely agreed that we should give it the high priority that it has been given in our debate and in the Gracious Speech.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary set out his proposals very clearly, in spite of some signs that Opposition Members—not least the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—were prepared to recognise the existence of a solution, but were unwilling to co-operate in almost any measure that might show any sign of contributing to such a solution. Indeed, over the past few years the Labour party has seemed persistently unwilling to co-operate in that way.
  I shall refer only briefly to one or two other points in the Gracious Speech, including the other Bills which will certainly be widely welcomed in the House including the Intelligence Services Bill, putting many of our security services on to a statutory basis and providing a new basis for their oversight and the Sunday Trading Bill which will not be without its controversies and difficulties, but which everyone hopes will resolve the uncertainty that currently surrounds trading on Sundays.
  Looking beyond the domestic scene, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave an impressive summary of the difficult issues faced in many parts of the world. His report of the forthcoming Russian elections must give us all a great deal of encouragement and on behalf of the House I would wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) well in their roles as leaders of the team of British observers in those elections next month.
  One point I should mention, particularly in view of the number of Northern Ireland Members who have spoken during the debate, is the importance rightly attached to the way in which the Prime Minister emphasised this issue, not only in a speech at the Guildhall 10 days ago, but also in his speech at the outset of the debate on the Address. He made clear right at the outset of that speech the importance he is attaching to the search for peace in Northern Ireland. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) clearly endorsed those efforts, which would be echoed by the whole House.
  I recognise that there have been some concerns expressed most recently by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I hope that it can be taken that all hon. Members will want to respond to my right hon. Friend's invitation
  "to all citizens of the British Islands to set their hands to the task of laying solid foundations for a real and enduring peace".
  All I would wish to do is to reiterate the Government commitment and once again draw the House's attention to the guarantee given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the opening day of the debate, when he said:
  "The future constitutional position of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine and for no one else to determine." [Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 29.]
  I hope that continues to reassure the hon. Gentlemen who made those points during the debate.
  No less important than the legislative content of the Gracious Speech and my right hon. Friend's efforts in regard to Northern Ireland is the specific subject that has been the main focus of our debate today—the economy and the background to the Budget that my right hon. and
  672
  learned Friend is to present next week. That background is encouraging; it is one of clear and growing evidence of recovery and, perhaps even more important, of a sound basis for that recovery to continue.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend's duties in the House this evening will have prevented him from seeing a witty, but grossly misleading and economically illiterate, party political broadcast by the Labour party starring Stephen Fry as a tax consultant. Apparently, the major loophole the Opposition wish to close is a £32 billion windfall profit made by Britain's most successful companies. What consequences does my right hon. Friend think an arbitrary tax on legitimate and hard-earned profits of Britain's most successful companies will have on investment and employment in those firms?
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is quite right to think that my preoccupations inside the House have spared me the pleasure of watching the Labour party political broadcast tonight, but if I have an opportunity later I will make some comment about the magic wand solution of the so-called tax loopholes by means of which the hon. Gentleman for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) evades every straight question about how he would balance Labour's public expenditure commitments, which mount by the minute with what he says about taxation. The answer is that he cannot, and loopholes are the cop-out that tries to square the circle.
  I was referring to the clear and growing evidence of recovery and what I believe to be, and what is increasingly widely accepted to be, the evidence that there is a sound basis for that recovery to continue. Two days before the Gracious Speech we had figures that showed that the rate of inflation had fallen to its lowest for about a quarter of a century. One day before the Gracious Speech, we had unemployment figures that showed us with a substantial decline in unemployment and now below the European Community average. During the debate, we have had the further reduction in interest rates, which gives us the lowest interest rates for more than 15 years.
  At least as important as those figures showing what has happened in Britain in the past week or two, and the further progress that we can see being made, is the wider comparison on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent some little time this afternoon between what is happening in Britain and what is happening almost everywhere else. The latest forecast from a variety of international sources shows that the United Kingdom will have the fastest growth among major EC countries this year and next.
  The latest industrial production figures—I make no apology for repeating these striking figures which my right hon. and learned Friend gave this afternoon—show that, on a year-on-year basis, industrial production in Japan has fallen by more than 3 per cent., in Germany by 7 per cent., in France by more than 3 per cent. and in Italy by more than 3 per cent., while in Britain it has risen by nearly 3 per cent. Much the same is true of some of the retail sales figures.
  Dr. Berry: The Leader of the House talks as though the Government have been in office for only the last 12 months. Would he care to give those figures for the period from 1979 to the present?
  Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the 1980s he will find that, in contrast with all those

  673
  league tables that Opposition Members have used so freely, it was far and way the most successful decade that Britain has had since the war.
  To pursue the comparisons for a moment or two more, we now have the lowest headline inflation in the G7 countries and below the average in the European Community where it has been below the average each month since August 1991. We have the lowest interest rates in the EC and our unemployment rate is below the EC average. Our total output, the gross domestic product, is up nearly 2 per cent. on a year earlier and has now risen for six consecutive quarters.
  Dr. Berry: Would the Leader of the House care to explain why it is that under the present Government we have had the worst growth record of any Government since the war?
  Mr. Newton: We are talking about a situation in which there has been a widespread international recession from which the whole western world has been suffering and which Britain is now leading the way out of as a result of the Government's policies, a fact that I have clearly demonstrated by the figures that I have given in the last few minutes.
  I am not a bit surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to intervene in the way that he has. It reveals clearly precisely what the Opposition's reaction has been to this and almost every other piece of good news. They prefer to ignore it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor pointed out, against the background of our success in restraining inflation, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East could not even bring himself to utter the word "inflation" today. I am not even sure, against a background of our success in reducing interest rates, that the hon. Gentleman even mentioned interest rates. That must be some kind of record for his speeches.
  The hon. Gentleman certainly made no mention of what the Leader of the Opposition said during the debate on the previous Budget:
  "We shall see in the November Budget whether this Budget has brought down unemployment. If Conservative Members want that to be a test, we shall make it a test for the Government."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 199.]
  Well, manifestly the Budget has brought down unemployment by 137,000 this year. The Government have clearly passed that test.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House tell me what to say tomorrow when I go to Frickley pit at South Elmsall, where 800 miners are to be put out of work tomorrow? How do I tell them that the Government have said it is all bright and breezy? Is that not a disgrace?
  Mr. Newton: Although it is clearly a matter for the hon. Gentleman, I would suggest that he says three things. First, as has been pointed out today, he can say no Government can completely insulate an industry for whose products there is not sufficient demand following the effects of adjustment. Secondly, he could point to the improving prospects which I have outlined in the past few minutes. Thirdly, he could point to what has happened at one former colliery site in the Barnsley area. A firm in a modern industry, Tunstall Electronics, is to use the site for a factory
  674
  which will provide 600 jobs in an expanding industry. We should be seeking to encourage that, and that is the objective of the Government's policies.
  One of the things which is clear—I do not think that it was altered by the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) half an hour ago—is the absence of any clear idea of what the policies of the Labour party are, despite their criticism of the Government. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East's contribution to environmental policy appears to be the recycling of his old speeches, and he appears dedicated to creating what can only be described as a policy-free zone.
  The Leader of the Opposition has spotted that, and attempted to fill the vacuum by putting his signature to the European socialist manifesto for the European elections. There was some dispute about that subject earlier, so I have obtained a copy of the document to better inform the House —lengthy and wordy as it is. In outlining the measures that they think sensible in the circumstances, the manifesto suggests a substantial cut in the working time to ensure
  "a better division of the available work. Several approaches are possible: a working week of 35 hours or 4 days, leave for training, voluntary part-time work etc."
  Sharing out the available work—what a negative, defeatist, and ultimately self-destructive approach.
  An impressive article in The Economist states that if shorter working hours and longer holidays reduced joblessness, Europe would now enjoy the world's lowest unemployment. Yet the unemployment rate in the European Community is 11 per cent., in America it is 7 per cent., and in Japan it is less than 3 per cent. There is the answer to the thinking of the Labour party.
  The Labour party has nothing to say about how to increase jobs, competitiveness, output, and wealth. The social chapter is against those, as is the national minimum wage, the increasing costs of part-time work, and their proposals on tax loopholes. The Labour party's proposals would not so much close loopholes as close good businesses.
  We reject that approach. The policies which we have been pursuing lead in a different and productive direction —the results of which are beginning to be seen—as does our programme that is set out in the Queen's speech, as will my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget next week, and as will the House by its vote to reject the Opposition amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 317.

  Division No. 3]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Alton, David

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boateng, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Boyes, Roland

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Keith

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barnes, Harry

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Battle, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  675

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Keen, Alan

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dowd, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCrea, Rev William

  Enright, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Etherington, Bill

  McGrady, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McWilliam, John

  Foulkes, George

  Madden, Max

  Fraser, John

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mahon, Alice

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Garrett, John

  Marek, Dr John

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mildred

  Maxton, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Meacher, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Doug

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  676

  Olner, William

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

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Patchett, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pendry, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pope, Greg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Straw, Jack

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Turner, Dennis

  Radice, Giles

  Tyler, Paul

  Randall, Stuart

  Vaz, Keith

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Redmond, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Rendel, David

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Watson, Mike

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Audrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Clare

  Simpson, Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bright, Graham

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Allason. Rupert (Torbay)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butler, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Churchill, Mr

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clappison, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bates, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coe, Sebastian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Congdon, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Conway, Derek

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  677

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Faber, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lidington, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, David

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Needham, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  678

  Richards, Rod

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thomason, Roy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Tracey, Richard

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shersby, Michael

  Walden, George

  Sims, Roger

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Ward, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wells, Bowen

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spring, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Willetts, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Stephen, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sumberg, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sykes, John

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add:
  But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to provide for the increased investment and reforms in education that are essential for improving the country's economic competitiveness and expanding individual opportunity; lacks a coherent economic programme to increase public and private investment, including policies to promote competition and encourage small businesses and legislation to establish the operational independence of the Bank of England; makes no provision for promoting sustainable development policies; fails to advance a clear strategy to secure for the people of the United Kingdom the full benefits of participation in the European Community; contains no policy by which the Government will seek to work within strong supranational institutions to preserve peace, protect the environment and combat poverty; does not foreshadow a comprehensive review of the nation's defence needs; and contains no measures to improve the public's confidence in the institutions of Government.—[Mr. Beith.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.32 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment by made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 324.

  Division No. 4]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dafis, Cynog

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Salmond, Alex

  679

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Archy, Kirkwood and

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. Don Foster.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alexander, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ancram, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  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, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evennett, David

  Bates, Michael

  Faber, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forman, Nigel

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Booth, Hartley

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  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

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butcher, John

  Gorst, John

  Butler, Peter

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clappison, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Congdon, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

  Horam, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  680

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  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)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Richards, Rod

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Speed, Sir Keith

  McCrea, Rev William

  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

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Maginnis, Ken

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sumberg, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mates, Michael

  Sykes, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Richard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trimble, David

  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, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  681

  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

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, there have been some major disruptions to the underground system today. As you also know, there is an arrangement whereby staff of the House of Commons are provided with transport if the Adjournment debate starts after half-past 10. I wonder whether I could have your assurance that, in view of the disruption to the underground, transport can be provided tonight irrespective of when the Adjournment debate starts, even if it starts before half-past 10, as it might well do, because staff of the House can be travelling for up to two hours and departing from here at 11 o'clock means that it can be well after midnight before they arrive home. It seems to me that, with the additional disruption on the tube, it could be a tardy, dangerous and long journey for many people, including women who do not deserve to be put in that position.
  Madam Speaker: Is there another point of order?
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a further point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that my hon. Friend has got it wrong? He has made one of his rare mistakes because I think I am correct in saying that the question of the presentation of petitions must be dealt with.
  Madam Speaker: I was just about to remind the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I quite understand his real concern about those matters. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has brought to my attention, we now have petitions to deal with, so the House still has business to conduct. Therefore, I call Mr. John Denham to move his petition.

  PETITIONS

    Value Added Tax
    10.29 pm
    Mr. John Denham: I wish to present two petitions, both of which oppose the extension of VAT to important goods and services.
    The first petition is signed by 187 parents and staff of the Ludlow First school in Southampton, and it opposes the imposition of VAT on books and reading materials. They, like me, believe that it is better to promote reading skills than to tax them.
    The petition reads:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take care to reject any moves to impose VAT on books and reading materials.
    To lie upon the Table.
    Mr. Denham: The second petition has been signed by more than 500 passengers of Hampshire Bus. I believe that they speak for all bus passengers in Hampshire. I share their belief that the imposition of VAT on bus and coach fares would be wrong on financial, transport planning and environmental grounds.
    The petition reads:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take care to reject any moves to impose VAT on bus and coach fares and to ensure the maintenance of zero rating of public transport.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Local Government (Scotland)
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Westhill, in my constituency, who object strongly to the Government's proposal that their community should be moved into the city of Aberdeen. Westhill is not a suburb of Aberdeen but a distinct community with strong links with its rural hinterland. So strongly do the people of that community feel that 4,785 of an electorate of 4,862—more than 98 per cent.—have signed the petition. It also has the support of the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who I am pleased to see in his place.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The petition of the residents of Westhill sheweth that the Government White Paper Shaping the Future—The New Councils proposes that the community of Westhill be incorporated into the City of Aberdeen. Whereas both at public meetings and through their local representatives the overwhelming majority of the residents of Westhill have expressed their total opposition to the Government's proposals we the undersigned petitioners therefore pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Commons and the Secretary of State for Scotland will incorporate the community of Westhill in the new council of Aberdeenshire and not the City of Aberdeen.
  And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  M62 Relief Road
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. David Sumberg: We are constantly told that we live in a new environmentally aware era. But you, Madam Speaker, would have to be far more persuasive than me to convince many of my constituents in Whitefield and Prestwich that that is so.
  A six-lane motorway, the M62, presently cuts through the middle of my constituency. That is currently being widened to make it an eight-lane motorway. On 7 September this year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic announced proposals to construct an additional six-lane motorway, to be known as the M62 relief road, to run parallel with the soon-to-be-eight-lane. M62. It is thus envisaged that, at some time in the next century, a 14-lane highway should run through the Whitefield and Prestwich parts of my constituency.
  That relief road would have no exits or entrances to my constituency and would not service the people who live there, but would simply be used by those who are passing through on their way across the Pennines. To construct the 14-lane highway, the Department of Transport proposes to demolish 370 good, sound houses and to create what will be widespread and devastating planning and housing blight in the surrounding area.
  The announcement of the proposals in September was greeted by my constituents with shock, with anger and with incredulity. It was greeted with shock because no indication had been given to them that such a plan was ever in prospect. Indeed, some three years ago a promise had been made to them by a Department of Transport official at a public meeting in my constituency that there were no plans to widen or to extend the existing M62.
  The announcement has been greeted with incredulity because it seems to me and to my constituents that it is unacceptable, at a time when some people are homeless, when the housing market is struggling for recovery and when local business is working on a knife edge, literally to devastate one of the most densely populated parts of my constituency. The announcement was greeted with anger because, for years, this part of my constituency has had to live with the environmental pollution, and housing and planning blight caused by the existing M62. That has to be seen and the noise has to be heard to be believed.
  The case against the proposals is overwhelming. Time does not permit me to set out that case as fully as I would wish. There are three main arguments which should convince my hon. Friend the Minister to withdraw the proposals. The first is that there is a growing realisation throughout the whole community, a realisation shared by many Conservative Members and by many in the Conservative party as a whole, that continuous road building is not the solution to the problems of traffic congestion. Indeed, it could be argued that such road building achieves exactly the opposite effect, simply encouraging more traffic to fill the increased space, while diverting attention from other solutions to the problems.
  I have never seen the arguments about alternative methods of dealing with traffic congestion, such as the argument between road and rail, as a battle between the public and the private sector. The road programme is part of the public sector and is costing the taxpayer a great deal
  684
  of money. Indeed, if anybody doubts that, the recent report of the National Audit Office shows a massive increase in the cost of the road-building programme to the staggering sum of £6 billion. I do not think that the taxpayer is getting value for that money. There is an urgent need for Governments of all political parties and for society as a whole to consider in a national, non-dogmatic, nonpartisan way how best we can provide for the transport needs of our nation into the next century without constructing a concrete jungle of noise, pollution and blight.
  The second argument against the proposals is that the need for them has not been proved. There is, indeed, traffic congestion now on the M62 motorway, but no one knows for certain how that will be reduced once the motorway has been increased from six lanes to eight lanes. No one knows how that congestion will be affected once the existing M66 motorway is completed and joins the motorway network surrounding Greater Manchester. We have been waiting for years for that to occur; it has still not been completed. There is a strong body of opinion that believes that it will make a significant impact on the problems of congestion on the M62.
  The third reason for the rejection of the proposals, assuming, of course, that a motorway as such is the answer to the problems, is that the relief road is not the only potential new motorway route across the Pennines. The BBC has recently revealed that a number of Labour local authorities, Lancashire county council and North Yorkshire county council among them, are proposing a scheme to extend the M65 from the M61 motorway near Preston across the Pennines to Leeds. Those councils have apparently asked the Department of Transport to undertake further studies. They are concerned that, if the M62 relief road is built, their plans would have little or no chance of coming to fruition.
  I do not wish to become embroiled in the argument over that motorway proposal, but I think it unacceptable for the Department of Transport to go around blighting vast areas of the country—whether or not that is done in conjunction with local authorities—when it should be sitting down to examine and evaluate the real transport needs of our people on a national basis.
  The proposals must be withdrawn. They have already had a devastating effect on the lives of the people whom I represent. It is true that, regardless of whether the proposals ever take effect—regardless of whether the road is ever built—the Department has already offered to purchase, at more than market value, the private houses along the proposed route. That offer, incidentally, does not extend to the council house tenants on the route, who are asked to accept the derisory sum of £1,500 as compensation for being thrown out of their homes.
  A number of those home owners have already accepted the Department's offer. That is a matter for them, but the Minister should take no comfort from it. It cannot be a surprise to anyone that, after putting up with such tormenting noise and pollution from the existing M62 for years, and being unable to rely on any commitment or promise from the Department about the future, local residents should now seize the opportunity to escape.
  But what about those who are not on the line of route? What about those who are trapped in their homes and cannot escape? They are not currently entitled to require the Department of Transport to purchase their homes; they must wait until the relief road is built. If the M66 extension

  685
  is anything to go by, that could be well into the next century. In the meantime, those people cannot sell their homes—or, if they can, they must do so at vastly reduced prices.
  Why is the Department of Transport so mean and short-sighted on this issue? If it genuinely believes that I —along with others—have exaggerated the extent of the blight in the surrounding areas, let the Department now offer to purchase the houses affected, at full market value. Then, if it wished, it could recoup some of the cost by reselling to others who might wish to take the chance of the motorway never being built—as we hope it will not. In the context of the enormous sums spent on the roads programme—I have already mentioned them—I do not think it unreasonable to urge a change of thinking from the restricted and narrow lines currently pursued by the Department.
  I have not by any means covered all the points with which I wished to deal. For example, I have not mentioned in any detail the great concern that homes now being purchased by the Department will be allowed to fall into disrepair during the interim period, or will be let to people who will not be as anxious to maintain the areas to the desired standards as those who live there now. I have not mentioned the fears of many local businesses, such as newsagents and tobacconists, who feel that their enterprises are now unsaleable and who face the bleakest of futures. I hope that there will be other chances for me to do so.
  Suffice it to say that I have never known the community I represent to be more united than it is in its opposition to these plans. That opposition includes not only people who live in the area, but people living outside it. It is sustained by three motorway action groups; it includes the local council in Bury, and all three political parties represented on it.
  As evidence of that united approach, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will note that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), whose constituency is also adversely affected by the proposals, is in his place. He and I disagree a great deal politically, but we are united in our present campaign. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, so that he can make his views clear.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be clearly aware that my constituents and I will not accept the environmental squalor that the scheme would cause—the destruction of property, the devastation of lives and the ending of hopes. I hope that, sooner rather than later, he will lift the threat that hangs over so much of my constituency.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on his luck in the raffle. He is making a habit of it these days, given the number of times he has appeared at Prime Minister's Questions, but I am grateful to him for allowing me two or three minutes tonight to raise one or two points that affect my constituency.
  Like the hon. Member, I do not want to go into too many details of the argument with the Department of
  686
  Transport over the next weeks and months before we reach a position where we may be able to change the Minister's mind.
  The Residents Against the Motorway group has been in existence for four years. Four year ago, I extrapolated from the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" the fact that a brand new motorway was likely to go through my constituency. I was accused of scaremongering: if only I had known how devastating the proposals would be.
  Worsley in my constituency is, was and has been for many hundreds of years a very picturesque village. It has already been devastated by the M62 with continual widening, broadening and extensions. The M62 is now part of the major motorway network, when it was designed in the 1960s merely as a bypass for Eccles. We are now faced with the possibility of another 14-lane motorway cheek by jowl with our schools. We know the problems of youngsters who suffer asthmatic diseases near motorways. It would be devastating for them.
  I am straying into details, but I would like to use a couple of minutes to remind the Minister of the exchanges we have already had, and to confirm for the record some of the agreements that we have already reached.
  I am grateful that the Minister readily saw me in his office some weeks ago when I first complained to him bitterly about the way in which the Department had told 116 residents in my constituency that their homes were in the way of the proposed motorway. I re-emphasise tonight that that bitterness lingers on, as the Minister must know.
  I should also like him to confirm tonight that, contrary to the opinion given by his officers in the north-west, he will accept comments written on the Department of Transport proforma, whether or not the people who put the proforma in were able to go to the presentation. The Minister has now agreed to a second presentation. I acknowledge the letter he sent me a day or two ago and the fact that he will also consider seriously any comments on the proforma produced by RAM.
  We have always known the new road as the Greater Manchester relief road. It has now changed into the M62 relief road. I do not want Ministers at the Department to say that they cannot accept complaints because they are about the wrong road. I would like the Minister to confirm that tonight.
  Finally, the Minister has agreed to meet a deputation from RAM on 7 December. Our loins are girded, and we look forward to seeing the Minister then.
  10.48 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on his good fortune in acquiring this Adjournment debate. I also pay tribute to him for the tireless way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents in this most difficult of issues. There is nothing like any roads issue to raise passions in any constituency.
  My hon. Friend has represented his constituents' interests with great dignity and success. He has made it clear that he has a strong position on this, and that he will not be swayed by any partisan influences, for which I respect him, as I am sure do his constituents.
  I acknowledge the way in which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has approached the matter. I have met him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South.

  687
  I confirm that I shall see a delegation led by the hon. Member for Worsley at the beginning of December and a delegation from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South later.
  The exhibitions are generally at an end but, at the request of the hon. Member for Worsley, I have arranged for two further days' exhibitions to be held in the Worsley area in early January. We have had 12 days of exhibitions and 6,829 people attended. That figure contains a certain element of double counting, because many people understandably wanted to go twice or more.
  We have received 880 comments sheets, and my Department has received 520 letters. There have been a number of multiple letters from the same individual or family, but they are none the worse for that, and some 690 pre-printed objection leaflets have also been received.
  I confirm that I am pleased to receive all objections in whatever reasonable form they should appear and, at the request of the hon. Member for Worsley, I made available an additional 2,000 objection forms that were sent to him at the House of Commons. They will, of course, be counted as proper representations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South has also asked for a large number of additional forms, and they too will be properly counted.
  The number of applications that we have had for statutory blight purchase stands at 168, and so far we have accepted 84 and have had 35 applications for discretionary purchase. A housing co-ordinator has been appointed and is in post, and she is currently establishing contact with local authorities and other interested bodies.
  Bury metropolitan borough council and Manchester City council have accepted our invitation to join the M62 liaison committee, which has been formed to consider wider housing issues. [Interruption.] Salford metropolitan borough council has, I am sorry to say, not replied to our letter of invitation.
  Mr. Lewis: I am becoming too sensitive about the over-emphasis on Manchester city council and the overlooking of Salford. I apologise.
  Mr. Key: If I wanted to, I could not overlook Salford but, as sponsor Minister for Manchester and Salford, I would not want to. I am well aware of the sensitivities either side of the river. I pointed out that we have received an acceptance from Manchester city council, but not so far from Salford. I hope very much that it will respond to the invitation, because it is important for its residents and the hon. Gentleman's constituents that it should.
  We all know that the M62 is the busiest road in the north-west and one of the busiest in the country, and conditions on it are poor. To describe them as dreadful would not be an overstatement. Delays, frustration, congestion and accidents are words that spring readily to mind to describe the situation. There is no doubt that it is a road under stress, with drivers under stress.
  Doing nothing is not an option. Congestion on parts of the M62 will get worse this year, next year and the year after, as well as into the next century, which is the time scale that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South has absolutely right. By then things will have got worse, so we must address the problem now.
  It is worth emphasising that congestion reduces the efficiency and reliability of road transport for industry, and so increases the cost for consumers. It is also bad for safety,
  688
  and congestion harms the environment, because slow-moving vehicles burn more fuel and hence create more harmful emissions. We need to tackle those problems now.
  If we do not act, the travelling public will face increasingly difficult driving conditions, and the resident population of the area on either side of the existing motorway will face increasing unpleasant side effects in terms of the noise and smell that they have to put up with.
  In the transport arena, it is not only the roads that are receiving Government support. My hon. Friend is right to point out that roads can perfectly reasonably be described as public transport, and we shall continue to invest heavily in public transport. We spend about 56 per cent. of our budget on roads and the remaining 44 per cent. on railways, buses and other forms of public transport. Ninety per cent. of all journeys and freight movements are undertaken by road, and only 10 per cent. by rail and yet —quite rightly—the balance of spending does not reflect that fact.
  It is worth pointing out that I have also received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who cannot be here tonight but who has taken a very close personal interest in this difficult problem.
  As with any road scheme, the first stage was the initial investigation of options. It took place with as little publicity as we could manage, not because we wished to deny anyone the opportunity to study and comment on what was being proposed but because at that early, fact-finding stage, our consultants' investigations were extremely wide-ranging. Many options were considered and eliminated in the search for a viable solution. To have released details on the routes or corridors under investigation would have led to widespread and unnecessary blight.
  The first option we considered was the possibility of improving the existing road. Widening the M62 to four lanes will provide interim relief in the short term, but it will not deal with the long-term problem of congestion on the route.
  A number of alternative routes were considered, including a completely new road corridor through the area. We found that all the options away from the existing motorway corridor affected too many and too broad a range of interests for them to be viable. For example, they would have had an impact on community buildings, including three schools; they would have passed through formal parks and consecrated ground, run close to the centre of a small town and damaged major factories.
  In addition, there was the problem of Radcliffe Ees, a huge landfill site between Radcliffe and Whitefield, which is steadily being converted to attractive open space. It was not possible to devise a method for building a new road through the centre of the Ees without the need to remove large quantities of the deposited waste material and to find somewhere else to put it.
  In general terms, a new road line away from the M62 would impact on a whole new range of people and interests, without bringing any significant improvement to those living close to the existing motorway. On balance, therefore, we believe that a new motorway alongside the existing one is the only viable option for a M62 relief road.
  Without the new road, we would have to consider controlling access to, or even closing, a number of junctions on the present M62 in order to help the flow of traffic on the motorway. However, it would also have a

  689
  severe impact on the local road network. The area would suffer increasing congestion, with worsening conditions for residents. Access to the motorway system on which the Bury district plan is based would no longer be available.
  I deal now with the current stage of the scheme's development. Following the identification of a viable route on 7 September, I announced the start of consultation on the relief road. It is a large-scale and wide-ranging process, which allows us to explain our proposal, and provides people with the opportunity to view large-scale plans, ask questions and present their views. Consultation will continue until the end of February next year. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South that no decision will be taken until I have fully considered what the public have to say.
  The consultation process is non-statutory and gives people an early opportunity to have a say in the development of the scheme. At a later stage, when orders are published, they are able to exercise statutory rights of objection. At that stage, the matter will be considered by an independent inspector, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, presiding over a local public inquiry. The decision on whether to proceed with the scheme will not be taken until the end of 1994.
  Of course I recognise that consultation is an unsettling time for those affected by the proposed route, which is why we have protected the route against development. That brings the statutory blight provisions into force and enables affected owner-occupiers to serve a blight notice requiring the Department to buy their property in advance. I hasten to say that there is no compulsion about that, as the Department is not, as some would have it, in the business of buying off the opposition. Of course, the question of compulsory purchase will not arise for some years.
  I shall now deal with some of my hon. Friend's detailed concerns. I know that a major proposal such as the M62 relief road brings uncertainty to people living in the area through which the road will pass. We gave considerable thought to the best way of informing those affected. There is no easy way to break unwelcome news. Our aim was to tell those affected before they found out either from a
  690
  neighbour or from the local media. We are not indifferent, and we shall always try to minimise problems and deal with them as sympathetically as possible.
  Of course there has been concern about the effect on local housing, especially on properties just outside the proposed line of the relief road. I greatly regret the unavoidable impact. As I have explained, we have set up special arrangements to help those who would lose their homes.
  There are worries too, about what we shall do with the properties that we buy under blight. I understand that. I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall appoint experienced agents to manage and let the property on our behalf. We know that it is important to the local community to maintain housing standards. We shall not let our properties decline and decay.
  That leaves the question of the perceived effect of new road proposals on the local housing market. We know only too well that a major road proposal can being uncertainty to people living in the immediate area, but there is no evidence that that uncertainty will have a long-term effect on house prices.
  The Department's experience all over the country, acquired over many years, has been that, although there may be an immediate effect on the housing market following a road announcement, prices quickly return to normal once the proposed line of the new road and its likely effects become better known, and the degree of uncertainty recedes. We know that house builders quite happily build close to motorway boundaries and have little difficulty in selling those properties—there are examples alongside the M62 in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  We shall take full account of the total impact by way of an environmental assessment that will result in a published statement under EC directive 85/337 at the time of line order publication. That will be the appropriate time to publish.
  I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Worsley. I give them my word that I shall continue to listen carefully to their representations. We have a duty to fulfil all the statutory procedures, which we shall carry out scrupulously and fairly, as we decide whether to proceed with the scheme.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  "A New Framework for Local Justice"
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his assessment of the costs of implementing the decisions under the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of implementing the White Paper reforms will largely depend on decisions taken locally by magistrates courts committees. However, we estimate the cost of implementing the package of reforms to be in the region of £5 million. These transitional costs will be more than offset in due course through increased efficiency, but in the meantime the Government will ensure that the overall funding of the service takes account of any additional costs.

  Chief Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his assessment of the cost of the establishment of the office of chief justices' clerk across the country.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of the establishment of the post of chief justices' clerk will largely depend on decisions taken locally by magistrates courts committees, and by the size of particular areas and organisations. The indicative start-up costs of the changes planned for the magistrates courts were referred to in the Government's White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" as around £5 million. It is expected that some of the costs attributable to the appointment of chief justices' clerks will be met by a reallocation of resources rather than additional expenditure. Inquiries made in several areas where shadow chief justices' clerks have already been appointed indicate that the resulting savings can exceed the costs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his Department has for achieving further progress towards the goals set out in article VI of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have demonstrated our readiness to reduce our nuclear force levels wherever we can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for defence announced on 16 November that each Trident submarine would carry no more than 96 warheads compared with the previous intention to carry no more than 128, and that the actual number might be significantly fewer. We believe that a comprehensive test ban and a convention prohibiting the production of fissile material for weapons purposes 100
  Could if widely applicable and effectively verifiable, make a valuable contribution to non-proliferation and we have made clear that we are prepared to work for the conclusion of such agreements.

  Mr. Amanullah Khan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times to date, since May 1990, Mr. Amanullah Khan, a Pakistani national, has applied to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor; and how many times any such applications have been(a) granted and (b) refused.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information in London about visa applications by Mr. Amanullah Khan, I have asked posts in the sub-continent to let me have a report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Medical Precursors
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the question of lifting the ban on the importation of medical precursors into Serbia and Montenegro was last discussed by the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee; what decision was taken; and what was the position of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The question of lifting the ban on the importing of medical precursors into Serbia and Montenegro was last discussed by the United Nations sanctions committee on 21 May 1993 following an approach to the committee by the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Agreement in the committee could not be reached.

  The United Kingdom Government representative to the sanctions committee has never raised an objection to applications put to the committee for imports of medical precursors, but as the committee works on the basis of consensus we recognise that if any member of the committee wishes to hold or block a request they have the right to do so.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has received from the Bosnian Muslim authorities; what replies he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only recent communication we have had with the Bosnian Government was about the know-how fund. We welcome the opportunity to meet representatives from all the Bosnian parties at the European Union meeting in Geneva on 29 November.

  Gas
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the importation of gas from Russia to Serbia was last discussed by the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee; what was the result of that discussion; and if he will make a statement.
  101
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The importing of gas from Russia to Serbia was last discussed at the United Nations sanctions committee meeting on 23 September 1993. The application was for gas to produce fertilisers. The committee blocked the request as it considered the gas an input to industry.

  The question of the export of energy-related items to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for humanitarian purposes has been regularly discussed by the sanctions committee. The committee has ruled that it will consider applications for these items only when full details of the stocks of such items currently held by the Serbians are provided to the committee. Despite receiving this request in October 1992 the Serbians have yet to provide such details. No imports have therefore been agreed.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

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

  Mr. Brooke
  During 1993 I have twice visited Paris, on the first occasion accompanying the chairman of the Arts Council to look at French approaches to public architecture and participative public education about it, the second to open the British Tourist Authority's "Maison de la Grande Bretagne". The cost of these visits was £536.10 and £516.09 respectively. I have also been to Brussels for two meetings of EC culture Ministers; the cost of the first of these visits was £701.95 and of the second will be in the region of £700.

TRANSPORT

  Road Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to review his Department's national road traffic forecasts.

  Mr. Key
  The current forecasts, published in 1989, remain the Government's best view of the likely future growth in traffic. The forecasts and the methodology behind them are, however, kept under regular review. The Department is currently commissioning research to examine possible improvements to the methodology, and has made arrangements for experts in traffic modelling and other relevant fields to provide advice for the same purpose.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage employees of BR to bid for franchises on management buy-out for services in East Anglia.

  Mr. Freeman
  Financial assistance will be available towards the costs of formulating MEBO bids. British Rail will reimburse costs on a scale of 85 per cent. of the first £10,000 of costs and 75 per cent. of the remainder, up to a maximum of £100,000 for each bid team.

  While the Railways Act 1993 enables BR to be franchisee, it also empowers the franchising director not to
  102
  invite BR to bid if he considers that desirable for the purpose, inter alia, of promoting the award of franchises to MEBOs.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of people who evade vehicle excise duty each year; and what is the cost of this evasion to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Mr. Key
  The number of unlicensed vehicles in use on the public roads at the end of December 1992 was estimated at just under 1.3 million. The latest information indicates that over 96 per cent. of VED payable is collected. The revenue loss to the Exchequer through VED evasion for 1992–93 was estimated at around £130 million.

  Sir Christopher Foster
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what criteria Sir Christopher Foster was appointed to the Board of Railtrack; at what salary; how many days work per week is involved; and for how long the appointment will last.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend announced on 16 November the names of a number of prospective non-executive members of the Railtrack board, including Sir Christopher Foster. They are to be appointed when the company is incorporated at the end of February 1994. Sir Christopher has extensive relevant experience in transport economics, and has recently been special adviser to my right hon. Friend on rail privatisation, a position which terminated upon the announcement of his forthcoming appointment to Railtrack. His terms of appointment will be settled in due course, when the formal appointment is made.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what remuneration has been paid by his Department to Sir Christopher Foster in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Christopher Foster was a special adviser to the Secretary of State from 1 June 1992 until 16 November 1993. During that time his employers, Coopers and Lybrand, were paid at a rate of £5,000 per annum for his services.

  Coopers and Lybrand
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that there is no conflict of interest between Sir Christopher Foster's role as adviser to his Department and his position as a director of Coopers and Lybrand.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Christopher Foster ceased to be my right hon. Friend's special adviser on 16 November. The need to avoid potential conflicts of interest was covered in the terms of his original appointment.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultancy contract awarded to Coopers and Lybrand, to establish a charging regime for track users under the proposed reorganisation and privatisation of British Rail;

  (2) if he will list the consultancy commissions, and value thereof, of contracts awarded to Coopers and Lybrand in connection with the re-organisation and proposed privatisation of British Rail.
  103
  Mr. Freeman
  Good progress has been made. Detailed proposals on the structure of access charges and calculation methods have been made and are being implemented. The breakdown of contract costs is a matter of commercial confidentiality. As I said in my answer of 3 November to the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey), the Department has paid approximately £1.6 million to Coopers and Lybrand for work on access and charging since December 1991. Sums for the most recent work have yet to be settled.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many of the contracts awarded to Coopers and Lybrand in connection with the reorganisation and proposed privatisation of British Rail were(a) on the basis of competitive tendering and (b) by invitation;

  (2) from what sources his Department sought advice on Coopers and Lybrand's suitability to carry out that work where consultancy contracts were awarded to Coopers and Lybrand in connection with re-organisation and proposed privatisation of British Rail on the basis of invitation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two contracts have been awarded to Coopers and Lybrand in this connection on the basis of competitive tendering. Following the completion of work under the first contract, further work was carried out by invitation between April and August this year on an interim basis while a second tendering exercise was carried out. Coopers and Lybrand's suitability for this interim contract was determined by the Department's evaluation of their work on access and charging up to that point.

  Vehicle Weights
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is being taken by his Department to determine how many roads are capable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes.

  Mr. Key
  The design of road pavements is related to the amount of wear and tear caused by the different types of vehicle. Current design standards take account of both current and agreed future changes in gross vehicle weight limits. The Department's roads are already capable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many road bridges in the United Kingdom are not capable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes;

  (2) what action is being taken by his Department to determine how many road bridges are capable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes; and what proportion of these are owned by British Rail;

  (3) how many road bridges in the United Kingdom will require strengthening in order to safely take coaches with gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes; and what proportion of these are owned by British Rail.

  Mr. Key
  In 1988 the Department commenced a programme of assessing its structures on the English trunk road and motorway network in accordance with the bridge assessment code which covers the effects of higher vehicle and axle weights which will be permitted in the United Kingdom from 1999, including those of 18 tonne two-axled vehicles. To date approximately 700 structures have been assessed as being unable to carry the future loading in full. When all assessments have been completed, it is expected that approximately 1,100 104
  structures will be shown to require strengthening. The strengthening of structures carrying the English trunk road and motorway network is programmed to be completed by the end of 1988. Very few structures carrying the English trunk road and motorway network are owned by British Rail, and none of them is expected to need strengthening.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations underlie the maintenance of the gross vehicle weight limit for coaches of 17 tonnes; and what consideration has been given to raising it to 18 tonnes.

  Mr. Key
  The main considerations in setting weight limits for all classes of vehicle are road wear and the strength of bridges. The agreement reached in the European Community in 1989 on gross weights for coaches on international journeys was based on the use of an 11.5 tonne rear-drive-axle. We are at present engaged in an exercise to assess and upgrade all the bridges in the United Kingdom to accept this heavier axle load. We therefore have a derogation from the directive to retain our existing axle limit of 10.5 tonnes until 1999.

  Increasing the gross weight to 18 tonnes while retaining the existing maximum rear axle load would result in all the additional weight going on the front axle. That weight is effectively limited at present by the availability of suitable tyres for safe operation. Furthermore, such a vehicle would have to depend on perfect load distribution to avoid overloading either axle. We cannot therefore now increase gross weights.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to exclude the weight of safety equipment, including TELMA and double glazing, when calculating the gross vehicle weight for coaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Our weight limits are designed to protect the infrastructure and bridges in particular. The weight of a vehicle will be felt on a bridge regardless of whether certain equipment is included in a definition of weight or not. Consequently we cannot exclude the weight of any equipment, safety related or otherwise, from the gross weight of the vehicle.

  British Rail Managers
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail managers, having taken early retirement, have been re-employed on short-term or consultancy contracts by British Rail or associated rail organisations, during 1992–93.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not readily available in the form requested.

  British Rail has re-engaged some retired staff but only on a limited basis and for specific short term talks tapping their knowledge and experience.

  Schools (Road Safety)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the existing guidelines regarding car parking restrictions outside schools; how the restrictions are enforced; what changes are planned to ensure more effective road safety outside schools; and in what timescale.

  Mr. Key
  Traffic conditions outside schools vary widely, from busy main roads to quiet back streets. Our
  105
  advice to local authorities is that road safety measures need to be tailored to the individual circumstances. Such measures may include traffic calming techniques or 20 mph speed limits. Mandatory parking or stopping restrictions may sometimes be appropriate and enforcement of them would be the responsibility of the police, except in London where increasingly the boroughs are taking this on. In most cases however advisory "keep clear" markings on the road are sufficiently effective. Comparatively few accidents happen outside school entrances, and we have no plans for new central initiatives on this subject.

  Passengers (London)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing his Department's latest estimate of the number of passengers travelling into, out of and within London each day on(a) each of the divisions of British Rail, (b) London Underground and (c) London Buses; and what are the comparable figures for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Norris
  The available information is given in the following tables.

  Table 2

  Arrivals per weekday in central London on British
  Rail1 1982 to 1992

  Thousands

  Network SouthEast divisions

  InterCily

  South East2

  Central2

  South West

  Thames and Chiltern

  Thameslink (North)

  North

  West Anglia and Great Northern

  Great Eastern

  London Tilbury and Southend

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  148

  395

  95

  333

  319

  335

  3109

  32

  —

  1985

  159

  3100

  93

  323

  321

  322

  3106

  31

  —

  1986

  168

  99

  95

  19

  17

  15

  98

  33

  65

  1987

  177

  107

  105

  22

  21

  19

  107

  35

  65

  1988

  183

  109

  106

  22

  23

  20

  110

  38

  67

  1989

  186

  110

  115

  22

  24

  23

  51

  62

  37

  71

  1990

  179

  114

  110

  21

  25

  22

  50

  58

  38

  70

  1991

  163

  106

  104

  21

  24

  20

  47

  57

  33

  67

  1992

  153

  107

  100

  20

  22

  19

  47

  53

  29

  65

  1 Based on surveys conducted in the autumn of each year.

  2 Includes Thameslink (South).

  3 Includes arrivals on InterCity trains.

  Factory Ships
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what inspections he has made of Russian Klondyke factory ships in United Kingdom coastal waters;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the risks to human life of Russian Klondyke factory ships.

  Mr. Norris
  As with other merchant vessels, these factory ships are liable to inspection as part of the port state control regime when they are in port. Ships at sea are not usually inspected not least because of the problems of access. Following recent incidents it has become clear that there is cause for concern about these particular vessels. and my Department is taking special steps to carry out an intensified programme of inspections of these vessels this week if weather conditions permit. We shall also be considering what further steps can and should be taken to
  106
  In table 1, it is not possible to split the bus and underground figures to show the number of journeys into and out of London.

  The figures in table 2 do not include journeys which did not terminate in central London, and cannot be split to show the number of passengers who started their journey outside London. The numbers leaving central London are likely to be very similar to those arriving.

  Table 1

  Passengers journeys per year on London Buses and London Underground 1982 to 1992–93

  Millions

  London Buses

  London Underground

  1982

  1,039

  498

  1983

  1,089

  563

  1984–85

  1,153

  672

  1985–86

  1,146

  732

  1986–87

  1,158

  769

  1987–88

  1,211

  798

  1988–89

  1,206

  815

  1989–90

  1,183

  765

  1990–91

  1,180

  775

  1991–92

  1,149

  751

  1992–93

  1,127

  728

  ensure that these vessels do not pose a danger in terms either of potential calls on our rescue services, or as a pollution threat to the United Kingdom coastline.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the risks of oil spillage from Russian Klondyke factory ships; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many Russian Klondyke factory ships are currently in United Kingdom coastal waters;

  (3) how many Klondyke factory ships in each of the last five years have required assistance from (a) the coastguard rescue, (b) the Lerwick lifeboat and (c) Lerwick harbour.

  Mr. Norris
  On 22 November 1993, 98 Klondykers were known to be in United Kingdom waters. Of these about 60 are Russian.
  107
  In each of the last five years the number of occasions when assistance was given to Klondyke factory ships by (a) coastguard, (b) Lerwick lifeboat, and (c) Lerwick harbour was:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  (a)

  2

  8

  8

  7

  16

  (b)

  1

  0

  4

  1

  9

  (c)

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  On the basis of eight incidents in the last four years resulting in pollution from Klondykers following accidents the risk is significantly greater than for other types of ship in United Kingdom waters.

  Inspections carried out on these vessels when they are in port have included consideration of their compliance with the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships. These inspections have not indicated a particular risk of illegal oil discharges from these vessels.

PRIME MINISTER

  Dartmouth (Visit)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Dartmouth, South Devon.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to do so.

  Nuclear Tests (Radiation)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current position on his consideration of the report by the National Radiological Protection Board into the effects of radiation on British service personnel involved in nuclear tests.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that a follow-up report by the National Radiological Protection Board—NRPB—on cancer and mortality among nuclear test veterans is now undergoing peer review prior to publication. The Government know of no new evidence to change the position from the previous NRPB report, which showed that the total incidence of death and malignant disease among test veterans has been no greater than among people generally. We will of course study the follow-up report once it is published.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department will be conducting the investigation into the feasibility of a national identity card scheme.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government keep the question of a national identity card under review. The Department of Social Security is considering whether identity cards can contribute to the fight against benefit payment fraud.

  Letters
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister how many officials in his office are currently involved in drafting replies to letters for him to sign.
  108
  The Prime Minister
  Officials provide drafts as necessary.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to introduce a national awards scheme to recognise outstanding achievement by higher and further education institutions.

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen has given her approval to the introduction of a national awards scheme to be known as the Queen's anniversary prizes for higher and further education.

  The proposal for these prizes was initiated by the Royal Anniversary Trust. This trust was formed to fund certain celebrations of the fortieth anniversary of the Queen's accession in 1992. The awards scheme will be funded and operated by that trust, using the residue of money remaining in it at the end of 1992, in collaboration with Her Majesty's Government.

  The purpose of the scheme is to recognise projects of the widest scope which are judged to be of outstanding excellence in service and benefit to the nation. It will be held every two years commencing in 1994, when applications will be sought in January. The prizes will be presented by her Majesty the Queen at a ceremony, which on the first occasion will be in February 1995.

  The scheme is a free-standing initiative but obviously draws much on the experience of the existing Queen's awards arrangements. There are, of course, other awards schemes for further and higher education institutions and there continues to be a place for them in their particular fields. This new and distinctive scheme complements those activities and usefully provides a new focus for a vital part of the nation's endeavour.

  The Government regard it as essential that the substantial expansion of further and higher education opportunities should be accompanied by increases in attainment and quality. I pay tribute to the many colleges and universities across the country which continue to work hard for these ends. Success brings its own reward, but it is right that particular excellence should receive particular recognition.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.

  The Lord President
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Anglo-German summit in Cologne.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Patents
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are being adopted by the Patent Office to determine whether there is a significant inventive step in establishing the structure and function of any given gene; and what will be the arrangements for informing the research community that patent applications in this area will no longer be considered.
  109
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Patents Act 1977 requires the Patent Office to assess whether an invention is obvious to a skilled person or involves an inventive step. The Patent Office must make a judgment based on all the information submitted by the applicant for a patent and what is known about a particular area of technology. In making any judgment in a case relating to a particular gene the degree of difficulty in locating it would be a factor to be taken into account in assessing whether isolation of a gene amounted to an invention.

  Until such time as the existing law is modified or appropriate case law has been established by the courts it would be wrong for the Patent Office to circumscribe the ability of companies or individuals to apply for patents relating to genes.

  Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd.
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extent to which assurances given to him by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. about its treatment of lessees since 1991 are being met; and what action he is taking to monitor compliance.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The assurances were given to Ministers in 1991 by all major brewers. They related to the sympathetic treatment of tenants who might have real difficulties in taking on a long-term lease, such as those nearing retirement, and to the introduction of independent arbitration procedures. None of the representations made to my Department has revealed that the assurances are not being met, but the Department has, where appropriate, sought IEL's comments on particular cases.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the activities of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My officials and I have received a number of letters from, and on behalf of, Inntrepreneur lessees. My officials held a meeting with representatives of the National Association of Inntrepreneur Lessees (NAIL) on 23 September. As the hon. Member knows, following my meeting with him on 22 July, I met him again on 1 November, together with a representative of NAIL, to discuss these matters.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received expressing concern at the policies of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. has within the brewing industry; what has been the thrust of such representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 5 July 1993,Official Report, column 35. Since answering this question 54 letters have been received from, or on behalf of, Inntrepreneur lessees. In addition, as the hon. Member is aware, I met him and a representative of the National Association of Inntrepreneur Lessees earlier this month. These representations have mainly been about rent levels.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has held with Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd with a view to bringing about a meeting between them and representatives of the National Association of Inntrepreneur Lessees; and what response he has received.
  110
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As the hon. Member is aware from my letter to him of 22 November, I wrote to Mr. R. G. Williams, chairman and managing director of Grand Metropolitan Estates Ltd, which manages the property arm of Inntrepreneur Estates Limited, about the possibility of the company meeting representatives of the National Association of Intrepreneur Lessees.

  Mr. Williams has explained that his company does not propose to meet NAIL, although it has met with individual IEL lessees and a legal representative of theirs. He also explained that the company will be initiating meetings with individual hon. Members who have expressed an interest in IEL matters.

  Brewery Industry
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has held with Sir Allen Sheppard, chairman of Grand Metropolitan Estates, in respect of developments in the brewery industry; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had no recent discussions with Sir Allen Sheppard in respect of developments in the brewing industry. Sponsorship of this industry is of course the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the number of public house closures since the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 was introduced; how many of these were Inntrepreneur lessees; when he intends to review the operation of the Beer Orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Neither my Department nor the Office of Fair Trading has any information on the number of public house closures or the former ownership of closed houses. Such information is not required to monitor compliance with the Beer Orders.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 27 May 1993, Official Report, column 694.

  Economic Development, Merseyside
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the persons and organisations on Merseyside he has met during the current year to discuss economic development issues.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has this year met representatives of a number of organisations on Merseyside concerned with economic development, ranging from the Merseyside development corporation to the Mersey Partnership.

  Victoria Street Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department vacated the offices at 1-16 Victoria street, London; and what future plans there are for their use.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department vacated 1-19 Victoria street in September 1991. On our future plans, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 4 November 1993,Official Report, column 349.
  111
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the rent and other associated costs in 1993–94 for 1-19 Victoria street, London.

  Mr. Eggar
  The expenditure on rent, rates and associated costs in 1-19 Victoria street will be £1.5 million in 1993–94.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the timetable for the review of the nuclear industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I made to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 20 October 1993,Official Report, column 245.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in(a) car retailing and (b) car repairing and servicing in 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what is the estimated size of car dealers networks in each of those years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest figures available from the census of employment records 211,200 people employed in the retail distribution of motor vehicles and components in 1991 and 171,000 in the repair and servicing of motor vehicles. This compares with 210,200 and 193,000 respectively in 1989. No figures are available for 1990 or 1992. Published statistics are not available on the size of car dealer networks.

  Post Office Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many officials, by grade, in his Department are currently working on the privatisation of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Officials working primarily on the Post Office review and the privatisation of Parcelforce are as follows: 1.5 grade 5s; 2.5 grade 7s; 1 HEO; 1 HEO(D); 0.5 personal secretary and 2 AAs. Higher grade officials are also involved in these matters as necessary.

  Telecommunications Industry
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on competition in the telecommunications industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government continue to base their telecommunications policy on the 1991 White Paper, "Competition and Choice: Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s", Cm 1461. We are firmly committed to greater competition and liberalisation in telecoms. These policies have created a vigorous sector to the benefit of both business and residential customers.

  Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters were discussed and what decisions taken at the Consumer Affairs Council in Brussels on 19 November.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council discussed the draft timeshare directive, and agreed on a common position by a qualified majority vote.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guarantees were received from the Government of Indonesia concerning the military uses of exports from Britain of vehicles, planes and other military equipment.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 November 1993]: Each export licence application is treated on its merits on a case-by-case basis. Her Majesty's Government's policy on the export of defence equipment is based on the right of sovereign states to their own self defence in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter.

  Her Majesty's Government has no reason to believe that military goods exported under licence to Indonesia have been used for internal security purposes. We have received assurances from the Indonesian Government as recently as this summer that the Hawk aircraft, for example, will not be used for internal security purposes.

  Konver Funding
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce his decisions on the bids for Konver funding by Essex county council and others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom Konver programme committee met on 24 November. I plan to announce the decisions early in December.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of gun or cannon his Department deploys which can fire depleted uranium bullets or shells.

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Armed Forces are currently equipped with two kinds of ammunition containing depleted uranium: 120mm tank ammunition and 20mm ammunition for the Royal Navy's Vulcan Phalanx point defence weapons system.

  Firepower Measurements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department measures the explosive firepower of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons in terms of megaton equivalents.

  Mr. Aitken
  The explosive power of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons is measured in kilotonne and megatonne equivalents.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the megaton equivalent of a(a) 10 kilotonne, (b) 20 kilotonne, (c) 100 kilotonne and (d) 200 kilotonne nuclear warhead.

  Mr. Aitken
  One kilotonne is equivalent to 0.001 megatonnes.

  Departmental Land, Plymouth
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and addresses of the sites owned by the Ministry of Defence within the Plymouth city boundary and indicate their current uses.
  113
  Mr. Hanley
  A list of the freehold sites in the Plymouth area together with their current use is as follows:

  Ministry of Defence freehold sites in Plymouth

  Site/establishment

  Current use

  The Royal Citadel

  29 Commando Regiment (Royal Artillery)

  Millbay Park

  Sports ground used by Service personnel from the Royal Citadel

  Manadon

  Royal Naval Engineering College

  Bowden Park

  Sports ground used by Service personnel from RNEC Manadon

  Ernesettle

  Royal Naval Armament Depot

  Bull Point, St. Budeaux

  Royal Naval Armament Depot and Royal Naval sports pitches

  Western King

  Public open space (let to Plymouth City Council)

  HM Naval Base

  Operational Naval Base including North Yard, South Yard, Morice Yard, Goschen Yard, HMS Defiance, Weston Mill area and other minor sites

  Keyham Sports Ground

  Royal Naval Sports Ground

  HMS Drake

  Shore based Royal Naval accommodation

  Various married quarter sites throughout the Plymouth area

  Residential accommodation for married Service personnel and their families

  Fort Staddon

  Royal Naval Wireless Station

  Staddon Heights

  Army training area and public open space

  Radford Woods, Plymstock

  Former Royal Naval Oil Fuel Depot

  Barton Road, Turnchapel

  Former Royal Naval Oil Fuel Depot

  Mount Batten

  Former Royal Air Force Station

  Mount Wise, Devonport

  HQ Flag Officer Plymouth

  RNH Stonehouse, Plymouth

  Royal Naval Hospital

  Brickfields, Devonport

  Royal Naval Sports Grounds

  Rectory, Devonport

  Services Rugby Ground

  Royal William Yard, Stonehouse

  Former Naval Stores Depot

  Stonehouse Barracks

  HQ 3 Brigade Royal Marines

  Seaton Barracks

  Commando Logistic Regiment and Royal Marine Training Area

  RM Coypool

  Commando Logistic Regiment, Royal Marines

  RM Turnchapel

  539 Assault Squadron, Royal Marines

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Ministry of Defence land and buildings in Plymouth he expects to be surplus to MOD requirement in the next five years and to be disposed of to the private sector.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following surplus sites are expected to be sold over the next five years:

  Former RAF Mount Batten

  Royal William Yard

  Western King Open Space

  Mount Wise (Part of Site)

  Former oil fuel depots at Radford Woods, Plymstock and at Barton Road, Turnchapel

  Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse

  Hamoaze House

  Seymour House

  26 residential properties

  A number of small sites are also expected to be sold.

  The rationalisation of MOD landholdings and the early sale of surplus land and buildings is a key priority. Opportunities for release of future sites in Plymouth will be kept under review.

  Housing, Scotland
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of houses owned by his Department in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland; how many of these houses are currently empty; and how many of these houses which have been empty for (i) one to two years, (ii) two to three years and (iii) more than three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 30 September 1993, MOD owned 63 married quarters in Dundee, of which 27 were vacant, and 6,504 married quarters in Scotland, of which 731 were vacant, as follows:
  114

  Married quarters vacant

  Dundee

  Scotland

  Less than 1 year

  6

  596

  Between 1-2 years

  0

  101

  Over 2 years

  21

  34

  Our statistics do not separately identify those properties which have been vacant for more than three years.

  The majority of the vacant quaŕters were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, already allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly, or held for units returning from overseas. Following various studies, it has now been decided to sell a site in Dundee which contains 21 properties vacated because of structural problems.

  MOD also owned 238 civilian houses throughout Scotland, of which 16 had been vacant for less then six months and 47 for over six months. Fifty-four of the vacant civilian houses were leased properties awaiting early return to Dumbarton district council.

  In addition 80 vacant service married quarters and 29 vacant civilian houses were in the process of being sold.

  Equipment Sales
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been earned from sales of defence equipment to those countries whose Governments have received directly or indirectly substantial repayments of tax as a result of the exercise of sovereign immunity during each of the last seven years.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of sales of defence equipment. Information relating to the value of such sales is published in table 1.11 of "UK Defence Statistics". A copy of the 1993 edition is available in the House Library.

  Winter Supplies
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the adequacy of supplies of winter uniforms and equipment to British forces under United Nations command in Vitez, Gorni Vakuf and surrounding areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  Adequate supplies of clothing and equipment for the British troops are held in Bosnia and all personnel have at least the same sort of cold weather clothing as those in Germany including winter underwear and gloves. Although over 80 per cent. of troops deployed in the former Yugoslavia have their full complement of cold weather clothing some troops in Vitez have yet to be issued with the enhanced package due to the closure of the supply route between Vitez and Split by fighting between the rival factions and by bad weather. Movement along the route has now commenced following negotiations with local military commanders and the remaining clothing supplies for the British troops will be a high priority.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Priorities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his Department's overseas development priorities for this parliamentary session.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration's priority objectives for the current financial year are set out in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report 1993, Cm 2202.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development described ODA's priority objectives for 1994–95 in a speech she made to the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 18 October. Copies of the report and the speech are in the Libraries of the House.

  Forests
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to promote the implementation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development forest principles internationally.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 13 September my noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and the Indian Minister of Environment and Forests, Kamal Nath, signed a memorandum of understanding establishing an IndoBritish forestry initiative to work towards improved international co-operation on forest issues. The United Kingdom and India will together promote progress on the implementation of the UNCED forest principles and the success of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development's review of forestry in 1995.

  My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey has written to the chairman of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Ambassador Razali, and the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Policy Co-ordination and Sustainable Development, Mr. Desai,
  116
  proposing that the United Kingdom and India should jointly host an international workshop in 1994 to prepare for this review.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the specific purpose grants given to grant-maintained schools in south Yorkshire for each financial year since 1991–92, including the current year; and what was the purpose of each grant.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following self governing schools in South Yorkshire have received special purpose grants—SPGs:

  Amount paid (£) for each financial year

  School

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clifford C E First School, Sheffield

  SPG (Transitional)

  21,834

  —

  SPG (Development)

  2,915

  4,985

  SPG (Restructuring)

  11,136

  —

  SPG (VAT)

  1,044

  4,141

  SPG (Premises)

  —

  920

  All Saints RC School, Sheffield

  SPG (Transitional)

  —

  59,640

  SPG (Development)

  —

  24,490

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  131,391

  Notre Dame School, Sheffield

  SPG (Transitional)

  —

  50,610

  SPG (Development)

  —

  22,436

  SPG (Restructuring)

  —

  8,652

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  128,664

  St. John Fisher RC (VA) Primary, Sheffield

  SPG (Transitional)

  —

  24,338

  SPG (Development)

  —

  4,863

  SPG (VAT)

  —

  4,298

  1Provisional figures to be finalised.

  The purpose of each of the SPGs is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

  Schools (Newspapers and Books)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent by London schools on newspapers and books in the last available year.
  117
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The 33 inner and outer London local education authorities spent a total of over £61 million on books and equipment in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available.

  University College, Dearne Valley
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects the proposed university college to be situated on the Dearne valley to be in operation.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for those involved in the project. I understand that the University of Sheffield is considering its plans in the light of consultation with the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

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

  Mr. Jack
  I have given very careful consideration to the proposals put forward by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations but I shall not make a statement until the High Court has delivered its judgment in the federation's judicial review proceeding. The changes to fisheries policy covered the NFFO document "Conservation: An Alternative Approach" would not require the suspension of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1993.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Soames
  A further progress report on BSE in Great Britain for the period up to 29 October is available today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. The report details increasingly firm evidence that the ruminant feed ban is effective in controlling the epidemic in the way which has been predicted. The number of suspect cases of BSE reported in the last three months is 12.7 per cent. below that for the same period last year, 10,270 cases in 1993 compared with 11,759 cases in 1992. There is also a dramatic reduction in the number of cases occurring in younger animals.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how her Department was represented at the conference on wind energy opportunities on farms held in Stoneleigh on 11 November.

  Mr. Jack
  The conference was attended by an ADAS officer and an assistant regional planning advisor.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what savings she expects the new meat inspection rules to bring to the meat industry; what supervision will be carried out to ensure standards are maintained; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The introduction of the new poultry meat inspection system will result in reductions in poultry meat inspection costs estimated in July 1993 at £1.75 million. There will however be costs associated with the employment and training of poultry inspection assistants which the industry will be expected to bear.

  Poultry inspection assistants will work under the supervision of the official veterinarian of a member of his team who will ensure standards are maintained.

  Premiums and Arable Area Payments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the dates of payment of sheep and beef premium and arable area payments including set-aside for 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  In England payments under the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme started on 5 October 1993 and 77 per cent. of claims had been paid by 19 November. Advance payments under the 1993 beef special premium scheme began in the middle of November and for the 1993 suckler cow premium scheme are expected to start in January. The remainder of the premium due for both these schemes will be paid between April and June 1994.

  The first advance oilseeds payments under the 1992–93 arable area payments scheme were made on 26 August 1993 and over 99 per cent. of claims had been paid by 30 September. Payments for oilseeds, cereals, proteins and set aside started on 20 October 1993. Payments under the 1994 sheep annual premium scheme and the 1993–94 arable area payments scheme are not due until next year.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will now publish county-based figures with respect for the arable area payments scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Wastes (Sea Disposal)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the meeting of the London convention on sea disposal of wastes, held in London on 8 to 12 November; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the final declaration and the statement made by the United Kingdom to the meeting.

  Mr. Jack
  The consultative meeting of the London convention held on 8 to 12 November considered and adopted four resolutions in furtherance of the process of amending the convention. These resolutions established: a ban on the disposal of radioactive wastes at sea; a ban on the sea disposal of industrial wastes; a ban with some exemptions, on the incineration of wastes at sea; a commitment to undertake a thorough review of the other provisions of the convention.

  The United Kingdom fully supported the resolutions on industrial waste, incineration and the amendment process.

  119
  We abstained from the vote on the disposal of radioactive wastes and are currently considering the implications of the decisions on this matter. The United Kingdom delegation made no formal declaration or statement to the meeting but we were able to emphasise the United Kingdom's desire to see practical steps taken and properly applied to ensure protection of the marine environment and was able to report that, in advance of the present amendments, the United Kingdom had already terminated all dumping of industrial wastes and incineration at sea.

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives she is planning to take at the European Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 22 November to ensure that other member states do not extend the phase-out period for drift net fishing.

  Mr. Jack
  No mention was made of drift nets at the Fisheries Council on 22 November. The derogation permitting a limited use by France of drift nets up to 5 km long expires on 31 December 1993 unless the Commission makes a proposal to extend the derogation, and the Council accepts it. Should any such proposal be made, I will scrutinise it very closely to see whether the requirement in the regulation, that no ecological risk would be involved, is fully met.

  Beef
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each month for the last two years the average market price of beef together with the tonnage going into intervention in the United Kingdom.

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

  United Kingdom intervention intake and beef prices October 1991 to September 1993

  Intervention intake in tonnes

  Prices in pence per kilogramm (liveweight)

  1991

  November

  14,662

  95.07

  December

  5,418

  96.34

  1992

  January

  8,306

  98.3

  February

  8,046

  99.23

  March

  9,045

  100.15

  April

  6,722

  101.34

  May

  7,221

  101.12

  June

  6,554

  103

  July

  4,228

  102.99

  August

  5,431

  102.7

  September

  14,073

  100.81

  October

  14,144

  100.67

  November

  9,770

  104.58

  December

  4,661

  107.29

  1993

  January

  8,871

  108.54

  February

  6,765

  116.53

  March

  1,713

  122.2

  April

  2,992

  126.7

  May

  0

  132.05

  June

  0

  133.65

  July

  0

  121.49

  120

  Intervention intake in tonnes

  Prices in pence per Kilogramm (liveweight)

  August

  0

  122.61

  September

  380

  111.53

  October

  475

  112.51

  Note: The price given is the cattle reference price. This liveweight price indicates the price for cattle paid by the wholesaler and received by the producer.

  Animal Diseases
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have been placed under movement restrictions as a consequence of the recent outbreak of(a)brucellosis and (b) warble fly; in which counties the herds infected are located; and how many are affected in each of those counties by each of those infections.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  One farm in Gywnedd, where brucellosis infection has been confirmed following culture of the relevant organism, has been placed under movement restrictions. Two farms in Cheshire where cattle have reacted positively to the serological test for brucellosis have also been placed under movement restrictions.

  Thirty-nine premises in the following counties were placed under movement restrictions between April and July 1993 following confirmation of warbles infestation in imported cattle. Treatment notices were served on all farms within 3km of the above premises this autumn resulting in a further 1,490 farms placed under restriction pending treatment.

  County

  Number

  Avon

  2

  Ayrshire

  1

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Cheshire

  8

  Cornwall

  1

  Devon

  2

  Dorset

  1

  Dyfed

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  Kent

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  Lothian

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1

  Shropshire

  3

  Somerset

  6

  Staffordshire

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  Wiltshire

  3

  Worcestershire

  1

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle in total have tested positive for(a) brucellosis and (b) warble fly; how many of these were infected before entering the United Kingdom; how many have contracted the disease in this country; from which countries the infected cattle originated; and what known risks there were in those countries of brucellosis or warble fly which could be calculated to present a danger if animals were to be imported into the United Kingdom.
  121
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since 1 September 1993, 21 cattle in Great Britain have reacted positively to serological tests for brucellosis. Disease has been confirmed by culture in nine animals, one of which was imported from France. Detailed epidemiological investigations to determine the source of infection are continuing. We understand that a small number of cattle herds in France are infected with brucellosis and are under restriction. However, all cattle imported into the United Kingdom from all member states must originate from officially brucellosis-free herds—as defined in Community rules—and must be tested negative for brucellosis within the 30 days prior to export.

  Two hundred and twenty-one cattle imported from France between January and July 1993 proved to be infested with warble fly. The annual United Kingdom serum survey for warble fly currently being undertaken has so far disclosed four positive reactions. One of these animals was imported from France: the origin of the other three animals is at present unknown. There is a high incidence of warble fly in France, in common with a number of other member states. It is a legal requirement that all cattle imported into the United Kingdom, except those for immediate slaughter, must be treated within 24 hours of arrive for warble fly.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle infected with brucellosis have been slaughtered; and how many humans have been infected by the disease; and by what means the disease was transmitted from cattle to humans.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since 1 September 1993, 15 cattle which reacted positively to the serological test for brucellosis have been slaughtered, in nine of which the disease was confirmed; no humans have been infected. In the past, humans caught the disease by direct contact with infected cattle or by consumption of unpasteurised milk or milk products. There is no risk of infection from the consumption of pasteurised milk or milk products or from meat.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the estimated costs incurred by her Department in connection with arrangements for containing the risk from the presence of animals tested positive to foot and mouth, equine viral ateritis, warble fly and brucellosis, tracking down and testing the infected animals, publicising each threat, slaughtering the affected animals and compensating the losses where eligible; and what additional costs were incurred.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost in both nominal and real terms for each year since 1979 to her Department of programmes for tackling animal diseases imported into the United Kingdom which had previously been deemed to be eradicated.

  1989–90£

  1990–91£

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  Administrative and clerical

  46,818,579

  52,828,708

  59,612,780

  68,802,552

  Managerial

  8,884,824

  13,341,551

  19,322,078

  21,838,204

  Nursing and midwifery

  190,911,768

  205,822,687

  227,698,352

  242,791,513

  122
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Compensation paid to farmers by Agriculture Departments following compulsory slaughter of their stock for the diseases specified was, for the years indicated, as follows:

  1981

  1984

  1986

  1987

  1992

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Foot and Mouth Disease

  91,414

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle Disease

  —

  816,325

  —

  —

  —

  Classical Swine Fever

  —

  —

  451,435

  276,525

  —

  Avian Influenza

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,202

  Estimation of other expenditure specifically associated with these disease outbreaks would involve the Department in disproportionate costs.

  New Forest (Hunting)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide details of the terms and conditions of the licences issued by the Forestry Commission to the New Forest buckhounds allowing them to hunt in the New Forest.

  Mr. Jack
  A copy of the permit issued by the Forestry Commission to the New Forest buckhounds for the 1992–93 season is already in the Library of the House. The permit for the 1993–94 season has the same terms and conditions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the NHS in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Administrative and Clerical

  16,066

  5,939

  6,200

  6,568

  6,671

  Managerial

  2—

  497

  723

  926

  950

  Nursing and Midwifery

  17,667

  17,829

  17,454

  16,826

  15,825

  Notes: Figures are expressed in whole time equivalent.

  1Includes managerial staff.

  2Not available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the total salary costs for(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the NHS in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Ancram
  Total salary costs are as follows:
  123
  This information is not available in the form requested for the financial year 1988–89.

HEALTH

  Private Ambulance Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received with regard to the regulation of private ambulance services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what disciplinary action has been taken against those officials of the Guy's—St. Thomas's National Health Service Trust responsible for the awarding of a contract to Belmont ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Lord Hayhoe, the chairman, for details.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table showing different categories of sickness, ill health and injury and the number of working days lost for each category in 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no information available centrally on the breakdown of working days lost by health related disease. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contact the Confederation of British Industry for details of its survey.

  Suicide
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest available figures for the number of officially recorded suicides in the United Kingdom showing men and women separately for(a) all persons aged 18 years and over, (b) all persons aged 30 to 55 years, (c) all persons aged 18 years and over who were unemployed at the date of suicide and (d) all persons aged 30 to 55 years who were unemployed at the date of suicide.

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

  The table shows suicide deaths ICD E950-E9591 by sex for ages 18 and over and 30 to 55 years for England and Wales for 1992. Data for 1992 are provisional.

  1992

  18+

  30-55

  Males

  3,026

  1,536

  Females

  895

  371

  1 International Classiflcation of Disease Code Ninth Revision.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each civil service grade in her Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information shows the position on 1 November 1993:

  Total number of staff employed in the Department of Health

  Grade (including grade equivalents)

  Total

  Women

  Grade 1

  3

  0

  Grade 2

  8

  0

  Grade 3

  25

  5

  Grade 4

  28

  11

  Grade 5

  211

  79

  Grade 6

  135

  45

  Grade 7

  571

  151

  SEO

  413

  121

  HEO(D)

  22

  11

  HEO

  716

  329

  AT

  8

  4

  EO

  966

  560

  AO

  1,376

  1,003

  AA

  580

  345

  Others

  178

  79

  TOTALS

  5,240

  2,743

  Notes:

  1. Professional grades have been shown under their equivalent unified grade.

  2. The "Others" category relates to youth treatment service direct care staff and YTS industrial staff.

  3. Casual members of staff have been excluded. In addition, the following staff have been excluded because they are not currently being paid by the Department:

  on loan to other government departments;

  on maternity leave of more than three months;

  on unpaid career breaks/study leave.

  Community Care
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to amend the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Provisions relating to community care in England and Wales were contained in part III of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We have no plans to amend those provisions.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her Department is conducting research into the budget allocation between the national health service and social services as set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. The Act does not set out budgets for the national health service or for social services.

  GP Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head of population in each family health services authority area on general practitioner services, separately identifying general practitioner fund-holders in 1990–91 and 1991–92, in cash and standard prices; and what expenditure per head was attributable to expenditure on behalf of the under five, five to 15, 16 to 64, and 64 plus years age groups.
  125
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward proposals to amend the contract between family health services authorities and general practitioners so that patients are able to make formal complaints about the staff employed by general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The contract to which the hon. Member refers is the statutory arrangement—known as the terms of servicefamily health services—under which general practitioners provide general medical services for the national health service. Where staff employed by a GP carry out duties within the terms of service on the GP's behalf, complaints about the performance of those duties can already be made

  Area of usual residence

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  39,117

  39,248

  40,878

  40,239

  40,404

  40,105

  39,097

  40,656

  41,128

  40,003

  Yorkshire

  46,507

  46,672

  48,022

  48,340

  49,344

  49,972

  49,637

  51,187

  50,769

  49,703

  Trent

  57,165

  57,652

  58,751

  59,284

  61,050

  61,618

  61,666

  63,571

  63,129

  62,142

  East Anglian

  23,075

  23,685

  24,487

  24,592

  25,799

  26,600

  25,979

  26,590

  26,288

  26,095

  North West Thames

  45,596

  46,207

  47,468

  48,124

  49,633

  50,639

  49,666

  50,793

  51,459

  51,992

  North East Thames

  49,894

  51,228

  52,006

  52,959

  55,314

  56,466

  56,094

  57,999

  57,059

  56,968

  South East Thames

  44,007

  44,644

  46,902

  47,558

  49,956

  51,402

  51,073

  52,086

  51,412

  51,313

  South West Thames

  34,688

  34,908

  36,367

  36,734

  38,236

  39,258

  38,822

  40,101

  39,975

  40,229

  Wessex

  33,044

  33,810

  34,957

  35,772

  37,175

  37,942

  37,810

  38,571

  37,122

  37,205

  Oxford

  30,948

  31,811

  33,070

  33,201

  34,661

  35,698

  35,809

  36,424

  36,187

  36,076

  South Western

  35,523

  36,193

  37,560

  38,119

  39,840

  40,981

  40,772

  41,090

  40,342

  40,125

  West Midlands

  68,224

  68,726

  70,351

  70,408

  72,469

  72,809

  73,346

  75,092

  74,210

  71,992

  Mersey

  31,850

  31,601

  32,889

  32,712

  32,788

  33,515

  32,934

  33,771

  33,361

  31,675

  North Western

  53,617

  54,188

  55,593

  55,567

  56,661

  57,358

  56,652

  58,989

  58,365

  56,266

  Wales

  35,494

  35,861

  36,771

  37,038

  37,816

  38,824

  38,019

  38,866

  38,079

  37,523

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many live births have been recorded(a) per region and (b) per hospital for each year over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for England and Wales per region for 1991 and 1992 is shown in the table. The information relating to still births recorded by region for the years 1982–1990 is available from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys annual reference volume DH3 mortality statistics, perinatal and infant: social and biological factors, table 7b, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of still births per hospital could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Still births by regional health authority, England and Wales 1991 and 1992

  1991

  1Rate

  1992

  1Rate

  England

  3,072

  4.6

  2,777

  4.2

  Wales

  177

  4.6

  153

  4.1

  Northern

  220

  5.3

  157

  3.9

  Yorkshire

  235

  4.6

  220

  4.4

  Trent

  318

  5.0

  297

  4.8

  East Anglian

  112

  4.2

  105

  4.0

  North West Thames

  238

  4.6

  220

  4.2

  North East Thames

  271

  4.7

  229

  4.0

  South East Thames

  226

  4.4

  246

  4.8

  South West Thames

  174

  4.3

  140

  3.5

  Wessex

  160

  4.3

  155

  4.1

  Oxford

  153

  4.2

  116

  3.2

  South Western

  166

  4.1

  164

  4.0

  West Midlands

  376

  5.0

  319

  4.4

  126
  using the formal complaints procedure. Professor Alan Wilson of Leeds university is chairing a full review of national health service complaints systems which is due to report at the turn of the year.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many live births have been recorded(a) per region and (b) per hospital for each year over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of live births by usual residence of mother for health regions in England, and for Wales, are shown in the table. Information on the number of live births per hospital could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1991

  1Rate

  1992

  1Rate

  Mersey

  141

  4.2

  116

  3.6

  North Western

  282

  4.8

  293

  5.2

  1Stillbirths per 1,000 live and still births.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Newham General Hospital
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the procedure to be followed, and bodies responsible for any decision, for the closure of Newham general hospital(a) as a directly managed unit or (b) as a trust within the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is a statutory requirement for district health authorities and family health services authorities to consult community health councils over any proposals to make substantial variations in the provision of local health services. Where a variation in service is the consequence of a decision taken by a national health service trust the responsibility for consultation remains with the DHA or FHSA. Ministers reserve to themselves the final decision where a closure is contested.

  We are not aware of any closure proposal affecting Newham general hospital.

  NHS Bed Bureaux
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish a table showing the volume of work undertaken by NHS bed bureaux for each year since 1989;

  (2) if she will publish a table showing every bed bureau operating within the NHS and the location of each for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Arrangements made by health authorities and trusts for coping with particularly high levels of admissions to hospital will vary according to local circumstances.

  Anti-depressant Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing(a) total and (b) per capita expenditure on anti-depressant drugs in each family health services authority area; and for each NHS region, during 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information for the calendar year 1992 is shown in the table. The cost information is in terms of net ingredient cost, that is the basic cost of the drugs before discount and excluding dispensing costs and fees.

  The antidepressant drugs are those shown in section 4.3 of the "British National Formulary".

  Antidepressant drugs—British National Formulary section 4.3 England 1992

  Family Health Service Authority

  Net ingredient cost (£ thousands)

  Net ingredient cost per head of population (£)

  321

  Cleveland

  1,044.7

  1.87

  322

  Cumbria

  1,050.2

  2.14

  323

  Durham

  1,368.7

  2.25

  324

  Northumberland

  634.3

  2.06

  325

  Gateshead

  453.6

  2.23

  326

  Newcastle

  548.3

  1.95

  327

  North Tyneside

  467.7

  2.40

  328

  South Tyneside

  246.3

  1.57

  329

  Sunderland

  555.4

  1.87

  Northern RHA

  6,369.1

  2.06

  341

  Humberside

  1,434.9

  1.63

  342

  North Yorkshire

  1,214.1

  1.68

  343

  Bradford

  985.6

  2.06

  344

  Calderdale

  347.0

  1.79

  345

  Kirklees

  728.1

  1.90

  346

  Leeds

  1,506.7

  2.09

  347

  Wakefield

  516.1

  1.63

  Yorkshire RHA

  6,732.5

  1.82

  361

  Derbyshire

  1,416.6

  1.50

  362

  Leicestershire

  1,652.0

  1.83

  363

  Lincolnshire

  1,303.7

  2.18

  364

  Nottinghamshire

  1,389.8

  1.36

  365

  Barnsley

  383.8

  1.71

  366

  Doncaster

  515.9

  1.76

  367

  Rotherham

  375.0

  1.47

  368

  Sheffield

  873.9

  1.65

  Trent RHA

  7,910.8

  1.66

  381

  Cambridgeshire

  953.0

  1.41

  382

  Norfolk

  1,622.3

  2.13

  383

  Suffolk

  1,265.1

  1.95

  East Anglia RHA

  3,840.5

  1.84

  401

  Bedfordshire

  795.7

  1.48

  402

  Hertfordshire

  1,571.2

  1.58

  403

  Barnet

  385.0

  1.27

  404

  Brent and Harrow

  495.6

  1.10

  128

  Family Health Service Authority

  Net ingredient cost (£thousands)

  Net ingredient cost per head of population (£)

  405

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  853.7

  1.32

  406

  Hillingdon

  263.3

  1.11

  407

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  601.2

  1.79

  North West Thames RHA

  4,965.6

  1.42

  421

  Essex

  2,373.1

  1.53

  422

  Barking and Havering

  403.3

  1.07

  423

  Camden and Islington

  567.5

  1.60

  424

  City and East London

  681.1

  1.16

  425

  Enfield and Harringey

  536.8

  1.13

  426

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  591.5

  1.31

  North East Thames RHA

  5,153.4

  1.36

  441

  East Sussex

  1,418.9

  1.97

  442

  Kent

  2,278.2

  1.48

  443

  Bexley and Greenwich

  496.5

  1.14

  444

  Bromley

  434.4

  1.48

  445

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  860.0

  1.18

  South East Thames RHA

  5,488.0

  1.48

  461

  Surrey

  1.824.8

  1.76

  462

  West Sussex

  1,182.3

  1.66

  463

  Croydon

  413.1

  1.29

  464

  Kingston and Richmond

  546.4

  1.80

  465

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  891.8

  1.46

  South West Thames RHA

  4,858.5

  1.63

  481

  Dorset

  1,281.5

  1.93

  482

  Hampshire

  2,758.6

  1.74

  483

  Wiltshire

  1,095.2

  1.89

  484

  Isle of Wight

  334.9

  2.67

  Wessex RHA

  5,470.2

  1.85

  501

  Berkshire

  1,253.4

  1.65

  502

  Buckinghamshire

  806.8

  1.25

  503

  Northamptonshire

  890.1

  1.51

  504

  Oxfordshire

  827.1

  1.41

  Oxford RHA

  3,777.4

  1.46

  521

  Avon

  1,262.9

  1.30

  522

  Cornwall

  865.2

  1.82

  523

  Devon

  1,755.9

  1.68

  524

  Gloucestershire

  940.7

  1.74

  525

  Somerset

  629.9

  1.33

  —

  South Western RHA

  5,454.6

  1.56

  541

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,013.4

  1.47

  542

  Shropshire

  654.1

  1.58

  543

  Staffordshire

  1,863.8

  1.77

  544

  Warwickshire

  702.0

  1.43

  545

  Birmingham

  1,705.0

  1.69

  546

  Coventry

  413.5

  1.36

  547

  Dudley

  397.4

  1.28

  548

  Sandwell

  541.6

  1.84

  549

  Solihull

  359.0

  1.79

  551

  Walsall

  445.1

  1.69

  552

  Wolverhampton

  493.5

  1.99

  —

  West Midlands RHA

  8,588.4

  1.63

  561

  Cheshire

  1,778.9

  1.84

  562

  Liverpool

  951.4

  1.99

  563

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  581.4

  1.73

  129

  Family Health Service Authority

  Net ingredient cost (£thousands)

  Net ingredient cost per head of population (£)

  564

  Sefton

  585.0

  1.98

  565

  Wirral

  682.4

  2.04

  —

  Mersey RHA

  4,579.1

  1.90

  581

  Lancashire

  2,712.0

  1.92

  582

  Bolton

  427.6

  1.62

  583

  Bury

  370.5

  2.05

  584

  Manchester

  975.3

  2.24

  585

  Oldham

  304.4

  1.38

  586

  Rochdale

  489.1

  2.38

  587

  Salford

  509.1

  2.21

  588

  Stockport

  686.7

  2.38

  589

  Tameside

  370.1

  1.68

  591

  Trafford

  490.0

  2.27

  592

  Wigan

  595.0

  1.90

  —

  North Western RHA

  7,929.6

  1.99

  —

  England

  81,117.6

  1.68

  Incidence of certain anomalies of development of bones of head including cranio synostosis1:single years, 1983–92 for the regional health authorities of England and for Wales

  Rates per 100,000 births

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England and Wales

  32

  26

  31

  28

  28

  17

  15

  15

  15

  11

  England

  34

  32

  27

  32

  29

  29

  17

  16

  16

  11

  Wales

  22

  22

  8

  8

  13

  13

  24

  8

  3

  8

  Northern

  20

  33

  46

  30

  30

  42

  43

  17

  15

  17

  Yorkshire

  28

  38

  29

  33

  26

  18

  22

  16

  20

  8

  Trent

  78

  48

  52

  37

  54

  48

  32

  28

  11

  19

  East Anglian

  22

  34

  37

  28

  31

  22

  35

  26

  34

  8

  North West Thames

  39

  37

  27

  33

  24

  41

  42

  25

  23

  10

  North East Thames

  20

  31

  23

  17

  27

  23

  28

  12

  12

  14

  South East Thames

  25

  16

  19

  23

  36

  19

  29

  13

  12

  12

  South West Thames

  17

  34

  16

  16

  39

  53

  46

  17

  5

  20

  Wessex

  30

  56

  40

  22

  24

  18

  32

  13

  5

  8

  Oxford

  23

  22

  57

  36

  23

  31

  14

  11

  30

  6

  South Western

  36

  3

  24

  18

  27

  15

  15

  10

  15

  12

  West Midlands

  63

  39

  34

  20

  27

  18

  23

  11

  15

  4

  Mersey

  9

  44

  21

  30

  33

  33

  15

  12

  15

  19

  North Western

  15

  37

  25

  30

  42

  29

  35

  20

  19

  7

  1These data have been selected using code 756.0 of the International Classification of Disease (9th Revision). This code covers anomalies of the skull and face bones and includes cranio synostosis. The data presented are taken from the National Congenital Malformation Notification Scheme. This scheme is voluntary and includes all malformations identified at or within 10 days of birth. The system may not be very effective in identifying all cases of cranio synostosis as many cases do not become apparent for some months.

  Nannies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward proposals to require the registration of nannies as suggested by the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. Parents who employ a nanny to care for their children in their own home are responsible for making the arrangements and are well placed to ensure that the nanny is taking good care of their children.

  Asthma
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the expenditure on general practitioner prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations in each family health services authority area in 1992–93; and if he will express that as an expenditure figure per head.
  130
  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. BNF section based on the September 1991 BNF.

  3. For net ingredient cost per head OPCS 1991 mid-year resident population projections for 1992 have been used.

  Birth Defects
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of cranial synostosis have occurred per 100,000 births in each health authority over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is in the table:

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information for the calendar year 1992 is shown in the table. The cost information is in terms of net ingredient cost, that is, the basic cost of the drugs before discount and excluding dispensing costs and fees.

  The drugs used for the treatment of asthma are those shown in the following "British National Formulary" sections:

  3.1—Bronchodilators

  3.2—Corticosteroids

  3.3—Cromoglycate and related therapy.

  Drugs for the treatment of asthma—British National Formulary sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3

  England 1992

  Family health services authority

  Net ingredient cost (£ thousands)

  Net ingredient cost per head of population (£)

  321

  Cleveland

  3,599.1

  6.43

  322

  Cumbria

  3,186.6

  6.50

  323

  Durham

  4,413.7

  7.27

  324

  Northumberland

  2,393.4

  7.79

  325

  Gateshead

  1,367.9

  6.74

  131

  Family health services authority

  Net ingredient cost (£ thousands)

  Net ingredient cost per head of population (£)

  326

  Newcastle

  1,995.6

  7.08

  327

  North Tyneside

  1,315.6

  6.74

  328

  South Tyneside

  1,073.6

  6.83

  329

  Sunderland

  2,185.2

  7.35

  Northern RHA

  21,530.8

  6.95

  341

  Humberside

  5,525.3

  6.27

  342

  North Yorkshire

  4,245.0

  5.87

  343

  Bradford

  2,869.4

  6.01

  344

  Calderdale

  1,302.9

  6.72

  345

  Kirklees

  2,338.2

  6.10

  346

  Leeds

  4,597.6

  6.37

  347

  Wakefield

  2,498.5

  7.88

  Yorkshire RHA

  23,376.8

  6.32

  361

  Derbyshire

  6,030.0

  6.37

  362

  Leicestershire

  5,959.0

  6.60

  363

  Lincolnshire

  4,151.4

  6.96

  364

  Nottinghamshire

  6,605.2

  6.44

  365

  Barnsley

  1,535.8

  6.83

  366

  Doncaster

  2,284.3

  7.78

  367

  Rotherham

  1,559.4

  6.11

  368

  Sheffield

  3,665.3

  6.90

  Trent RHA

  31,790.3

  6.66

  381

  Cambridgeshire

  3,983.5

  5.88

  382

  Norfolk

  5,007.3

  6.56

  383

  Suffolk

  3,995.4

  6.17

  East Anglia RHA

  12,986.2

  6.22

  401

  Bedfordshire

  3,130.3

  5.83

  402

  Hertfordshire

  6,158.2

  6.19

  403

  Barnet

  1,531.6

  5.07

  404

  Brent and Harrow

  2,514.0

  5.56

  405

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  3,542.9

  5.48

  406

  Hillingdon

  1,237.3

  5.21

  407

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,637.1

  4.88

  North West Thames RHA

  19,751.5

  5.64

  421

  Essex

  8,310.0

  5.34

  422

  Barking and Havering

  1,885.0

  4.99

  423

  Camden and Islington

  1,947.3

  5.48

  424

  City and East London

  3,304.3

  5.64

  425

  Enfield and Harringey

  2,253.4

  4.76

  426

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  2,164.2

  4.81

  North East Thames RHA

  19,864.5

  5.23

  441

  East Sussex

  4,402.0

  6.11

  442

  Kent

  7,763.1

  5.05

  443

  Bexley and Greenwich

  2,367.8

  5.45

  444

  Bromley

  1,381.2

  4.71

  445

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  4,001.2

  5.51

  South East Thames RHA

  19,915.3

  5.36

  461

  Surrey

  5,417.1

  5.23

  462

  West Sussex

  4,455.2

  6.25

  463

  Croydon

  1,422.5

  4.44

  464

  Kingston and Richmond

  1,664.0

  5.49

  465

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3,248.2

  5.32

  South West Thames RHA

  16,206.9

  5.43

  481

  Dorset

  4.054.0

  6.10

  482

  Hampshire

  8,819.2

  5.56

  132

  Family health services authority

  Net ingredient cost (£ thousands)

  Net ingredient cost per head of population (£)

  483

  Wiltshire

  3,358.2

  5.80

  484

  Isle of Wight

  984.2

  7.84

  Wessex RHA

  17,215.7

  5.82

  501

  Berkshire

  4,922.1

  6.49

  502

  Buckinghamshire

  3,658.8

  5.67

  503

  Northamptonshire

  3,469.8

  5.88

  504

  Oxfordshire

  3,405.6

  5.80

  Oxford RHA

  15,456.2

  5.99

  521

  Avon

  5,377.3

  5.55

  522

  Cornwall

  3,405.3

  7.16

  523

  Devon

  6,931.8

  6.63

  524

  Gloucestershire

  4,094.4

  7.56

  525

  Somerset

  2,560.9

  5.42

  South Western RHA

  22,369.7

  6.39

  541

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,965.5

  7.19

  542

  Shropshire

  3,218.3

  7.80

  543

  Staffordshire

  6,628.2

  6.30

  544

  Warwickshire

  4,195.3

  8.53

  545

  Birmingham

  6,530.5

  6.47

  546

  Coventry

  1,949.2

  6.40

  547

  Dudley

  1,640.1

  5.27

  548

  Sandwell

  2,203.9

  7.49

  549

  Solihull

  1,421.6

  7.08

  551

  Walsall

  1,785.5

  6.78

  552

  Wolverhampton

  1,424.0

  5.75

  West Midlands RHA

  35,962.2

  6.81

  561

  Cheshire

  6,448.1

  6.67

  562

  Liverpool

  3,315.0

  6.92

  563

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2,487.8

  7.39

  564

  Sefton

  1,971.9

  6.69

  565

  Wirral

  2,460.1

  7.34

  Mersey RHA

  16,682.9

  6.92

  581

  Lancashire

  10,375.9

  7.34

  582

  Bolton

  1,944.6

  7.37

  583

  Bury

  1,362.8

  7.55

  584

  Manchester

  3,625.5

  8.34

  585

  Oldham

  1,485.3

  6.74

  586

  Rochdale

  2,011.9

  9.78

  587

  Salford

  1,931.4

  8.39

  588

  Stockport

  2,003.3

  6.94

  589

  Tameside

  1,487.1

  6.73

  591

  Trafford

  1,640.4

  7.60

  592

  Wigan

  2,331.2

  7.46

  North Western RHA

  30,199.5

  7.57

  England

  303,308.4

  6.27

  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. BNF section based on the September 1991 BNF.

  3. For net ingredient cost per head OPCS 1991 mid year resident population projections for 1992 have been used.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the budget allocated to community care is being spent on(a) residential nursing homes and (b) nursing homes by each separate health authority.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private patients have been using national health service paid beds in each of the four regional health authorities covering the Greater London area for the first 10 months of 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the four Thames regional health authorities for details.

  NHS Management Executive
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of people employed by the NHS management executive for each year since its inception.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 25 May 1993 at column 506.

  Staff groups within Scarborough district health authority and North East Yorkshire health national health service trust 1989–92 (whole time equivalent)

  September 1989

  September 1990

  September 1991

  September 1992

  Medical and Dental

  60

  60

  70

  130

  Nursing and Midwifery

  890

  940

  970

  990

  Administrative and Clerical

  220

  240

  n/a

  270

  Others

  540

  560

  210

  610

  Total

  1,710

  1,790

  1,250

  1,990

  Notes:
  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
  n/a—Indicates that the figures are not available.
  The 1991 "Others" figure only includes direct care staff not included elsewhere, no management/support staff are included.
  The 1992 "Administrative and Clerical" and "Others" field will not include any management/support staff from Scarborough DHA.
  The "Medical and Dental" figures include consultants and associated specialists in 1992 only.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the HCHS revenue budget allocated to Scarborough health authority in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what budget would have been awarded to the authority in each of these years if his Department's and Yorkshire Health's capitation funding formulae had been applied in full.

  Mr. Sackville
  Revenue allocations to district health authorities are the responsibility of regional health authorities and detailed information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Brian Askew, chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority for details.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people presenting themselves at the accident and emergency department at Scarborough district were attended to within five minutes in each month of 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Tom Pindar, the chairman of Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS trust for details.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rewards and incentives beyond the pre-existing

  Scarborough Health Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital developments have been implemented by the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire health trust since its establishment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department collects information on schemes costing over £1 million. No scheme of that value has been implemented since the establishment of the trust. The hon. member may wish to contact the trust chairman, Mr. Tom Pindar, for details on any scheme costing £1 million or less.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent(a) medical, (b) nursing, (c) administrative and clinical and (d) other staff were employed (i) by Scarborough health authority on 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1991 and (ii) by Scarborough health authority and Scarborough and North East Yorkshire health trust on 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Whitley Council arrangements have been introduced for the staff at Scarborough district hospital since the creation of the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire health trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Tom Pindar, chairman of the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare national health service trust for details.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surplus or deficit on HCHS revenue spending was achieved by Scarborough health authority in 1990–91 and 1991–92 and by Scarborough and North East Yorkshire health trust in 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Scarborough health authority recorded a deficit of £924,000 in 1990–91 and a surplus of £29,512 in 1991–92 on hospital community health services revenue spending. The figure for 1990–91 is not comparable with the figures for 1991–92 because of the introduction of capital charges and changes to accounting policies following the introduction of the internal market. Scarborough and North East Yorkshire health trust recorded a deficit of £528,000 in 1992–93.

  Oxendon House, Leighton Buzzard
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with Bedfordshire county council about the future of Oxendon house, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has been kept informed about recent developments in relation to Bedfordshire county council's children's home, Oxendon house. I understand that the acting principal of the home has been arrested and charged by the police and that four other members of staff have been suspended. Following advice from the social services inspectorate, the county council is conducting an investigation into allegations of inappropriate therapies and restraint techniques and the general

  HCHS salary costs for administration and clerical staff

  Region

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  Northern

  59,873

  68,294

  74,398

  66,316

  Yorkshire

  68,955

  76,647

  71,129

  56,606

  Trent

  90,141

  102,750

  110,586

  96,330

  East Anglia

  36,648

  43,159

  47,768

  43,959

  North West Thames

  77,695

  94,959

  103,049

  88,836

  North East Thames

  101,809

  116,802

  112,500

  91,945

  South East Thames

  98,880

  111,716

  115,472

  95,480

  South West Thames

  72,451

  83,251

  84,887

  60,440

  Wessex

  52,498

  58,770

  66,360

  56,323

  Oxford

  48,151

  55,314

  62,209

  60,169

  South Western

  59,830

  70,223

  52,830

  34,511

  West Midlands

  110,016

  123,706

  136,394

  139,224

  Mersey

  52,959

  58,602

  43,756

  29,224

  North Western

  90,513

  100,324

  106,761

  96,395

  SHA

  18,245

  22,513

  26,757

  29,805

  NHS Trusts

  —

  —

  168,578

  455,694

  Total

  1,038,664

  1,187,030

  1,383,434

  1,501,257

  HCHS salary costs for managerial staff

  Region

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  Northern

  9,809

  15,301

  21,007

  22,650

  Yorkshire

  13,035

  23,501

  27,114

  27,773

  Trent

  9,183

  14,969

  24,547

  26,395

  East Anglia

  8,505

  11,232

  14,833

  16,318

  North West Thames

  13,778

  19,568

  25,020

  25,137

  North East Thames

  19,180

  29,010

  33,824

  34,005

  South East Thames

  12,959

  19,993

  27,434

  30,011

  South West Thames

  9,230

  16,167

  20,556

  26,498

  Wessex

  8,648

  15,718

  21,698

  23,209

  Oxford

  5,402

  10,123

  15,622

  18,677

  South Western

  11,573

  15,670

  15,122

  10,004

  West Midlands

  17,007

  23,498

  34,907

  42,427

  Mersey

  8,399

  13,801

  13,602

  11,093

  North Western

  9,773

  18,870

  28,817

  30,247

  SHAs

  2,362

  4,111

  5,440

  7,933

  NHS Trusts

  —

  —

  54,296

  141,854

  Total

  158,843

  251,472

  383,839

  494,231

  HCHS salary costs for nursing and midwifery staff

  Region

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  Northern

  327,830

  351,182

  356,965

  310,195

  Yorkshire

  355,539

  380,633

  347,362

  263,155

  Trent

  451,088

  484,754

  487,920

  409,895

  East Anglia

  193,638

  211,961

  220,493

  194,181

  136
  culture of the home. Meanwhile the home has been closed, the children relocated and 45 members of staff have been given leave of absence.

  The social services inspectorate is continuing to monitor the situation.

  NHS Salaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total salary costs for(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the national health service in each region in each year since 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Analysis of salaries and wages costs for hospital and community health services—HCHS—in England are shown in the tables. The figures for 1992–93 are provisional.
  137

  Region

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  North West Thames

  350,313

  373,184

  366,548

  250,916

  North East Thames

  431,427

  467,107

  417,118

  324,807

  South East Thames

  381,547

  412,477

  414,177

  330,649

  South West Thames

  304,296

  328,232

  288,082

  221,386

  Wessex

  278,293

  299,341

  309,975

  240,092

  Oxford

  216,270

  234,391

  255,309

  227,566

  South Western

  326,431

  353,054

  243,011

  98,199

  West Midlands

  503,545

  543,884

  567,466

  540,793

  Mersey

  258,812

  270,931

  173,629

  114,597

  North Western

  448,128

  477,019

  492,033

  414,415

  SHAs

  66,060

  70,730

  84,210

  89,712

  NHS Trusts

  —

  —

  747,160

  2,041,241

  Total

  4,893,217

  5,258,880

  5,771,458

  6,071,799

  Sources:
  1. Annual accounts (1989–90 and 1990–91) and annual financial returns (1991–92 and 1992–93) of regional and district health authorities in England, NHS Trusts (1991–92 and 1992–93 only) and special health authorities.

  Notes:

  1. Salaries and wages costs incurred by family health services authorities are excluded as corresponding costs are not identified on the same basis.

  2. Managerial staff consists of general and senior managers, the main reason for the increase has been the reclassification of some staff in professional and administrative groups into these grades.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional secure accommodation places have been made available for juveniles since 1991.

  Mr. Bowis
  Two new secure units have opened since 1 January 1992, providing a total of 18 secure places. Local authorities are currently engaged in a capital programme to provide additional secure places for juvenile remands.

  Mersey Health Services
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the members of each hospital trust in the Mersey region giving their addresses and professional or other background.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) gave the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 20 July 1993 at column 121.

  The private address of a trust non-executive director is a personal matter and it is not appropriate to release this information.

  An announcement will be made shortly concerning national health service trust chairmen and non-executive directors who have been appointed in the fourth wave.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the hospitals she has visited and (b) the persons and organisations she has met during the course of the current year in the Mersey region, in order to discuss national health service matters; and the dates on which the meetings took place.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Mersey region on 26 July as part of a programme of visits to regions throughout the country. My right hon. Friend visited Ashworth hospital, Alder Hey children's hospital and Aintree Park group practice, where she met a cross-section of staff and discussed a range of different subjects.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she has made to ensure adequate 138
  financing of the intensive care unit at the Alder Hey children's hospital, Liverpool; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Purchasers are responsible for ensuring the availability of a comprehensive range of services, within available resources taking account of the priorities set by Government. It is for them to decide, in discussion with the management of the hospital, on the level of funding for the intensive care unit.

  Purchasers will be using the recent report "The Care of Critically Ill Children" from the British Paediatric Association to undertake an immediate review of their requirements for paediatric intensive care. The Alder Hey children's hospital provides excellent services for the people of Mersey, where the provision of paediatric intensive care beds exceeds the recommendations of the report. Copies of the BPA report will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will visit Broadgreen hospital, Liverpool, to discuss with staff and representatives of Liverpool East community health council the proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 16 September I announced that a decision had been taken to agree to the closure of the accident and emergency department at Broadgreen hospital. The decision was based on our assessment of the best, long-term interests of the people of Liverpool and followed a period of public consultation on the proposal. All correspondence on this matter was seen, including the response from Liverpool East community health council, and I met with a delegation of Members of Parliament from Liverpool, before the decision was made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit Broadgreen hospital.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken by her Department to discourage the over-prescribing of benzodiazepines; what plans she has to restrict represcribing; if she will bring forward proposals for legislation; and if she will make a statement.
  139
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines—CSM—concerning the prescribing of benzodiazepines was given to doctors in "Current Problems Number 21" in January 1988, copies of the relevant pages will be placed in the Library. This strongly emphasised the dangers of dependence with benzodiazepines and advised doctors to limit their use to short-term relief—two to four weeks only—of anxiety and insomnia that is severe, disabling, or subjecting the individual to extreme distress. Similar advice is given in the "British National Formulary", which the Department issues free to all prescribing doctors twice a year.

  Following the publication of the "Health of the Nation" White Paper, the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook", published in January 1993, suggested that family health services authorities should agree with general practitioners local targets for reducing benzodiozepine prescriptions. We also intend to circulate a copy of the Mental Health Foundation's publication, "Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of benzodiazepines dependence" to all family health services authorities in the near future, copies of which will be placed in the Library. We have no plans to introduce legislation in this area.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what investigations she has carried out into the circumstances which led to the deaths of three Manchester patients following 50-mile ambulance journeys to Blackpool; and what steps she is taking to ensure that there are sufficient intensive care resources in Manchester and Liverpool hospitals to prevent such circumstances from arising in the future;

  (2) how many cases involving intensive care treatment in (a) the Liverpool and (b) the Manchester areas have been diverted to hospitals in other areas in each of the past six months; to which areas they have been diverted; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of diverted intensive care cases is not available centrally. Purchasers of health care are responsible for ensuring the availability of a comprehensive range of services. It is for them to decide, in discussion with providers, how best to meet the need for intensive care facilities within available resources.

  It would be inappropriate to comment on the circumstances of the deaths of the three Manchester patients before any possible inquest is held. We understand that North Western regional health authority is holding
  140
  discussions with district health authorities to establish whether the level of provision of intensive care beds in Manchester matches demand.

  The Government are currently funding a study by the Royal College of Anaesthetists into access to intensive care.

  Mr. Stanley Clarke
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the response time by the London ambulance service in respect of pensioner Stanley Clarke from Lancashire who collapsed and died of a suspected heart attack in Woolworth's store, Old road, Chingford; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact, Mr. Martin Gorham, chief executive of the London ambulance service, for details.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Britain were injured by fireworks for each year since 1980; and what percentage of those injured for each year were under 16 years old.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of fireworks injuries recorded at hospital accident and emergency departments from the DTI's annual national fireworks survey, carried out for the 21 days before bonfire night, the night itself, and the seven days following, since 1980, are as follows:

  Year

  Total number of injuries

  Percentage of those injured under 16 years old Per cent.

  1980

  555

  70.1

  1981

  681

  67.5

  1982

  626

  66.1

  1983

  833

  61.2

  1984

  778

  62.9

  1985

  968

  61.3

  1986

  846

  55.1

  1987

  960

  56.3

  1988

  877

  50.9

  1989

  800

  51.8

  1990

  805

  48.9

  1991

  723

  50.1

  1992

  942

  51.8

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to bring investments by or on behalf of foreign Governments in British industry within the national tax structure as being a commercial activity.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what sums have been repaid by the Inland Revenue in the five years to March 1993 on account of sovereign immunity and by way of advance corporation tax rebates on dividend payments or on sums assumed to be dividend payments either directly or indirectly to the Government of Kuwait or to any bank managing funds on its behalf in respect of shareholdings or other investments in British companies;

  (2) what sums have been repaid by the Inland Revenue in the five years to March 1993 on account of sovereign immunity and by way of advance corporation tax rebates on dividend payments to either the Government of Brunei or to any bank or financial institution managing funds on its behalf in respect of shareholdings or other investments in British companies;

  (3) what sums have been repaid by the Inland Revenue in the five years to March 1993 on account of sovereign immunity and by way of advance corporation tax rebates on dividend payments to the Government of Abu Dhabi or to any bank or financial institution managing funds on its behalf in respect of shareholdings or other investments in British companies;

  (4) what sums have been repaid by the Inland Revenue in the five years to March 1993 on account of sovereign immunity and by way of advance corporation tax rebates on dividend payments to the Government of Singapore or to any bank or financial institution managing funds on its behalf in respect of shareholdings or other investments in British business;

  (5) what sums have been repaid by the Inland Revenue in the five years to March 1993 on account of sovereign immunity and by way of advance corporation tax rebates on dividend payments or on sums assumed to be dividend payments either directly or indirectly to the Government of Singapore.

  (6) how much has been paid by the Inland Revenue in the five years to March 1993 in the current financial year in respect of advance corporation tax rebates on dividend payments to the Government of Qatar or to any financial institution or company managing funds invested in British business on its behalf.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The normal rules of Revenue confidentiality preclude the provision of information about the affairs of named individuals or entities.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total sum repaid through the exercise of sovereign immunity in respect of the repayment of advance corporation tax relating to dividend payments to foreign Governments or to banks and financial institutions managing investments and shareholdings in British business on behalf of those Governments during each of the last seven years.
  142
  Mr. Dorrell
  The approximate amount of tax credits paid on dividends—excluding those paid direct by the payer of the dividends—on sovereign immunity grounds in the years requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  116

  1987–88

  147

  1988–89

  154

  1989–90

  147

  1990–91

  138

  1991–92

  164

  1992–93

  116

  Loan Repayment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much of the 10 billion ecu loan arranged in September 1992 has been repaid; and what was the sterling value of that amount which has been repaid on the basis of exchange rates(a) at the time the loan was arranged, (b) immediately after the devaluation of September 1992 and (c) at the time it was repaid;

  (2) how much of the 10 billion ecu loan arranged in September 1992 has been repaid; and what was the sterling value of that amount which remains outstanding on the basis of exchange rates (a) at the time the loan was arranged, (b) immediately after the devaluation of September 1992 and (c) at current exchange rates;

  (3) how much of the 10 billion ecu loan arranged in September 1992 has been drawn down; and what was the sterling value of that amount (a) when the loan was arranged, (b) immediately after the devaluation of September 1992 and (c) on the basis of current exchange rates;

  (4) what was the sterling value of the 10 billion ecu loan facility arranged in September 1992 (a) when it was arranged in September 1992, (b) after the devaluation of September 1992 and (c) at current exchange rates.

  Mr. Nelson
  The 10 billion ecu borrowing programme, announced on 3 September 1992, had three elements: an ecu 5 billion multi-currency revolving credit facility, arranged and drawn down in deutschmarks in various amounts over the month of September 1992; a DM 5 billion bond issued in October 1992; and a US$ 3 billion bond issued in December 1992.

  The actual amount of the multi-currency drawing was DM 9,944,550,000. The sterling value of this facility when it was arranged—3 September 1992—was equivalent to £3,554,798,928, and at end-September 1992 was equivalent to £3,962,761,506. The same sum in deutschmarks was the equivalent of £3,936,564,801 at the exchange rate as at the close of business in London on 23 November 1993.

  DM 5 billion as at end October 1992 was equivalent to £2,073,656,271 and, on present valuation as defined above, was equivalent to £1,979,257,383. US$ 3 billion as at end December 1992 was equivalent to £1,980,198,020 and, on present valuation as defined above, was equivalent to £2,025,931,929. None of this borrowing has been repaid.

  Taxation
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will add to the table given in the Official Report, of 3 November, column 255, estimating the tax liabilities in

  143
  1994–95 for the given income ranges showing the effect of all tax changes including those announced in the 1993 Budget and including both indirect taxation and intermediate taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on average changes in income tax and national insurance contribution liabilities is given in the tables. The figures for 1994–95 assume statutory indexation of allowances and thresholds and include measures already announced in the March 1993 Budget. It is not possible to provide an equivalent analysis of the other taxes.

  Average change in 1994–95 compared with 1993–94 indexed regime Income tax

  Range of individual's income in 1994–95

  Numbers gaining'

  Amount

  Numbers losing'

  Amount

  £

  '000s

  £

  '000s

  £

  Under 5,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,000–10,000

  4,000

  19

  1,600

  60

  10,000–15,000

  3,000

  20

  3,100

  100

  15,000–20,000

  1,300

  20

  2,700

  120

  20,000–25,000

  570

  20

  1,500

  130

  25,000–30,000

  220

  20

  980

  160

  30,000–40,000

  180

  20

  930

  350

  40,000–50,000

  60

  20

  360

  360

  50,000–70,000

  30

  20

  250

  370

  70,000–80,000

  10

  20

  50

  370

  Over 80,000

  20

  20

  170

  360

  TOTAL

  9,200

  20

  11,700

  150

  Income tax and National Insurance contributions

  Range of individual's income in 1994–95

  Numbers gaining'

  Amount

  Numbers losing'

  Amount

  £

  '000s

  £

  '000s

  £

  Under 5,000

  0

  0

  1,600

  10

  5,000–10,000

  1,200

  18

  5,700

  50

  10,000–15,000

  480

  20

  5,600

  130

  15,000–20,000

  170

  20

  3,800

  210

  20,000–25,000

  80

  20

  2,000

  260

  25,000–30,000

  40

  20

  1,200

  310

  30,000–40,000

  40

  20

  1,100

  480

  40,000–50,000

  10

  20

  400

  500

  50,000–70,000

  10

  20

  260

  510

  70,000–80,000

  —

  —

  60

  510

  Over 80,000

  10

  20

  180

  500

  TOTAL

  2,100

  20

  21,800

  170

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each civil service grade in his Departments(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Sir John Cope
  Information on the staffing in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments, as at 1 April 1993, is set out in the attached tabled.

  Staffing of Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments:

  Numbers by grade and by women employed in grade at 1 April 1993

  Total employed headcount

  Total women headcount

  Treasury (inc Forward)

  Grade 1

  5

  —

  Grade 2

  6

  1

  Grade 3

  24

  2

  144

  Total employed headcount

  Total women headcount

  Grade 4

  5

  —

  Grade 5

  68

  6

  Grade 6

  26

  —

  Grade 7

  206

  44

  Senior Executive Officer

  88

  24

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  14

  4

  Higher Executive Officer

  128

  42

  Executive Officer

  173

  67

  Administrative Officer

  245

  138

  Administrative Assistant

  100

  63

  Senior Economic Assistant

  26

  5

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  5

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  1

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  —

  Information Officer

  1

  1

  Senior Librarian

  1

  1

  Librarian

  4

  3

  Assistant Librarian

  6

  4

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  2

  —

  Professional and Technology Officer

  2

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  2

  2

  Typing Manager

  3

  3

  Senior Personal Secretary

  19

  19

  Personal Secretary

  121

  121

  Typist

  56

  55

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  —

  Senior Catering Officer

  10

  2

  Catering Manager 1

  28

  4

  Catering Manager 2

  21

  4

  Catering Manager 3

  44

  21

  Catering Manager 4

  34

  21

  Chef 1/Chief Cook 1

  1

  1

  Support Manager 1

  1

  —

  Support Manager 2

  4

  3

  Support Manager 3

  7

  2

  Support Grade Band 1

  58

  18

  Support Grade Band 2

  112

  38

  Industrial Grades

  496

  362

  Total Treasury (inc Forward)

  2,182

  1,089

  Central Statistical Office

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  Grade 3

  3

  —

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  20

  3

  Grade 6

  5

  —

  Grade 7

  77

  14

  Senior Executive Officer

  47

  15

  Higher Executive Officer

  164

  67

  Executive Officer

  356

  181

  Administrative Officer

  480

  315

  Administrative Assistant

  67

  52

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  15

  3

  Assistant Statistician

  9

  3

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  —

  Information Officer

  1

  —

  Librarian

  1

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  1

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  1

  1

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  1

  Graphics Officer

  4

  1

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  3

  3

  Personal Secretary

  23

  23

  Personal Secretary (Trainee)

  1

  —

  Typist

  20

  20

  Support Manager 3

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 1

  6

  5

  Support Grade 2

  19

  10

  Total Central Statistical Office

  1,330

  720

  145

  Total employed headcount

  Total women headcount

  Customs and Excise

  Grade 1

  1

  1

  Grade 2

  3

  —

  Grade 3

  9

  1

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  77

  4

  Grade 6

  131

  13

  Grade 7

  501

  53

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,683

  156

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  8

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  5,332

  1,195

  Executive Officer

  8,452

  3,023

  Administrative Officer

  5,758

  3,286

  Administrative Assistant

  2,392

  1,597

  Senior Economic Assistant

  1

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  3

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  —

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  4

  3

  Information Officer

  4

  2

  Assistant Information Officer

  3

  2

  Librarian

  2

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  3

  2

  Legal Officer

  3

  —

  Legal Trainee

  3

  1

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  —

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  3

  —

  Professional and Technology Officer

  6

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  3

  3

  Typing Manager

  28

  28

  Senior Personal Secretary

  13

  12

  Personal Secretary

  105

  101

  Personal Secretary (Trainee)

  9

  9

  Typist

  432

  431

  Senior Scientific Officer

  4

  2

  Higher Scientific Officer

  2

  —

  Scientific Officer

  2

  1

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  2

  1

  Higher Photographic Officer

  1

  —

  Photographic Officer

  3

  —

  Support Manager 1

  1

  —

  Support Manager 2

  2

  —

  Support Manager 3

  13

  10

  Support Grade Band 1

  174

  88

  Support Grade Band 2

  592

  247

  Higher Telecommunications Technical Officer

  1

  —

  Assistant Telecommunications Technical Officer

  1

  —

  Other

  31

  2

  Total Custom and Excise

  25,804

  10,273

  Government Actuary

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  Grade 3

  3

  —

  Grade 4

  7

  —

  Grade 6

  2

  —

  Grade 7

  1

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  3

  3

  Higher Executive Officer

  4

  —

  Executive Officer

  4

  2

  Administrative Officer

  6

  4

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  —

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  3

  3

  Typist

  11

  —

  Actuary

  22

  3

  Trainee Actuary

  14

  4

  Support Grade Band 1

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  2

  —

  Total Govemment Actuary

  76

  21

  146

  Total employed headcount

  Total women headcount

  Inland Revenue

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  Grade 2

  5

  —

  Grade 3

  21

  —

  Grade 4

  37

  —

  Grade 5

  238

  16

  Grade 6

  988

  68

  Grade 7

  2,250

  375

  Senior Executive Officer

  332

  74

  Higher Executive Officer

  641

  241

  Executive Officer

  919

  467

  Administrative Officer

  849

  538

  Administrative Assistant

  553

  402

  Economic Assistant

  1

  —

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  6

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  Legal Officer

  3

  1

  Legal Trainee

  1

  —

  Senior Graphics Officer

  1

  —

  Graphics Technical Grade

  5

  2

  Graphics Officer

  12

  9

  Trainee Graphics Officer

  1

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  23

  23

  Typing Manager

  33

  33

  Senior Personal Secretary

  23

  23

  Personal Secretary

  120

  119

  Typist

  282

  275

  Senior Scientific Officer

  3

  2

  Higher Scientific Officer

  8

  4

  Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  Senior Photgrahic Officer

  2

  1

  Photgraphic Officer

  1

  —

  Support Manager 1

  1

  —

  Support Manager 2

  6

  1

  Support Manager 3

  36

  12

  Support Grade Band 1

  284

  190

  Support Grade Band 2

  826

  228

  Departmental Grades:

  Inspector"S"

  1,059

  129

  Regional Collector

  404

  33

  Inspector

  5,069

  1,648

  Collector (HG)

  1,079

  334

  Revenue Executive

  13,486

  7,316

  Revenue Officer

  19,341

  14,310

  Revenue Assistant

  10,462

  7,316

  Certified Revenue Assistant

  4,231

  3,198

  Senior Valuer

  710

  141

  Valuer

  370

  115

  Assistant Valuer

  152

  15

  Graduate Valuer

  42

  14

  Cadet Valuer

  172

  58

  Senior Valuation Executive

  43

  3

  Staff Officer

  203

  39

  Valuation Technician/VCHG

  994

  403

  Valuation Clerk

  785

  527

  Stamping Officer

  24

  3

  Inspector of Engineering

  1

  —

  Mechanist Grade

  3

  —

  Foreman Mechanist

  1

  —

  Revenue Typing Managers

  296

  295

  Revenue Personal Secretaries

  612

  610

  Revenue Typist

  3,317

  3,294

  Industrial Grade

  7

  2

  Total Inland Revenue

  71,377

  43,030

  Department for National Savings

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  7

  1

  Grade 6

  9

  —

  Grade 7

  42

  3

  147

  Total employed headcount

  Total women headcount

  Senior Executive Officer

  122

  19

  Higher Executive Officer

  339

  129

  Executive Officer

  865

  483

  Administrative Office

  2,639

  2,020

  Administrative Assistant

  2,230

  1,638

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  2

  1

  Senior Graphics Officer

  2

  —

  Higher Graphics Officer

  2

  —

  Senior Research Officer

  2

  —

  Typing Manager

  8

  8

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  8

  8

  Typist

  93

  93

  Support Manager 2

  6

  3

  Support Manager 3

  16

  8

  Support Grade Band 1

  47

  19

  Support Grade Band 2

  120

  30

  Total Department for National Savings

  6,563

  4,464

  National Investment and Loans Office

  Grade 5

  1

  —

  Grade 7

  2

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  6

  1

  Executive Officer

  12

  4

  Administrative Officer

  8

  6

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  2

  Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Typist

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 1

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 2

  2

  2

  Total National Investments and Loans Office

  38

  20

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  Grade 2

  1

  1

  Grade 3

  1

  —

  Grade 4

  2

  —

  Grade 5

  7

  —

  Grade 6

  2

  1

  Grade 7

  21

  6

  Senior Executive Officer

  14

  4

  Higher Executive Officer

  24

  7

  Executive Officer

  30

  12

  Administrative Officer

  25

  15

  Administrative Assistant

  8

  6

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  8

  8

  Typist

  2

  2

  Support Manager 3

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 1

  2

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  8

  —

  Total Registry of Friendly Societies

  157

  64

  Royal Mint

  Grade 3

  1

  —

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  2

  —

  Grade 6

  2

  —

  Grade 7

  11

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  15

  3

  Higher Executive Officer

  16

  4

  Executive Officer

  51

  26

  Administrative Officer

  96

  66

  Administrative Assistant

  14

  13

  Museums Grade F

  1

  —

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  9

  —

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  19

  —

  148

  Total employed headcount

  Total women headcount

  Professional and Technology Officer

  77

  1

  Technical Grade 1

  2

  —

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  5

  5

  Typist

  8

  8

  Senior Scientific Officer

  2

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  3

  1

  Scientific Officer

  15

  1

  Higher Photographic Officer

  1

  —

  Photographic Officer

  1

  —

  Process and General Supervisory Grade D

  2

  —

  Support Grade Band 1

  7

  3

  Support Grand Band 2

  14

  13

  Departmental Grades

  6

  —

  Industrial Grades

  590

  19

  Total Royal Mint

  973

  165

  The Office of Her Majesty's Paymaster General

  Grade 5

  1

  —

  Grade 6

  3

  —

  Grade 7

  9

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  26

  6

  Higher Executive Officer

  97

  47

  Executive Officer

  175

  112

  Administrative Officer

  395

  315

  Administrative Assistant

  202

  170

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  3

  3

  Typist

  9

  9

  Support Manager 3

  2

  2

  Support Grade Band 1

  8

  8

  Support Grade Band 2

  25

  14

  Total Office Of Paymaster General

  956

  688

  VAT
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims by do-it-yourself house-builders, for refund of value-added tax under the provisions of Customs and Excise notice No. 719 were met in whole or in part during the years ended 31 December 1991 and 31 December 1992 and the half-year ended 30 June 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  The number of claims for refund of VAT by do-it-yourself house-builders met in whole or in part is as follows:

  Number

  1 January to 31 December 1991

  9,515

  1 January to 31 December 1992

  10,896

  1 January to 30 June 1993

  5,060

  Private Electricity Supply Companies
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority private electricity supply companies may charge customers who pay bills in monthly instalments the new rate of VAT prospectively, to cover all instalments up to next April.

  Sir John Cope
  For VAT purposes, supplies of electricity are treated as taking place each time a payment is received by the supplier or a tax invoice is issued by him,
  149
  whichever is the earlier. The rate of tax to be charged will normally be the rate in force at that time. Consumers should not be charged VAT on any payments made by them before 1 April 1994.

  EC Trade Deficit
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to correct the trade deficit with EC partners; what is his current policy on the pound/ deutschmark exchange rate; if he will make it his policy to allow the rate to float; and what has been his policy on the exchange rate in the last three months.

  Mr. Nelson
  The balance of trade with European countries reflects a range of factors, including the effects of the recession in continental Europe. The key to United Kingdom producers' future success both as exporters and in competition with imports in domestic markets is their ability to keep costs down and quality high. The Government have facilitated this by getting inflation down to its lowest level for a generation.

  I have no specific target for the pound/deutschmark exchange rate nor for the sterling exchange rate index. But the exchange rate and domestic indicators, including the growth of the money supply and the behaviour of asset prices, are taken into account in guiding monetary policy.

WALES

  Queensferry Roundabout
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had concerning his proposals to widen the highway Queensferry-Aston-Ewloe roundabout.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement of results of the public consultation and reasons for the choice of the preferred route for the proposed A494 trunk road, River Dee to Ewloe improvement, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses were sold, giving the amount of cash gained by their sale, in 1990, 1991, 1992 and for the current year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of local authority dwellings sold and their total selling prices are given in the table.

  Sales of local authority dwellings in Wales1

  Number of sales

  Total selling prices £ millions

  1990

  6,377

  81.4

  1991

  3,642

  52.7

  1992

  2,767

  43.2

  January-June 1993

  1,170

  18.1

  1Excludes new town sales.

  Source: Local authority returns.

  Buckley-Clwyd Relief Road
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to authorise the construction of the Buckley-Clwyd inner relief road; what is its likely cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This is a Clwyd county council scheme. The council has made a side roads order for the scheme and submitted it to my right hon. Friend for confirmation. The objection period expires on 26 November after which date a decision will be taken on whether an inquiry is necessary. I have no details on the cost of this scheme.

  School Building Works
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement concerning the prospect for the modernisation of the Llay Park county primary school, Llay, Clwyd;

  (2) if he will make a statement concerning the prospects and timetable for the building extension project for Hope high school, Clwyd.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Matters relating to the prospect of building works are for the local education authority and the school concerned.

  Clwyd Alyn Estate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Clwyd Alyn housing association estate at Garden City, Deeside.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Arrangements for my forthcoming visit to the Alyn and Deeside district have yet to be agreed.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what moneys he has made available to Clwyd Alyn housing association to enable it to modernise its garden city estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Housing for Wales has agreed to provide up to £2.5 million of grant funding. Together with private finance, this is expected to meet the eligible costs to Clwyd Alyn housing association of works on the houses on the garden city estate.

  Roads Projects
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the start date and what is the cost, respectively, of the roads projects on Deeside at(a) A550 Shotwick-Woodbank-Drome corner, (b) the Aston Hill road widening, (c) the Ewloe roundabout interchange and (d) the new River Dee crossing scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the 1993 Supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s".

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how his Department was represented at the conference on development of wind energy in rural communities held at Stoneleigh on 11 November.
  151
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department was not represented at the conference.

  Alltami Bypass
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for a bypass of Alltami, near Mold; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Plans for the improvement of the A494 trunk road between Mold and Ewloe are shown in the 1933 supplement to "Roads in Wales, Progress and Plans for the 1990s". The scheme is shown in the long term with construction not likely to begin before April 1999. The hon. Gentleman may wish to be aware that the public will be consulted on alternative routes and a consultation exercise is planned for early in the new year.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total salary costs for(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the national health service in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  a. Administrative and Clerical

  64,001

  73,218

  84,648

  b. Managerial

  6,479

  9,207

  16,849

  c. Nursing

  338,195

  364,485

  402,503

  Source: Health Authorities' Annual Accounts.

  Notes:
  i. Figures include expenditure by Health Authorities, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales but exclude that of Family Health Services Authorities whose corresponding costs are not identifiable on the same basis.
  ii. It should be noted that over the period senior managers' terms and conditions of service have been extended to second and third level managers and some senior nurses and other professional staff have transferred to the senior management grades. The introduction of Project 2000 nursing reforms has led to the reclassification of student nurses from salaried nurses to bursaried students; and there has also been a growth in the number of healthcare assistants who are paid on local pay scales and are not classified as nursing staff.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the NHS in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information, which relates to the whole-time equivalent of staff employed as at 30 September, is as follows:

  Administrative and Clerical

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Managerial1

  Other

  Other

  Learners2

  Total

  1989

  187

  7,378

  24,919

  3,118

  28,037

  1990

  416

  7,653

  25,018

  3,075

  28,093

  1991

  683

  8,050

  25,028

  2,934

  27,962

  1992

  848

  8,347

  25,451

  1,970

  27,421

  1993

  1,028

  8,577

  25,206

  1,033

  26,239

  Notes:

  Includes staff employed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and those Family Health Service Authorities using District Health Authority payroll systems.
  152
  The use of locally devised payscales from 1991 onwards may affect the comparability of figures as these staff cannot be allocated centrally to a specific staff group and are not, therefore, included above.

  1General managers, senior managers and managers. The growth in the number of these staff arises partly from the extension in 1989 of senior manager terms and conditions of service to second and third level managers including some managers in staff groups other than administrative and clerical.

  2 Since the autumn of 1991 student nurses have been classified as students and are no longer included in the NHS staff figures. Staff numbers shown in the table in 1992 and 1993 are students finishing pre Project 2000 courses. There were some 1,800 Project 2000 student nurses at September 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime, North West
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent crime figures for the North West.

  Mr. Howard
  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in the north west region rose by 2.6 per cent. in the 12 months ending June 1993 compared with an increase of 3.8 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole.

  Police Reform
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reaction he has had to his announcement on reform of the police force on the basis of the Sheehy report.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received widespread support for the broad thrust of his proposals.

  Prison Population
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are detained in prisons; and what the figures were five and 10 years previously.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Friday 19 November 1993 there were 47,360 prisoners in prison service accommodation and 28 in police cells, giving a total of 47,388 in prisons in custody.

  Only end of month figures are available for the earlier years. The figure for 30 November 1988 was 50,365, including 1,025 in police cells. The figure for 30 November 1983 was 43,895, including 551 in police cells.

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his policy towards the use of prison ships.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Marine detention facilities are one of the options being considered as part of prison service contingency planning. The aim is to identify options for coping with levels of prisoner population that exceed available prison accommodation.

  Intimidation of Witnesses
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the intimidation of witnesses; and if he will make a statement.
  153
  Mr. Maclean
  There is a deep seated public concern, reflected in correspondence I have received and in more general reports, about the intimidation of witnesses and other citizens who assist the police in the fight against crime. We intend to meet that concern by inviting Parliament to approve a new offence of witness intimidation intended to supplemene the existing criminal law in this area.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has conducted into the effectiveness of custodial sentences in preventing crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  The research and statistics department of the Home Office regularly publishes material which is relevant to the consideration of the effectiveness of sentencing.

  A recent Home Office study of 193 burglars given community service orders in 1987 produced results suggesting that imprisoning them for one year could have prevented between three and 13 crimes per burglar.

  Crime (Research)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations he has carried out into the causes of crime; and what conclusions he has come to.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office research and planning unit has carried out a number of research studies, which have dealt with the predictors of offending. They show that the reasons why people become offenders are complex and wide ranging.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his plans to abolish the right to silence.

  Mr. Maclean
  I intend to bring forward legislation which will allow the courts to draw proper inferences from a defendant's silence, either when questioned by the police or during the trial.

  Police Bureaucracy
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers will be returned to operational duties by his plans to cut paperwork and to reduce the number of police middle managers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This will be for individual chief constables to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of their own forces. But my right hon. and learned Friend has made it possible for some 5,300 police officers to be redeployed to front line operational police duties.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prisons he plans to have built in the next five years.
  154
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The new prison at Doncaster is due to be completed and opened in April 1994. Six new prisons are to be built under the private sector design, control and finance initiative announced on 2 September.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his response to the Sheehy report on police pay and responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

  Capital Punishment
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reintroduce capital punishment for the murder of a policeman.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no such plans. Matters relating to capital punishment are traditionally decided by a free vote in Parliament with Members voting in accordance with their own judgment of the issues involved.

  Police, Derbyshire
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase the number of police officers in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Derbyshire, in common with all other police authorities, has made an application for extra officers. Decisions on these applications will be made when the level of police funding in 1994–95 has been decided.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those who received enbargoed copies of the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the Derbyshire constabulary prior to its publication on 16 November; and on what dates copies were forwarded to each of the hon. Members representing parliamentary constituencies within Derbyshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that in accordance with normal practice, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary sent embargoed copies of the report to the police authority and the force. Reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary are not routinely sent to hon. Members but copies are placed in the Library on the day of publication.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has an important effect in reducing the number of people who are able to travel to the United Kingdom without proper documents. Our strategy for its operation combines extensive training and guidance for carriers with the vigorous pursuit of charges incurred.

  Country Sports
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to uphold the right to take part in lawful country sports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in drawing up plans to prevent the disruption of legal country sports.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We will introduce in the Criminal Justice Bill, to be brought forward this session, a criminal offence of aggravated trespass to ensure that the police have the necessary powers to prevent or to deal with those trespassers who seek to obstruct or disrupt a lawful activity.

  Police, Northumbria
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what submission has been made to him for extra police officers in the Northumbria police authority area for 1994–95.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received an application from the Northumbria police authority for 80 additional police posts for 1994–95.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he now intends to introduce double summer time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 4 November 1993 at column 363.

  Certain notifiable offences recorded by the police in Lewisham

  Year

  Rape

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Theft from a vehicle

  Incidents of domestic violence

  1985

  14

  4,218

  3,981

  43

  1986

  32

  4,748

  5,181

  33

  1987

  24

  4,042

  5,578

  70

  1988

  41

  4,899

  4,823

  78

  1989

  27

  5,193

  4,874

  152

  1990

  32

  5,966

  4,210

  169

  1991

  57

  5,555

  4,694

  321

  1992

  43

  6,322

  4,454

  357

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will categorise the violent crimes recorded by the police in Lewisham for each year since 1985; and how many cases of violent crime recorded in Lewisham in each such year resulted in a conviction.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table. It is not possible to link recorded crime statistics with convictions, as the information collected on convictions is compiled on a different basis.

  Shamrock Farms (Primates)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in the case of the conditions and handling of imported primates by Shamrock Farms, Brighton.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The actions I required to be taken following the investigation last year were set out in the reply given to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 2 December 1992 at columns 215-16. The further action which I took to monitor progress in implementing my requirements, was described in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on 1 April 1993 at column 383-84. Since then, I have continued to receive regular reports from the Animals (Scientific Procedures) inspectorate, and these show that satisfactory progress is being made in accordance with my instructions.

  Crime Statistics, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal offences were recorded by the police in Lewisham in(a) 1985 and (b) 1992; and how many in each case resulted in a conviction.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her question on 18 October 1993 at columns 143-44.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each year since 1985 how many(a) rapes, (b) burglaries in dwellings, (c) thefts from vehicles and (d) incidents of domestic violence were recorded by the police in Lewisham; and how many of these resulted in a conviction.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to notifiable offences recorded by the police and is, given in the table. It is not possible to link recorded crime statistics with convictions, as the information collected on convictions is compiled on a different basis.

  Offences of violent crime recorded in Lewisham

  Year

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  1985

  644

  102

  580

  1986

  695

  133

  616

  1987

  728

  103

  897

  1988

  846

  155

  688

  1989

  1,170

  147

  644

  1990

  1,269

  145

  810

  1991

  1,471

  169

  1,181

  1992

  1,324

  196

  1,127

  Police Establishment
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the police establishment for each sector within the Metropolitan police force for April 1992 and for each month thereafter; including details of supernumerary posts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers there are in each rank of the police force; and how many are(a) women, (b) black and (c) Asian.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Table 1 gives the numbers of women officers and of officers from ethnic minorities in the police service as at 31 August 1993, the latest date for which this information is available.

  More detailed data on officers from ethnic minority groups is collected only annually. Table 2 gives numbers of black and Asian officers, reported by police forces as at 31 December 1992.

  Table 1

  Police ranks

  Total strength

  Women Officers

  Officers from ethnic minorities

  Chief Constable

  50

  0

  0

  Deputy Chief Constable

  55

  0

  0

  Assistant Chief Constable

  127

  5

  0

  Chief Superintendent

  509

  11

  1

  Superintendent

  1,402

  31

  3

  Chief Inspector

  2,179

  56

  5

  Inspector

  6,979

  241

  31

  Sergeant

  20,201

  1,041

  111

  Constable

  96,593

  15,148

  1,699

  Total

  128,095

  16,533

  1,850

  Table 2

  Police Ranks

  Black Officers

  Asian Officers

  Chief Constable

  0

  0

  Deputy Chief Constable

  0

  0

  Assistant Chief Constable

  0

  0

  Chief Superintendent

  0

  0

  Superintendent

  0

  1

  Chief Inspector

  4

  0

  Inspector

  12

  10

  Sergeant

  55

  40

  Constable

  900

  429

  Total

  971

  480

  Extradition
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of extradition cases in which the British Government are now involved which seek the return of a British national to the United Kingdom to face criminal charges.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are currently seeking the extradition of 37 British nationals to the United Kingdom to face criminal charges. This does not include people whose return is sought from the Republic of Ireland under arrangements for the mutual backing of warrants.
  158
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of the proposals by the EC Justice Ministers at Limelette, Belgium, on 27-28 September, to draw up a new convention on extradition.

  Mr. Maclean
  At the Limelette meeting, EC Justice Ministers agreed a declaration instructing the judicial co-operation working group on criminal matters to continue with work initiated during the United Kingdom"s presidency of the European Community to find ways of improving and simplifying extradition arrangements between the Twelve which are at present conducted mainly under the 1957 European convention on extradition. The group was invited to examine and report to Ministers in a year on a number of possible measures which, if adopted, would streamline extradition between the Twelve, and on whether such measures might be incorporated in a new convention between the Twelve.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were extradited to the United Kingdom from countries overseas in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table. It does not include people returned from the Republic of Ireland under arrangements for the mutual backing of warrants.

  Year

  Number extradited

  1988

  14

  1989

  17

  1990

  21

  1991

  25

  1992

  17

  11993

  15

  1to date

  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils have been deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information available relates to all Sri Lankan citizens deported and is given in the table. No distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans.

  Sri Lankan citizens removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process

  Year

  Number

  1991

  4

  1992

  6

  11993

  5

  1January to September

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present position of the Sri Lankan Tamils at present detained at Harmondsworth detention centre, stating how long each person has been detained at this centre, what is the reason for their being detained there and when he expects a decision regarding their case to be arrived at.
  159
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 23 November five Sri Lankan citizens were detained at Harmondsworth detention centre. Three had been held since July—14, 16 and 24 respectively —one since 21 August and one since 6 October. The reason for detention in each case was that the immigration service was not satisfied the applicant would comply with conditions of temporary admission. Four of the applicants have been refused asylum and await determination of their appeals. A decision on the one remaining appliction will be taken as soon as possible.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils are at present detained in prison in England and Wales awaiting adjudicators' decisions as to their status and right to remain in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Hunting (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of(a) cases brought against and (b) successful prosecutions of (i) hunt saboteurs for violence against hunters and hunt followers and (ii) hunters and hunt followers for violence against hunt saboteurs in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is set out as follows. The figures represent staff in the Home Office and its agencies on 22 November 1993 including those on loan or outward secondment.

  Total

  Total/Female

  Administrative Assistant

  2,155

  1,585

  Administrative Officer

  4,457

  3,127

  Administrative Trainee

  9

  2

  Assistant Chief Officer

  3

  0

  Assistant Director

  8

  0

  Assistant Divisional Officer

  5

  0

  Assistant Immigration Officer

  42

  23

  Assistant Information Officer

  7

  2

  Assistant Inspector of Fire Services

  28

  0

  Assistant Librarian

  14

  9

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  91

  69

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  Assistant Storeperson

  112

  8

  C. of E./R.C. Chaplain (P/T)

  132

  27

  C. of E. Chaplain

  103

  5

  Chaplain General Prisons

  1

  0

  Chief Education Officer

  1

  0

  Chief Immigration Officer

  360

  51

  Chief Inspector-Animals S.P. Inspector

  1

  0

  Chief Typing Manager

  4

  4

  Commandant

  1

  0

  Communications Officer 2

  1

  0

  Communications Officer 3

  8

  0

  Consultant Voluntary Services Unit

  2

  2

  Divisional Officer 1

  1

  0

  Divisional Officer 2

  1

  0

  Executive Officer

  2,126

  1,177

  Farm Manager 1

  6

  0

  160

  Total

  Total/Female

  Farm Manager 1A

  15

  0

  Farm Manager 2

  11

  0

  Farm Manager 3

  25

  1

  Farm Manager 4

  19

  0

  Farms and Gardens Officer

  4

  0

  Fireground Supervisor

  1

  0

  Governor 1

  38

  0

  Governor 2

  85

  7

  Governor 3

  115

  13

  Governor 4

  308

  38

  Governor 5

  458

  31

  Governor 5 (APS)1

  22

  5

  Grade 1 (PUSS)

  1

  0

  Grade 2 (DUSS)

  8

  0

  Grade 3

  25

  7

  Grade 4

  4

  0

  Grade 5

  96

  23

  Grade 6

  102

  13

  Grade 7

  613

  157

  Graphics Officer

  14

  3

  Graphics Technical Grade

  1

  1

  Head of Department 3

  1

  0

  Head of Department 4

  1

  0

  Head of Department 5

  1

  0

  Head of Department 6

  1

  0

  Head Pharmacist

  1

  0

  Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  24

  10

  Higher Executive Officer

  1,171

  475

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  0

  Higher Instructional Officer

  28

  2

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  134

  5

  Higher Psychologist

  45

  31

  Higher Scientific Officer

  182

  81

  Higher Telecommunications Technical Officer

  41

  0

  HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services

  1

  0

  HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary

  1

  0

  HM Inspector of Fire Services 1

  2

  0

  HM Inspector of Fire Services 2

  7

  0

  HM Inspector of Constabulary

  4

  0

  Immigration Officer

  2,113

  782

  Industrial

  3,024

  205

  Information Officer

  18

  13

  Inspector (Immigration Service)

  69

  0

  Inspector—Animals S.P. Inspector

  19

  2

  Instructional Officer I

  1,049

  149

  Instructional Officer II

  2

  0

  Interpreter

  7

  2

  Lecturer 2

  24

  6

  Legal Officer

  3

  2

  Librarian

  8

  5

  Matron Housekeeper

  1

  1

  Medical Officer

  81

  6

  Medical Officer (P/T)

  112

  6

  Night Patrol

  949

  84

  Nursing Grade A

  5

  4

  Nursing Grade C

  60

  56

  Nursing Grade D

  100

  82

  Nursing Grade E

  86

  60

  Nursing Grade F

  118

  100

  Nursing Grade G

  30

  23

  Nursing Grade H

  7

  6

  Personal Secretary

  492

  490

  Pharmacist

  19

  13

  Pharmacy Technician

  23

  21

  Principal Lecturer

  3

  0

  Principal Medical Officer

  6

  1

  Principal Officer

  1,378

  44

  Principal Officer (APS)1

  36

  10

  Principal RC Chaplain

  1

  0

  Prison Auxiliary

  1,553

  302

  Prison Officer

  19,002

  1,775

  Prison Officer (APS)1

  37

  19

  Professional and Technology Officer

  99

  11

  Psychological Assistant

  40

  27

  Psychologist

  1

  0

  Psychologist-Graduate Trainee

  26

  19

  R.C. Chaplain

  15

  1

  161

  Total

  Total/Female

  Regional Catering Manager

  6

  0

  Research Officer (Social Science)

  16

  9

  Scientific Officer

  117

  66

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  8

  2

  Senior Divisional Officer

  1

  0

  Senior Executive Officer

  429

  128

  Senior Information Officer

  10

  4

  Senior Inspector-Animals S.P. Inspector

  3

  0

  Senior Instructional Officer

  1

  0

  Senior Lecturer

  4

  0

  Senior Legal Assistant

  2

  1

  Senior Librarian

  1

  1

  Senior Medical Officer

  39

  5

  Senior Officer

  3,395

  157

  Senior Personal Secretary

  42

  42

  Senior Pharmacist

  1

  0

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  168

  1

  Senior Psychologist

  47

  29

  Senior Research Officer (Social Science)

  11

  6

  Senior Scientific Officer

  193

  31

  Senior Telecoms Technical Officer

  1

  0

  Staff Principal Pharmacist

  5

  0

  Storeperson

  461

  21

  Stores Officer Grade A

  1

  0

  Stores Officer Grade B

  2

  0

  Stores Officer Grade C

  11

  2

  Stores Officer Grade D

  12

  3

  Support Grade Band 1

  152

  105

  Support Grade Band 2

  734

  446

  Support Manager 1

  1

  0

  Support Manager 2

  4

  3

  Support Manager 3

  14

  13

  Technical Grade 1

  16

  4

  Technical Grade 2

  8

  3

  Telecom Engineering Technician

  195

  1

  Telecom Technical Enginer II

  58

  0

  Telecoms Technical Officer

  2

  0

  Temporary Prison Officer

  4

  4

  Territorial Inspector

  5

  0

  Trainee Graphics Officer

  1

  1

  Trainee Statistician

  1

  1

  Trainee Typist

  1

  1

  Typing Manager

  32

  32

  Typist

  772

  771

  Note:

  1 APS—Accelerated Promotion Scheme.

  Mr. Anthony Stock
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make a statement concerning the conviction of Mr. Anthony Stock for robbery.

  Table 1

  Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 convicted at juvenile and magistrates' courts within the Lewisham area by type of offence 1985–19921

  PSD/type of offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Lewisham juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  29

  22

  22

  16

  10

  10

  6

  6

  Sexual offences

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Burglary

  61

  53

  41

  36

  29

  15

  9

  8

  Robbery

  12

  2

  16

  9

  7

  4

  9

  8

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  181

  123

  109

  76

  38

  35

  14

  11

  Fraud and forgery

  5

  2

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Criminal damage

  7

  7

  7

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Drug offences

  8

  8

  1

  1

  6

  1

  3

  3

  Other (excluding motoring)

  4

  3

  10

  7

  4

  7

  7

  2

  Motoring offences

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  307

  221

  210

  149

  97

  73

  49

  46

  Greenwich juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  16

  18

  17

  23

  24

  25

  16

  19

  162
  Mr. Maclean
  On 24 November my right hon. and learned Friend referred Mr. Stock's conviction to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

  Metropolitan Police Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residential properties are owned by the Metropolitan police; and how many of these are currently empty.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that, as at 31 October 1993, the receiver to the Metropolitan police district owned 2,241 residential properties for police purposes.

  A total of 323 were leased to housing associations and 148 were vacant. Of the 148 vacancies, 69 were allocated to officers who had not taken occupation; 34 were vacant for sale on the open market; 29 were vacant and available for allocation; and 16 were vacant for building works.

  Policy Records
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether personal or police records for which his Department has responsibility have been transferred to the far east for the purpose of making microfiche copies.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. But we have not ruled out the possibility that work on the computerisation of criminal records currently held on microfiche might be carried out in the far east or anywhere else, provided that rigorous safeguards for security and confidentiality are in place. We expect to announce our decision on this matter next spring.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the most common crimes committed by juveniles in Lewisham in each year since 1985; and of those juveniles convicted of an offence over this period what was the average sentence served.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information available centrally on juveniles aged 10 to under 17 years within the Lewisham area is given in the tables.
  163

  PSD/type of offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Sexual offences

  3

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Burglary

  51

  51

  48

  40

  43

  37

  22

  11

  Robbery

  7

  1

  1

  7

  2

  8

  14

  6

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  159

  119

  130

  101

  73

  62

  48

  33

  Fraud and forgery

  4

  5

  3

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Criminal damage

  6

  3

  5

  5

  8

  10

  5

  4

  Drug offences

  4

  3

  3

  3

  6

  7

  3

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  4

  2

  8

  9

  9

  5

  3

  7

  Motoring offences

  1

  3

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total Indictable offences

  255

  207

  218

  194

  168

  154

  113

  84

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Sexual offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Burglary

  2

  1

  2

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  11

  15

  8

  3

  1

  1

  8

  3

  Fraud and forgery

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Drug offences

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  16

  20

  15

  9

  2

  3

  17

  8

  Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  3

  5

  1

  3

  —

  4

  1

  2

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  5

  7

  3

  4

  4

  4

  2

  2

  1Provisional.

  Table 2

  Average sentence length (months) given at juvenile and magistrates' courts for offences commited by juveniles within the Lewisham area by type of offence 1985–19921

  PSD/type of offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Lewisham juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  2.2

  2.9

  —

  1.9

  —

  6.0

  3.0

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  2.8

  2.3

  1.0

  3.3

  6.0

  2.5

  —

  —

  Robbery

  3.0

  —

  3.2

  0.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  2.5

  3.8

  3.1

  3.1

  —

  0–7

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  2.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  0.9

  1.4

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  2.6

  2.8

  2.9

  2.8

  6.0

  2.8

  3.0

  —

  Greenwich juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  —

  3.5

  1.9

  4.0

  —

  —

  4.0

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  4.1

  3.2

  3.8

  3.9

  5.1

  3.3

  3.0

  4.0

  Robbery

  0.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.0

  6.0

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  3.7

  4.0

  3.7

  2.5

  —

  0.7

  4.5

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  3.0

  —

  —

  3.0

  6.0

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  3.6

  3.7

  3.6

  3.0

  5.2

  2.8

  4.4

  5.0

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.4

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  4.0

  —

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  164 165

  PSD/type of offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  3.0

  4.0

  —

  4.0

  —

  1.4

  —

  —

  >Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  3.0

  —

  —

  0.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Provisional

  Table 3

  Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 convicted at the Crown Court by committing petty sessional division within the Lewisham area and type of offence 1985–19921

  Committing PSD/type of offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Lewisham juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Burglary

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  3

  —

  4

  3

  1

  1

  5

  3

  Greenwich juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Burglary

  5

  3

  —

  1

  5

  4

  1

  —

  Robbery

  5

  —

  1

  4

  4

  5

  —

  1

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  13

  7

  2

  6

  12

  12

  2

  3

  Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  1

  5

  —

  4

  4

  —

  1

  —

  Robbery

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  166 167

  Committing PSD/type of offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  2

  8

  3

  6

  7

  1

  4

  —

  1 Provisional

  Table 4

  Average sentence length (months) given at the Crown Court for offences committed by juveniles by committing petty sessional division within the Lewisham area and type of offence 1985–19921

  Committing PSD/type of offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Lewisham juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  9.0

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  —

  —

  —

  9.5

  —

  —

  6.0

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.0

  —

  —

  12.0

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  9.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  9.0

  —

  3.0

  7.3

  12.0

  —

  6.0

  12.0

  Greenwich juvenile court

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  —

  —

  12.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  —

  —

  12.0

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  —

  Greenwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  —

  6.0

  —

  —

  8.0

  —

  —

  6.0

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  3.5

  4.0

  —

  —

  4.3

  10.0

  —

  9.0

  Robbery

  10.0

  —

  —

  7.5

  —

  5.3

  —

  9.0

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  12.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  7.9

  5.0

  —

  7.5

  5.3

  6.5

  —

  8.0

  Woolwich Petty Sessional Division

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.0

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  —

  6.0

  —

  5.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  6.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  12.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Indictable offences

  —

  7.0

  —

  5.2

  2.0

  —

  —

  —

  1 Provisional.

  Racial Offences
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has pursued to help combat racial attacks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have on many occasions expressed their abhorrence of racial violence and harassment and fully supports police efforts to tackle racially motivated crime.
  168
  In 1989 the inter-departmental racial attacks group, chaired by the Home Office, produced its first report stressing the importance of dealing with racial attacks as a priority task and recommending a multi-agency approach to combatting racial crimes. The report was distributed to all local authorities and to all police forces, and the implementation of the recommendations by forces has been monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  A follow-up report was published in January 1992, which detailed progress made so far, noted good practice,

  169
  and proposed how the police and local agencies might further develop their response to racial attacks and harassment.

  National and local police training addresses the issue of radical attacks, as part of a wider programme of race awareness training. The Home Office funds the specialist support unit in police-community' and race relations training, which deals among other matters with racial attacks training for police trainers.

  Each year the Home Office sponsors the Holly Royde seminar on community and race relations which brings together police officers from forces across the country with the purpose of addressing community and race relations issues in an operational context and developing action plans for implementation in forces.

  Other initiatives include:
  the establishment in 1988 of a Home Office-funded pilot multi-agency project in Newham, East London, which produced a report in 1991 providing a detailed understanding of the practice of multi-agency co-ordination;
  the production of a crime prevention leaflet on racial attacks in several different ethnic minority languages, and encouragement of reporting of incidents through poster campaigns;
  Home Office sponsored research on victimisation in east London and Manchester.
  The Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into racial attacks and harassment. I gave evidence in July. Future Government action will be informed by the Committee's recommendations.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been prosecuted to date under part III of the Public Order Act 1986—racial hatred —for offences committed at a designated football match.

  Mr. Maclean
  Court proceedings data collected centrally do not detail the circumstances and/or the venue where the offence took place.

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards home leave for violent or dangerous prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government fully recognise and share public concern that prisoners who present a risk to public safety should not be released on home leave. Steps to tighten the existing procedures governing the grant of home leave were introduced in October 1992 to ensure that no prisoner who is eligible to be considered for an initial period of home leave should be recommended for release into the community before a detailed and thorough risk assessment of his or her potential danger to the public has been carried out. This is particularly important in the case of any offender with violent or dangerous propensities or antecedents.

  Guidance to governors on the operation of home leave, including the risk assessment procedure is contained in "Circular Instruction 43/92", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  The prison service is presently conducting a review of the operation of the home leave and temporary release schemes. The working group undertaking the review is tasked with ensuring that public safety is not compromised by offenders being allowed leave as part of their gradual re-integration into society. It includes representatives from
  170
  the police and probation services, and from Victim Support as well as the prison service. The working group's programme of work is nearing completion following which we shall study its report and any recommendations it may make, with great care.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a full trial into a scheme for young offenders to receive training at sea on the vessel Excelsior, at Lowestoft, for periods of up to three months, to be deducted from their sentences if they passed the training satisfactorily.

  Mr. Maclean
  Funds are available through the probation supervision grants scheme for voluntary organisations providing sail and similarly challenging training to operate projects designed to strengthen the range and content of programmes for the supervision of offenders who are serving sentences in the community. I see a number of benefits from this approach, and will want to test the effectiveness of this kind of training and consider the scope for integrating it into other sentences. We are discussing with a number of probation services the extent to which offenders could participate in Excelsior Sailing Trust activities, which could be funded under the scheme.

  Fast Response Cars
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fast response police cars are currently in use in the metropolis; for which main purposes they are used; how many officers are directly involved in driving them; what is the cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that 339 fast response cars are presently used by the Metropolitan police. The main purpose of such vehicles is to respond to emergency calls. They are also used for general patrol duties. A total of 2,077 officers have authority to drive these vehicles. The approximate total annual cost for the purchase, maintenance and other running costs is £2.94 million.

  Prisoners' Families (Visits)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the commitment by the Prison Service to pay for the travel costs of prisoners' families to make a second visit each month to their family member in prison where such families are eligible to receive public funds for such travel.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters have been delegated to the director general of the prison service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 25 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the position regarding the proposed extension of the Assisted Visits scheme to cover the second statutory monthly visit.
  The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" included a commitment to consider extensions of the scheme as resources permit. We also have indicated in the Prison Service Business plan that the extension should take place this financial year.

  171
  No final decision on this matter has been taken. It will be necessary to do so in the light of the resources available to the Prison Service. I am afraid that it is not yet possible to say when it will be possible to finance the second visit per month. You may be assured, however, that we are well aware of the need to maintain close prisoner and family ties and the importance which prisoners and their families attach to visits.

  Prison National Standards
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the document concerning the prison national standards will be published.

  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 Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 25 November 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about when the document concerning the Prison National Standards will be published.
  Drafting work on a Code of Standards for the Prison Service is nearing completion and we expect to publish it shortly.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to enable owners of relevant breeds to remove their dogs' muzzles to allow them to drink or to receive veterinary attention in a public place, especially if this is within a private motor vehicle.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government do not intend to weaken protection afforded by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Recent tragic events have shown how wrong this would be.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many fatalities there have been due to dog attacks since Royal Assent was given to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; if he will name the breed of each dog involved; and whether it was registered under the Act;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 following the recent death in Cleveland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The tragic events in Cleveland underline the need for the strict provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act, and how right the Government have been not to heed those who have sought to weaken it.

  I understand that the dog involved in the Cleveland attack was identified by a veterinary surgeon as being a pit bull terrier type, with some mastiff or bull mastiff qualities. It has not been registered under the Act.

  In other words, it fell within the Act's definition of a dog of the type known as a pit bull terrier.

  I am aware of one other fatal injury caused by dogs since the coming into force of the Dangerous Dogs Act on 12 August 1991. This occurred in November 1991, and involved an attack on a boy by his family's pets, a Lakeland terrier, a great dane and a German shepherd, none of which are required to be registered under the Act.

  Security Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Director General of the Security Service is on performance-related pay.
  172
  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Criminal Compensation
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received respecting recent changes in criminal compensation rules; what has been the nature of these representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since announcing last November our intention to replace the present criminal injuries compensation scheme with a tariff scheme next year we have received representations and comment from a number of hon. Members, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, representative bodies of the legal profession, Victim Support local schemes and the national office, the Trades Union Congress and members of the public.

  The representations have covered a range of issues, the main ones being the rationale for the change, the scope of the new arrangements, the way in which the new scheme will be administered and the appeal arrangements.

  Ministerial Letters
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials are currently involved in drafting replies to letters for Ministers in his Department to sign.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Many officials are involved as part of their normal duties in drafting replies for Ministers.

  "A False Sense of Security"
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the document, "A False Sense of Security" published by the Children's Society, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what initiatives or policy changes he intends to put forward in response to that report.

  Mr. Maclean
  The second report of The Children's Society's advisory committee on young offenders, "A False Sense of Security", will be launched at a one day conference organised by The Children's Society today, 25 November 1993, at which I shall be giving a key note address. My right hon. and learned Friend and I will be giving careful consideration to the contents of the report.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide(a) an estimate of the total number of claims expected for prescribed disease D12—coal miners' chronic bronchitis and emphysema—in each of the first three years following its prescription, (b) an estimate of the total number of awards expected for prescribed disease D12 in each of the first three years following its prescription and (c) an estimate of the total annual expenditure, pursuant to such awards over each of the three years in question.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of claims cannot be predicted with any certainty but operational plans have provided for
  173
  handling 80,000-90,000 claims in the first year following prescription. The estimated total annual benefit cost is £6 million, based on the assumption that around 9,000 benefit awards will be made, nearly all in the first year. The numbers of new claims and awards in second and subsequent years are expected to be small.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many industrial disablement claims for

  Asbestos related diseases First examination and those re-examined where the diseases were not previousy diagnosed

  References

  Positive diagnosis

  D1

  D3

  D8

  D9

  Total

  D1

  D3

  D8

  D9

  Total

  1991

  Cardiff

  68

  72

  26

  57

  223

  32

  67

  5

  22

  126

  Glasgow

  227

  65

  32

  32

  356

  68

  58

  9

  22

  157

  London

  105

  192

  38

  73

  408

  49

  180

  6

  18

  253

  Manchester

  158

  63

  51

  29

  301

  63

  56

  11

  10

  140

  Newcastle

  944

  67

  35

  90

  1,136

  53

  61

  9

  23

  146

  Sheffield

  107

  80

  30

  78

  295

  45

  74

  6

  41

  166

  Stoke

  25

  26

  17

  23

  91

  14

  20

  4

  8

  46

  Swansea

  13

  4

  11

  12

  40

  6

  3

  5

  5

  19

  All Centres

  1,647

  569

  240

  394

  2,850

  330

  519

  55

  149

  1,053

  1992

  Cardiff

  70

  49

  29

  47

  195

  53

  42

  8

  17

  120

  Glasgow

  295

  88

  27

  45

  455

  96

  77

  5

  31

  209

  London

  126

  199

  50

  97

  472

  49

  186

  10

  27

  272

  Manchester

  181

  81

  55

  44

  361

  46

  70

  11

  5

  132

  Newcastle

  205

  59

  21

  65

  430

  42

  55

  8

  24

  129

  Sheffield

  102

  93

  35

  74

  304

  43

  87

  3

  41

  174

  Stoke

  27

  34

  21

  18

  100

  13

  30

  9

  11

  63

  Swansea

  26

  6

  5

  11

  48

  12

  4

  —

  4

  20

  All Centres

  1,112

  609

  243

  401

  2,365

  354

  551

  54

  160

  1,119

  100 per cent. of cases examined by Medical Boarding Centres (Respiratory Diseases) but excluding cases boarded for reassessments and those disallowed prior to boarding.

  D1 = Pneumoconiosis

  D3 = Diffuse Mesothelioma

  D8 = Primary Carcinoma of the Lung

  D9 = Bilateral diffuse pleural thickening

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of disability living allowance claims this year have been(a) successful at the initial stage, (b) successful at the review stage and (c) successful on appeal.

  Mr. Scott
  In the period from 1 April 1993 to 31 October 1993 inclusive:

  (a) 50 per cent. of new claims were successful.

  (b) 46 per cent. of reviews (for whatever reason), were successful; and

  (c) 44 per cent. of appeals decided were successful.

  The figures relating to reviews and appeals do not necessarily relate to claims made during the relevant period. Reviews may be requested for reasons other than dissatisfaction with the result of a claim, for example, changes of circumstances.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.
  174
  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
  The information is in the table.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of permanent staff employed by the Department, including its agencies, on 31 October 1993 was as follows:

  Grade (including equivalent professional and other grades)

  Total staff1

  Number of women1

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  Grade 2

  4

  0

  Grade 3

  14

  2

  Grade 4

  12

  4

  Grade 5

  122

  30

  Grade 6

  317

  74

  Grade 7

  686

  146

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,433

  366

  Higher Executive Officer

  5,890

  2,480

  Executive Officer

  25,071

  15,370

  Administrative Officer

  45,716

  34,367

  Administrative Assistant

  15,469

  10,719

  Others

  160

  114

  TOTAL

  94,895

  63,672

  1 Including part-time staff paid for more than 10 hours a week.

  Notes:

  1. Total of 94,895 equates to 88,435 full-time equivalent staff.

  2. The table excludes:

  i) staff on loan or secondment and not being paid by the Department

  ii) staff on unpaid leave for more than three months or on unpaid maternity leave

  iii) casual staff.

  Pensions
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show as a table for each EU member state the level in pound sterling of the basic state pension, the SERPS or mandatory private pension and a total of both for an employee on national average earnings, married in a one-income household with no dependent children at time of retirement from the latest figures available.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportinate cost. However the report of a study commissioned by the Department last year—the Watsons report—contains this information for six EC member states, including the United Kingdom. A copy of that report is in the Library.

  Quarry House
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give to the nearest £5,000 the value of the carpet in the entrance area of Quarry house, headquarters of his management executive.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost of the carpet linking the two courtyards within Quarry house was £15,000. This was part of the Quarry house project and a contribution to the Percent of Art initiative.

  Vaccine Damage Compensation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many applications for vaccine compensation the reason has been given that there is insufficient documentary evidence;

  (2) if he will list the number of cases in which applications for vaccine compensation have been rejected; and if he will provide the reasons why applications have been rejected in each case;

  (3) in how many cases involving applications for vaccine compensation medical examinations have been carried out.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to undertake a comprehensive review of the vaccine compensation scheme.

  Mr. Hague
  We keep the vaccine damage payments scheme under constant review.

  Media Interviews
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the guidelines governing when media interviews dealing with the administration and efficiency of the Benefits Agency are given by officials of the agency and when by Ministers.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no such guidelines. Each request for interview is considered in the light of the relevant circumstances.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to remove from the Child Support Agency the powers to overturn clean break divorce settlements which have been established by courts or agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Clean break settlements concern the financial affairs of former partners. There can be no clean break between parents and their children, and calculation of maintenance by the agency is based on the current needs of children, and the current income and outgoings of their parents. The formula which the agency uses to assess maintenance does take account of the practical consequences of such settlements, since the current housing costs of absent parents are allowed for in calculating their maintenance liability, and capital settlements may affect the assessable income both of absent parents and of parents with care. Where the practical outcome is that an absent parent has higher costs or lower income, his maintenance liability will consequently be less.

  The operation of the Child Support Agency is being kept under review.

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what numbers of new claimants have been accepted for(a) sickness benefit and (b) invalidity benefit in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the number of claims made to sickness and invalidity benefit for each month in Great Britain.

  Month

  Number of Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit claims

  November 1992

  94,000

  December 1992

  79,000

  January 1993

  95,000

  February 1993

  90,000

  March 1993

  101,000

  April 1993

  90,000

  May 1993

  85,000

  June 1993

  94,000

  July 1993

  92,000

  August 1993

  88,000

  September 1993

  92,000

  October 1993

  91,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 100 per cent. clerical count, rounded to the nearest thousand and are subject to amendment.

  2. Separate figures are not available for Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the criteria according to which people are considered eligible to receive invalidity benefit with particular reference to ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis—sufferers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalidity benefit is payable to people who remain incapable of work when their entitlement to sickness benefit or statutory sick pay ends, and who have satisfied the national insurance contribution conditions
  177
  which apply to sickness benefit. Entitlement does not depend on the nature of a person's incapacity, and people suffering from ME qualify in the same way as other claimants if they satisfy these conditions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials in his Department are currently involved in drafting replies to letters for Ministers in his Department to sign.

  Mr. Hague
  The ministerial correspondence section, which allocates correspondence and ensures accuracy of drafts, comprises 15 staff.

  It is part of the responsibility of most executive grade officers in the Department to produce draft replies to correspondence on issues within their area of responsibility. It is therefore impossible to quantify the number involved in producing drafts.

  Disability Legislation
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to introduce antidiscrimination legislation on behalf of disabled people; what representations he has received on this subject; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government have no plans to introduce such legislation. A number of organisations of and for disabled people and the all-party disablement group have made representations. While the Government share the aim of ending discrimination against disabled people, they do not see comprehensive legislation as the appropriate vehicle for doing so. At the Prime Minister's request, I am working with members of the all-party disablement group, to identify areas for further action where discrimination could be eliminated at little or no cost.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the management structure of the NHS management executive(a) before and (b) after the post of special project director was created.

  Mr. Stewart
  The post of special project director is outwith the management structure of the NHS Management Executive, reporting direct to the Chief Executive, NHS in Scotland.

EMPLOYMENT

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many part-time workers were in employment in(a) June 1993 and (b) June 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is as follows:

  Part-time workforce in employment in Great Britain: Seasonally adjusted (thousands)

  Number

  June 1992

  6,683

  June 1993

  6,769

  Employment Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the job entry rate for employment training leavers in each region.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest information available is in the following table:

  Percentage of all leavers from employment training during the period April 1992 to January 1993 going into a job

  Region

  Percentage into a job1

  South East

  28

  London

  26

  Eastern

  30

  South West

  32

  West Midlands

  30

  East Midlands

  38

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  36

  NW, Greater Manchester

  33

  North West

  35

  Northern

  31

  Wales

  39

  Scotland

  34

  Source: ET National Follow-up Survey.

  1 Into a Job includes full-time work, part-time work and self employmaent three months after leaving.

  Training and Enterprise Councils (Secondments)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants from his Department on secondment to training and enterprise councils have(a) applied for and (b) been accepted under the voluntary early retirement scheme; and of those, how many are now working permanently for the TEC to which they were seconded; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Applications for voluntary early retirement were received from 171 staff on secondment to training and enterprise councils. A total of 153 were accepted. No information is available on the number, if any, now working permanently for the TEC to which they were seconded.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many officials are currently involved in his Department in drafting replies to letters for Ministers to sign.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We do not keep a record of the number of officials currently involved in drafting ministerial replies and this information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Health and Safety Publications
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will reverse the decision of the Health and Safety Executive to award the contract for the distribution of official health and safety publications to Promotion Logics and Dillons bookstores; what assessment he has made of the level of public access to these publications and the competitive effect on other bookstores; and if he will make a statement.
  179
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive but I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I have already made inquiries and once these are complete I will write to him.

SCOTLAND.

  NHS Management Executive
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the normal practice for posts in the NHS management executive to be advertised; and if he will list the exceptions there have been to such practice in recent years.

  Mr. Stewart
  Apart from the post of the chief executive, the only senior posts in the management executive to be advertised in recent years have been those of director of finance, director of operations and director of human resources.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct an investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Lawrence Peterken's dismissal as general manager of Greater Glasgow health board and his subsequent appointment to the post of special projects director with the NHS management executive.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has already instituted such an investigation.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the job description and the terms and conditions under which the job of national health service management executive special projects director was offered to Mr. Peterken's.

  Mr. Stewart
  Mr. Peterken's duties will be to examine a number of issues that flow from the reforms that have been introduced in the NHS in the last few years. He will be employed on the terms and conditions applicable to general managers of health boards.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at what stage his views were sought on the appointment of Mr. Laurence Peterken's to the post of special projects director with the NHS Management Executive.

  Mr. Stewart
  This appointment was made by the Chief Executive, NHS in Scotland, after consulting my right hon. Friend and my noble and learned Friend.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the management structure of the NHS Management Executive (a) before and (b) after the post of special project director was created.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The post of special project director is outwith the management structure of the NHS Management Executive, Reporting direct to the Chief Executive, NHS in Scotland.

  Forestry Commission
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations the review group has received on the subject of the privatisation of the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Lang
  More than 340 organisations and 1,450 individuals have made submissions or offered comment 180
  direct to the Forestry review group. Comment has also been addressed to Ministers and officials in the other departments represented on the group. The majority of letters are concerned about the effect that privatisation might have on access to woodlands, security of timber supplies and the environment.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Forestry Ministers have asked the forestry review group to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, in accordance with the manifesto commitment, and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands, and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  My right hon. Friend does not wish to make any statement about the future of the Forestry Commission until Ministers have received and studied the advice of the review group.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist for the making of submissions to him from local people, organisations and local authorities in respect of which areas of Forestry Commission land should not be privatised.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Forestry Ministers have asked the forestry review group to review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands, and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  Once they have received and considered the advice of the review group they will decide what further action, if any, should be taken.

  In the meantime, individuals and interested bodies are welcome to address comments on the work of the review group to its Secretary:

  G. S. Pearson

  Secretary, Forestry Review Group

  Room 5/42

  New St. Andrew's House

  Edinburgh

  EH1 3TG

  Young Persons Secure Accommodation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places in secure accommodation there are for persons aged under 16 years in Scotland; and where they were located, in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of secure places in Scotland formally approved by the Secretary of State since 1986 is as follows:

  Number

  Rossie school Montrose

  25

  St. Mary's Kenmure school Glasgow

  24

  Kerelaw school Stevenston

  24 (18 in 1986–1988)

  181

  Number

  Howdenhall children's unit Edinburgh

  5

  Rimbleton house Glenrothes

  2

  Brodie youth care centre Polmont (formerly Weedingshall)

  2 (0 in 1986; 1 in 1987–89)

  Hightrees assessment centre Closeburn (formerly Closeburn)

  2 (0 in 1986)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Rossie school

  68,396

  71,448

  69,770

  36,626

  41,336

  59,139

  64,152

  St Mary's Kenmure school

  9,560

  165,483

  —

  21,177

  37,064

  60,074

  109,459

  Weedingshall youth care centre (now Brodie)

  —

  —

  —

  63,000

  —

  —

  —

  Howdenhall centre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1106,718

  Note:

  1Part of total grant offer of £1,139,784.

  Until 1990 the Secretary of State paid grants towards the revenue costs of Rossie and St Mary's schools, but specific information on these payments is not readily available.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the average annual cost of keeping a person in the accommodation units at(a) Rossie school, (b) St. Mary's Kenmure school, Glasgow, (c) Kerelaw school, Stevenson, (d) Howdenhall children's unit, Edinburgh, (e) Rumbleton house, Glenrothes, (f) Weedingshall youth care centre, Polmont and (g) Closeburn assessment centre, Closeburn; and what proportion of such cost is met by direct Government grant.

  Mr. Stewart
  The annual cost of keeping a person in the secure units (based on current weekly bed-rate figures) is as follows:

  £

  Rossie school

  59,696

  St. Mary's Kenmure

  56,940

  Kerelaw school

  65,780

  Howdenhall children's unit

  58,500

  Rimbleton house

  60,060

  Weedingshall youth care centre (now Brodie)

  74,270

  Closeburn assessment centre (now Hightrees)

  77,168

  The Scottish Office does not pay grants to asssist with revenue costs.

  September 1989

  September 1990

  September 11991

  September 11992

  March 11993

  (a) Head count

  Nursing and midwifery2

  74,949

  74,573

  75,068

  73,605

  71,506

  Managerial staff3 5

  800

  1,072

  1,315

  1,678

  1,834

  Administrative and clerical4

  16,617

  17,136

  17,679

  18,584

  18,677

  (b)Whole-time equivalent

  Nursing and midwifery2

  64,454.3

  63,687.2

  63,503.0

  61,652.0

  60,252.5

  Managerial staff3 5

  797.6

  1,064.5

  1,301.3

  1,661.6

  1,180.2

  Administrative and clerical4

  14,425.3

  14,859.3

  15,282.8

  15,978.0

  16,125.8

  182
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much direct central Government support is paid towards the cost of the secure accommodation for persons aged under 16 years in each financial year since 1986 in(a) Rossie school, Montrose, (b) St. Mary's
  Kenmure school, Glasgow, (c) Kerelaw school, Stevenson, (d) Howdenhall children's unit, Edinburgh, (e) Rumbleton house, Glenrothes, (f) Weedingshall youth care centre, Polmont and (g) Closeburn assessment centre, Closeburn.

  Mr. Stewart
  Capital grants were paid by the Secretary of State towards secure accommodation as follows:

  List D Schools
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the amount of central Government financial support paid to list D category schools in Scotland in each of the five years preceding their abolition from 1 April 1986; and if he will express that central Government support as a percentage of the total cost of these schools in each year.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Secretary of State paid grants towards the capital costs of those schools up to 1986 as follows:

  £

  1981–82

  366,476

  1982–83

  229,599

  1983–84

  227,005

  1984–85

  308,269

  1985–86

  354,684

  At the same time, the Secretary of State paid grants towards the revenue costs of the schools but specific information is not readily available on the percentage of final current expenditure which these grants met.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in the NHS in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested for the NHS in Scotland is as follows:
  183
  Notes:

  1 1991, 1992, 1993 figures include the State Hospital, Carstairs.

  2 Nursing and midwifery staff include qualified, unqualified and in training nurses. The decrease of numbers between 1991, 1992 and 1993 is wholly accounted for by a decrease in and transfer out of NHS employment of those in training: in particular, Project 2000 student nurses, who are excluded from the figures, are not directly employed by the NHS.

  3 1989 data include administrative and clerical staff on grade 18 and above; 1990–1992 data include grades 7 and above.

  4 Excludes managerial staff. Includes control assistants and ambulance officers.

  5 The increase in numbers in this group is partially accounted for by the transfer of some professional staff to senior manager grades.

  Former NHS Workers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make use of the experience of former NHS workers

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office has for many years made use of experience of staff previously employed in the NHS and I expect this practice to continue.

  Health Board Managers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what experience of the health service is required of applicants for the post of general manager of a health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is a matter for the recruiting health board itself to consider.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with Mr. Bill Fyfe, chairman of Greater Glasgow health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend met health board chairmen, including Mr. Fyfe, on 5 November. In addition, my right hon. Friend spoke to Mr. Fyfe by telephone on Wednesday 24 November.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which firms have been chosen to do public relations work for Greater Glasgow health board; and what has been the total value of this contract.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]: Firms employed by Greater Glasgow health board in 1992–93 and 1993–94 (to 31 October 1993) are Faulds, Michael Kelly Associates Limited, Proscot, Alan Clark Associates and PR Consultants (Scotland), with a total spend of £534,954.40 in 1992–93 and £168,624.38 in 1993–94 to date.

  Local Authority Boundaries
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from(a) Musselburgh and (b) Prestonpans in favour of putting those two towns in separate local authority areas; and how many representations he has received opposing the creation of such a boundary.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since publication of the White Paper, "Shaping the Future—The New Council", a total of 29 individual letters from Musselburgh and two from Prestonpans have expressed concern over the restructuring proposals for these areas. In addition, a number of representations from outwith these areas have expressed concern over the problems to which the White Paper boundaries would give rise in Prestonpans.

  Melrose Bypass
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the finishing of construction of the proposed Melrose bypass.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]: I am currently considering the report of the public local inquiry into the proposal for the Melrose bypass phase 3 and a decision will be issued as soon as possible.

ENVIRONMENT

  Countryside Survey
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he published the survey of the countryside commissioned by his Department; how many copies were printed; to whom they have been distributed; and what policy proposals he intends to develop arising from the findings of the report.

  Mr. Yeo
  The results of Countryside Survey 1990 were published by the Department on 17 November in a main report and a summary report. 1,500 copies of the main report and 3,300 copies of the summary report have been printed. The reports have been distributed to the 150 guests at the launch, representing Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies, non-governmental organisations, research institutions, industry, academia and the press. Wider distribution of 1,000 copies of the summary report to include local authorities is in progress. Copies have been deposited in the House Library and are also available from my Department's publications sales unit priced at £12 for the main report and £6 for the summary report.

  Countryside survey 1990 reports on the 12-year period leading up to 1990. Since 1990 the Government have set in place a range of positive policy measures in the countryside. These include the introduction of the countryside stewardship scheme in England and the Tir Cymen scheme in Wales in June 1992; in 1991 the introduction of the hedgerow incentive scheme; in 1992; the extension and development of environmentally sensitive areas; and the integration of environmental measures in the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Further work has been commissioned by my Department to improve our understanding of the reasons for the changes recorded, and we shall commission a further survey in the year 2000.

  Shopping Centres
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his current proposals concerning out-of-town shopping centres.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State's current policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 6, "Town Centres and Retail Developments", published in July. It should be
  185
  taken into account by local authorities as they prepare their development plans, and in deciding individual applications. Among other things, it stresses a suitable balance in providing for retail development between town centre and out-of-centre retail facilities, taking account of factors such as accessibility and effective competition that will benefit consumers generally.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for how many out-of-town shopping centres he has given planning permission for each year since 1979; and which companies have been successful.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State granted permission, on appeal, for major retail developments over 1,000 sq. metres floor space as follows:

  Year

  Number of Appeals Allowed

  *1984–85

  28

  1985–86

  42

  1986–87

  82

  1987–88

  88

  1988–89

  65

  1989–90

  37

  1990–91

  43

  1991–92

  47

  1992–93

  70

  * This covers the period from 1 January 1984 to 31 March 1985

  No data is readily available for the period 1979–1983, nor is data readily available for the number of called-in applications approved. It is not possible to distinguish between town centre schemes and out of town developments, nor to identify the developers or companies involved, without unreasonable cost.

  Sainsbury's, Yeovil
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the planning application for Sainsbury's plans to develop Wyndham Hill in Yeovil.

  Mr. Baldry
  As a departure from the development plan the application has been referred to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether or not to call it in.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the mode of transport used by each member of the Local Government Commission in performing their duties in the local government review, with the class of travel used.

  Mr. Baldry
  Travel expenses necessarily incurred by members on Commission business are payable in accordance with the arrangements made for senior staff of the commission. Civil service terms and conditions excluding pay apply to these staff. Accordingly, the commission has discretion to determine its own arrangements for reimbursement of travel expenses within the rules and principles set out in the civil service management code.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost of the public opinion surveys carried out in the course of the local government review.
  186
  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current situation with regard to local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend announced on 2 November his decision to implement the Local Government Commission's recommendations in respect of the Isle of Wight. We are currently considering the Government's response to the commission's recommendations concerning Derbyshire, Cleveland and Durham. The commission is preparing reports on Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset, and on Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire. The commission has been directed to begin reviews of the remaining shire counties on 13 December 1993 and to submit all reports on or before 30 December 1994.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities he has visited since his appointment as Secretary of State.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities he has visited since his appointment as Secretary of State.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities he has visited since his appointment.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities he has visited since his appointment.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities and towns he has visited in England since his appointment.

  Mr. Gummer
  Fourteen cities and 13 towns.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following information covers non-industrial staff:

  Grade

  Total

  Women

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  Grade 2

  7

  3

  Grade 3

  34

  5

  Grade 4

  7

  0

  Grade 5

  144

  20

  Grade 6

  309

  30

  Grade 7

  776

  128

  SEO and equivalent

  740

  133

  HEO and equivalent

  981

  305

  EO and equivalent

  1,224

  524

  AO and equivalent

  1,601

  995

  AA and equivalent

  790

  518

  Totals

  6,614

  2,661

  Capital Receipts Holiday
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the capital receipts holiday.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no such plans.

  Local Government Reorganisation 1974
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the local government reorganisation in 1974; and what savings have been made to date.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost to public funds of the Local Government Commission's travel expenses up to 28 October.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Local Government Commission.

  City Pride
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources are available to urban areas as a result of City Pride.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no additional resources for City Pride. Central and local government as well as the private sector will continue to spend large sums of money in London, Birmingham and Manchester. City Pride is about making the most of this investment, building on the vision and strengths of the partnership which exist there and providing a lasting foundation for growth. The Department has already constructive discussions with the three cities about taking forward this new initiative.

  Trading Standards Service
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the impact of the proposals contained in the Local Government Review on the Trading Standards Service; and what measures the Government plans to take to protect this service.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission's recommendations must enable adequate provision to be made for all existing local government functions, including the trading standards service. This is a matter we shall be looking at as we receive the commission's final reports for each area.

  Environmental Taxes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the proposals advanced by the OECD for implementation of environmental taxes in OECD member countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  The OECD have done a good deal of analytical work on the use member countries make of economic instruments to advance environmental policies, but I am not aware that they have made any proposals for the implementation of environmental taxes.

  Housing (Managing Agents)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to make it compulsory for landlords to consult leaseholders in sheltered accommodation, where known, before the appointment of a managing agent in all circumstances;

  (2) what reforms he plans to ensure that leaseholders in sheltered accommodation can dismiss or replace an unsatisfactory managing agent more easily;

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that landlords and managing agents who breach the Landlord and Tenant Acts are prosecuted;

  (4) what steps he has taken to ensure that leaseholders in sheltered accommodation are aware of their rights under the Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act.

  Sir George Young
  All leaseholders are protected by the contractual terms of their leases, which define the rights and duties of landlords and tenants and the basis of service charges. In addition, the Landlord and Tenants Acts 1985 and 1987 give tenants additional statutory rights.

  The Government have no plans to make it compulsory for landlords to consult leaseholders in any type of accommodation before appointing a managing agent. However, under the existing legislation, a recognised tenants association has the right, at any time, to serve a notice on the landlord asking him to consult the association about the appointment or employment of a managing agent. Tenants of flats, either individually or as a group, can apply to the county court for the appointment of a manager if the landlord or his agent is in breach of his management obligations.

  In addition, if, in accordance with the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, a group of tenants enfranchise and purchase the freehold of their block, they will be able to dismiss an unsatisfactory agent and appoint their own replacement.

  Where a landlord has failed to comply with certain provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Acts the tenant has the right to seek redress through the courts. In certain cases the landlord may be committing a criminal offence and a local authority which is a housing authority may prosecute.

  The Department issues press releases to draw attention to new or amended legislation which affects the rights of landlords and tenants. It also publishes information booklets on these rights from time to time which are supplied to the public on request. The booklets may also be obtained from local libraries and citizens-advice bureaux.

  Community Charge Form (Auction)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to how the previous occupant of No. 10 Downing street's completed community charge form for 1989 came into the hands of auctioneer Trevor Vennett-Smith of Gotham, Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the local authority concerned.

  Wildlife Habitats
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is proposing to take to prevent further decline in the number of important wildlife habitats as revealed in the 1990 countryside survey.
  189
  Mr. Yeo
  Countryside Survey 1990 reports on the 12-year period leading up to 1990. Since 1990 the Government has set in place a range of positive policy measures in the countryside. These include the introduction of the countryside stewardship scheme in England in June 1991 and the similar Tir Cymen scheme in Wales; the introduction of the hedgerow incentive scheme in 1992 and the extension and development of environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). The United Kingdom has also strongly advocated the integration of environmental considerations in the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  The United Kingdom played a leading role in the negotiations which resulted in the EC Habitats Directive and consequently welcomed its adoption in May 1992 as a step forward for nature conservation in the Community. The Government is fully committed to meeting its obligations under the directive and has just undertaken a wide public consultation process on its proposals for implementing the directive.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is undertaking to prevent damage to flora and fauna from acid rain.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have in place a range of measures to control and progressively reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, the two main precursors of acid rain. These measures were set out in the 1990 Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", and subsequent annual reports. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he can provide figures on homelessness for(a) Coventry, (b) the west midlands and (c) London and the average for major cities in the United Kingdom.

  Sir George Young
  The latest estimates of the number of households for whom local authorities in the west midlands and London accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation appear in table 1(a) of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England. Statistics for the second quarter of 1993".

  The latest reported figure for Coventry, and other major cities in England, appear in the associated supplementary table.

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority—Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  East Anglia

  Bedford

  0205

  Bedford

  2,326

  351

  1,975

  0210

  Luton

  816

  141

  675

  0215

  Mid Bedfordshire

  2,105

  234

  1,871

  0220

  South Bedfordshire

  1,334

  260

  1,074

  Cambridge

  0505

  Cambridge

  1,417

  301

  1,116

  0510

  East Cambridgeshire

  1,166

  234

  932

  3510

  Forest Heath

  1,181

  172

  1,009

  3525

  St. Edmundsbury

  1,653

  306

  1,347

  0530

  South Cambridgeshire

  2,215

  416

  1,799

  Chelmsford

  1505

  Basildon

  2,165

  372

  1,793

  1515

  Brentwood

  1,565

  264

  1,301

  190
  Copies of both are in the Library.

  For information about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the regulations being considered as part of his Department's plans for deregulation in pollution control.

  Mr. Yeo
  A list of regulations affecting business, including those dealing with pollution control, was placed in the House of Commons library on 20 April 1993.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the regulations being considered as part of his Department's plans for deregulation in environment protection.

  Mr. Yeo
  A list of regulations affecting business, including those dealing with environmental protection, was placed in the House of Commons Library on 20 April 1993.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many officials in his Department are currently involved in drafting replies to letters for Ministers to sign.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to identify the number of officials involved in drafting replies for ministerial signature. Many staff in my Department will be involved at some time in assisting with gathering material for, and the drafting of, letters for Ministers to sign.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax valuation remain outstanding(a) in total, (b) by local authority and (c) by standard region.

  Mr. Curry
  As at 30 October 1993, there were 597,931 proposals to alter the council tax valuation list outstanding. This figure is broken down on the tables below by billing authority and by Valuation Office Agency region. The information is not collected by standard statistical region.
  191

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  1525

  Chelmsford

  2,468

  235

  2,233

  1535

  Epping Forest

  1,885

  129

  1,756

  1540

  Harlow

  913

  82

  831

  1565

  Thurrock

  1,487

  277

  1,210

  1570

  Uttlesford

  1,836

  364

  1,472

  Colchester

  1510

  Braintree

  2,509

  291

  2,218

  1520

  Castle Point

  1,364

  110

  1,254

  1530

  Colchester

  2,448

  356

  2,092

  1545

  Maldon

  1,254

  184

  1,070

  1550

  Rochford

  1,126

  91

  1,035

  1555

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,773

  191

  1,582

  1560

  Tendring

  2,629

  216

  2,413

  Ispwich

  3505

  Babergh

  1,380

  247

  1,133

  3515

  Ipswich

  1,232

  237

  995

  3520

  Mid Suffolk

  1,672

  271

  1,401

  3530

  Suffolk Coastal

  2,553

  657

  1,896

  3535

  Waveney

  1,501

  299

  1,202

  Norwich

  2605

  Brockland

  1,920

  321

  1,599

  2610

  Broadland

  1,808

  293

  1,515

  2615

  Great Yarmouth

  1,062

  211

  851

  2620

  North Norfolk

  2,473

  413

  2,060

  2625

  Norwich

  1,417

  371

  1,046

  2630

  South Norfolk

  2,212

  303

  1,909

  Peterborough

  2815

  East Northamptonshire

  1,325

  216

  1,109

  0515

  Fenland

  846

  99

  747

  0520

  Huntingdonshire

  1,333

  357

  976

  2635

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  2,774

  141

  2,633

  0525

  Peterborough

  1,177

  163

  1,014

  2525

  South Holland

  1,328

  98

  1,230

  St. Albans

  1910

  Dacorum

  1,465

  184

  1,281

  1920

  Hertsmere

  1,535

  345

  1,190

  1930

  St. Albans

  1,725

  124

  1,601

  1940

  Three Rivers

  1,126

  167

  959

  1945

  Watford

  1,164

  168

  996

  Stevenage

  1905

  Broxbourne

  860

  93

  767

  1915

  East Hertfordshire

  1,744

  161

  1,583

  1925

  North Hertfordshire

  1,759

  229

  1,530

  1935

  Stevenage

  574

  103

  471

  1950

  Welwyn Hatfield

  1,206

  78

  1,128

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  80,806

  11,926

  68,880

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority—Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  East Midland

  Derby

  1005

  Amber Valley

  1,982

  310

  1,672

  1020

  Derby

  2,450

  825

  1,625

  1045

  Derbyshire Dales

  2,727

  354

  2,373

  1025

  Erewash

  1,238

  318

  920

  1040

  South Derbyshire

  1,408

  296

  1,112

  Doncaster

  4405

  Barnsley

  1,575

  280

  1,295

  4410

  Doncaster

  1,686

  381

  1,305

  4725

  Wakefield

  1,975

  575

  1,400

  Grimsby

  2015

  Cleethorpes

  785

  70

  715

  2510

  East Lindsey

  3,260

  379

  2,881

  2020

  Glanford

  1,060

  268

  792

  2025

  Great Grimsby

  437

  31

  406

  2045

  Scunthorpe

  245

  35

  210

  Hull

  2010

  Boothferry

  1,277

  218

  1,059

  2040

  East Yorkshire

  1,453

  294

  1,159

  2005

  E Y Borough of Beverley

  2,105

  324

  1,781

  2030

  Holderness

  1,317

  269

  1,048

  2035

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  1,517

  432

  1,085

  192 193

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstnding

  Leicester

  2405

  Blaby

  1,341

  107

  1,234

  2415

  Harborough

  1,473

  298

  1,175

  2425

  Leicester

  1,838

  375

  1,463

  2440

  Oadby and Wigston

  517

  97

  420

  Lincoln

  2505

  Boston

  787

  61

  726

  2515

  Lincoln

  483

  207

  276

  3030

  Newark and Sherwood

  1,370

  219

  1,151

  2520

  North Kesteven

  1,656

  590

  1,066

  2530

  South Kesteven

  1,422

  175

  1,247

  2535

  West Lindsey

  1,695

  253

  1,442

  Loughborough

  2410

  Charnwood

  1,982

  306

  1,676

  2420

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  1,116

  63

  1,053

  2430

  Melton

  1,211

  91

  1,120

  2435

  North West Leicestershire

  855

  160

  695

  2445

  Rutland

  951

  149

  802

  Mansfield

  3005

  Ashfield

  743

  146

  597

  3010

  Bassetlaw

  1,299

  130

  1,169

  1010

  Bolsover

  487

  68

  419

  1015

  Chesterfield

  898

  214

  684

  3025

  Mansfield

  846

  250

  596

  1035

  North East Derbyshire

  1,151

  171

  980

  Northampton

  2805

  Corby

  457

  86

  371

  2810

  Daventry

  966

  95

  871

  2820

  Kettering

  1,102

  155

  947

  2825

  Northampton

  1,240

  238

  1,002

  2830

  South Northamptonshire

  1,421

  264

  1,157

  2835

  Wellingborough

  502

  86

  416

  Nottingham

  3015

  Broxtowe

  1,284

  365

  919

  3020

  Gedling

  1,601

  355

  1,246

  3035

  Nottingham

  1,540

  229

  1,311

  3040

  Rushcliffe

  2,070

  369

  1,701

  Sheffield

  4415

  Rotherham

  3,342

  444

  2,898

  4420

  Sheffield

  3,121

  597

  2,524

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  71,264

  13,072

  58,192

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  London

  Barking

  5060

  Barking & Dagenham

  580

  51

  529

  5480

  Havering

  2,630

  257

  2,573

  Bromley

  5180

  Bromley

  6,627

  821

  5,806

  5240

  Croydon

  4,721

  719

  4,002

  5870

  Sutton

  2,400

  385

  2,015

  City of London

  5030

  City of London

  111

  12

  99

  Ealing

  5270

  Ealing

  4,588

  754

  3,834

  5540

  Hounslow

  2,976

  545

  2,431

  Enfield

  5090

  Barnet

  5,878

  713

  5,165

  5300

  Enfield

  4,662

  430

  4,232

  5420

  Haringey

  4,808

  727

  4,081

  Greenwich

  5120

  Bexley

  3,376

  516

  2,860

  5530

  Greenwich

  2,601

  220

  2,361

  5690

  Lewisham

  2,509

  321

  2,188

  Harrow

  5150

  Brent

  2,799

  498

  2,301

  5450

  Harrow

  2,126

  313

  1,813

  5510

  Hillingdon

  2,296

  300

  1,996

  Islington

  5360

  Hackney

  2,623

  429

  2,194

  5570

  Islington

  3,592

  610

  2,982

  Kensington

  5390

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  4,377

  896

  3,481

  194 195

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  5600

  Kensington & Chelsea

  8,014

  908

  7,106

  Lambeth

  5660

  Lambeth

  5,186

  400

  4,786

  5840

  Southwark

  3,379

  393

  2,966

  London Support Unit

  5210

  Camden

  5,406

  831

  4,576

  5990

  City of Westminster

  6,210

  1,087

  5,123

  Redbridge

  5780

  Redbridge

  3,250

  475

  2,775

  5930

  Waltham Forest

  1,634

  236

  1,398

  Tower Hamlets

  5750

  Newham

  1,203

  235

  968

  5900

  Tower Hamlets

  1,613

  51

  1,562

  Wimbledon

  5630

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,967

  318

  1,649

  5720

  Merton

  1,865

  233

  1,632

  5810

  Richmond upon Thames

  4,000

  595

  3,405

  5960

  Wandsworth

  1,922

  250

  1,672

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  111,929

  15,529

  96,400

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  North Western

  Bolton

  4205

  Bolton

  2,986

  981

  2,005

  4210

  Bury

  2172

  252

  1,920

  Burnley

  2305

  Blackburn

  1,082

  303

  779

  2315

  Burnley

  659

  92

  567

  2330

  Hyndburn

  732

  171

  561

  2340

  Pendle

  1,090

  187

  903

  2350

  Ribble Valley

  1,726

  143

  1,583

  2355

  Rossendale

  1,500

  240

  1,260

  Chester

  0605

  Chester

  2,032

  523

  1,509

  0620

  Ellesmere Port & Neston

  788

  247

  541

  4325

  Wirral

  3,241

  635

  2,608

  Crewe

  0610

  Congleton

  1,234

  177

  1,057

  0615

  Crewe & Nantwich

  1,762

  266

  1,496

  0630

  Macclesfield

  2,576

  413

  2,163

  0635

  Vale Royal

  1,986

  378

  1,608

  Lancaster

  2310

  Blackpool

  1,232

  310

  922

  2325

  Fylde

  1,829

  130

  1,699

  2335

  Lancaster

  2,354

  277

  2,077

  2370

  Wyre

  2,062

  318

  1,744

  Liverpool

  4305

  Knowsley

  965

  306

  659

  4310

  Liverpool

  2,950

  253

  2,697

  4320

  Sefton

  3,239

  500

  2,739

  Manchester

  4215

  Manchester

  1,842

  141

  1,701

  Preston

  2320

  Chorley

  973

  216

  757

  2345

  Preston

  1,498

  315

  1,183

  2360

  South Ribble

  1,725

  355

  1,370

  2365

  West Lancashire

  1,635

  397

  1,238

  Rochdale

  4220

  Oldham

  1,429

  252

  1,177

  4225

  Rochdale

  1,386

  258

  1,128

  Salford

  4230

  Salford

  2,277

  634

  1,643

  4245

  Trafford

  2,503

  271

  2,232

  Stockport

  1030

  High Peak

  1,241

  160

  1,081

  4235

  Stockport

  2,709

  220

  2,489

  4240

  Temerside

  1,413

  255

  1,158

  Warrington

  0625

  Halton

  1,262

  328

  934

  4315

  St Helens

  1,761

  544

  1,217

  0640

  Warrington

  2,120

  411

  1,709

  4250

  Wigan

  3,063

  610

  2,453

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  69,034

  12,469

  56,565

  196 197

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  Northern

  Alnwick

  2905

  Alnwick

  1,334

  424

  910

  2910

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  882

  103

  779

  2915

  Blyth Valley

  364

  65

  299

  2920

  Castle Morpeth

  1,045

  74

  971

  2925

  Tynedale

  1,649

  112

  1,537

  2930

  Wensbeck

  281

  19

  262

  Bradford

  4705

  Bradford

  4,742

  708

  4,034

  Carlisle

  0905

  Allerdale

  1,397

  105

  1,292

  0915

  Carlisle

  1,272

  161

  1,111

  0925

  Eden

  2,171

  306

  1,865

  Durham

  1305

  Chester-le-Street

  459

  156

  303

  1310

  Darlington

  1,151

  265

  886

  1315

  Derwentside

  742

  103

  639

  1320

  Durham

  1,219

  67

  1,152

  1325

  Easington

  267

  20

  247

  1330

  Sedgefield

  732

  134

  598

  1335

  Teesdale

  1,255

  13

  1,242

  1340

  Wear Valley

  824

  59

  765

  Halifax

  4710

  Calderdale

  3,302

  651

  2,651

  4715

  Kirklees

  6,217

  1,208

  5,009

  Harrogate

  2705

  Craven

  2,218

  131

  2,087

  2710

  Hambleton

  2,136

  72

  2,064

  2715

  Harrogate

  3,765

  306

  3,459

  2720

  Richmondshire

  1,253

  99

  1,154

  Leeds

  4720

  Leeds

  6,621

  902

  5,719

  Middlesbrough

  0705

  Hartlepool

  495

  125

  370

  0710

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  1,346

  265

  1,081

  0715

  Middlesbrough

  818

  277

  541

  0720

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,413

  279

  1,134

  Newcastle

  4510

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  2,034

  360

  1,674

  4515

  North Tyneside

  1,342

  200

  1,142

  Sunderland

  4505

  Gateshead

  1,716

  349

  1,367

  4520

  South Tyneside

  1,013

  154

  859

  4525

  Sunderland

  1,220

  386

  834

  Ulverston

  0910

  Barrow-in-Furness

  678

  98

  580

  0920

  Copeland

  855

  137

  718

  0930

  South Lakeland

  3,279

  493

  2,786

  York

  2725

  Ryedale

  2,481

  196

  2,285

  2730

  Scarborough

  2,374

  256

  2,118

  2735

  Selby

  2,433

  285

  2,198

  2740

  York

  1,238

  297

  941

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  72,033

  10,370

  61,663

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  South Eastern

  Brighton

  1405

  Brighton

  1,963

  548

  1,415

  3820

  Crawley

  876

  120

  750

  1420

  Hove

  1,611

  437

  1,174

  1425

  Lewes

  1,832

  302

  1,530

  3830

  Mid Sussex

  1,977

  242

  1,735

  Chatham

  2215

  Dartford

  904

  156

  748

  2225

  Gillingham

  851

  265

  586

  2230

  Gravesham

  1,121

  192

  929

  2240

  Rochester-upon-Medway

  1,128

  148

  980

  2255

  Swale

  1,811

  190

  1,621

  198 199

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  Eastbourne

  1410

  Eastbourne

  1,690

  317

  1,373

  1415

  Hastings

  1,103

  171

  932

  1430

  Rother

  2,436

  568

  1,868

  1435

  Wealden

  3,175

  675

  2,500

  Folkestone

  2210

  Canterbury

  2,246

  336

  1,910

  2220

  Dover

  1,569

  367

  1,202

  2250

  Shepway

  1,869

  219

  1,650

  2260

  Thanet

  1,419

  287

  1,132

  Guildford

  3615

  Guildford

  2,619

  290

  2,329

  3630

  Runnymede

  3,605

  271

  3,334

  3640

  Surrey Heath

  1,424

  382

  1,042

  3650

  Waverley

  2,488

  350

  2,138

  3655

  Woking

  1,411

  309

  1,102

  Reigate

  3605

  Elmbridge

  2,536

  331

  2,205

  3610

  Epsom & Ewell

  689

  77

  612

  3620

  Mole Valley

  1,572

  48

  1,524

  3625

  Reigate & Banstead

  2,218

  316

  1,900

  3635

  Spelthorne

  1,224

  356

  863

  3645

  Tandridge

  2,045

  376

  1,670

  Tunbridge Wells

  2205

  Ashford

  2,725

  182

  2,543

  2235

  Maidstone

  2,271

  143

  2,128

  2245

  Sevenoaks

  2,813

  80

  2,733

  2265

  Tunbridge & Malling

  2,339

  189

  2,150

  2270

  Tunbridge Wells

  2,271

  315

  1,956

  Worthing

  3805

  Adur

  893

  248

  645

  3810

  Awn

  2,945

  358

  2,587

  3815

  Chichester

  2,843

  351

  2,492

  3825

  Horsham

  2,653

  300

  2,353

  3835

  Worthing

  1,670

  355

  1,315

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  74,836

  11,169

  63,667

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  Southern

  Aylesbury

  0405

  Aylesbury Vale

  3,050

  337

  2,713

  0415

  Chiltern

  1,974

  159

  1,815

  0420

  Milton Keynes

  2,281

  300

  1,981

  0410

  South Buckinghamshire

  1,319

  84

  1,235

  0425

  Wycombe

  2,792

  133

  2,654

  Basingstoke

  1705

  Basingstoke and Deane

  2,205

  659

  1,546

  1710

  East Hampshire

  2,240

  379

  1,861

  1730

  Hart

  1,080

  183

  897

  1750

  Rushmoor

  739

  243

  496

  1765

  Winchester

  2,851

  510

  2,341

  Bournemouth

  1205

  Bournemouth

  3,141

  563

  2,578

  1210

  Christchurch

  1,190

  165

  1,025

  1240

  East Dorset

  2,286

  173

  2,113

  1220

  Poole

  2,690

  333

  2,357

  Dorchester

  1215

  North Dorset

  1,468

  57

  1,411

  1225

  Purbeck

  1,273

  233

  1,040

  1230

  West Dorset

  2,585

  122

  2,463

  1235

  Weymouth and Portland

  958

  74

  884

  Oxford

  3105

  Cherwell

  2,215

  273

  1,942

  3110

  Oxford

  2,013

  147

  1,866

  3115

  South Oxfordshire

  2,618

  271

  2,347

  3120

  Vale of White Horse

  2,469

  274

  2,195

  3125

  West Oxfordshire

  1,685

  183

  1,502

  Portsmouth

  1720

  Fareham

  1,503

  179

  1,324

  1725

  Gosport

  943

  89

  854

  1735

  Havant

  1,338

  200

  1,138

  1745

  Portsmouth

  1,768

  327

  1,441

  200 201

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  Portsmouth (IOW)

  2105

  Medina

  1,377

  247

  1,130

  2110

  South Wight

  1,651

  244

  1,407

  Reading

  0305

  Bracknell Forest

  1,121

  124

  997

  0310

  Newbury

  2,610

  281

  2,329

  0315

  Reading

  2,093

  179

  1,914

  0320

  Slough

  865

  202

  663

  0325

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,239

  212

  2,027

  0330

  Wokingham

  2,159

  238

  1,921

  Southampton

  1715

  Eastleigh

  1,495

  347

  1,148

  1740

  New Forest

  3,698

  686

  3,012

  3915

  Salisbury

  2,765

  280

  2,485

  1755

  Southampton

  1,957

  355

  1,602

  1760

  Test Valley

  2,623

  281

  2,342

  Swindon

  3905

  Kennet

  1,746

  178

  1,568

  3910

  North Wiltshire

  3,380

  499

  2,881

  3920

  Thamesdown

  2,371

  181

  2,190

  3925

  West Wiltshire

  2,531

  171

  2,360

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  89,355

  11,360

  77,995

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  Western

  Barnstaple

  1135

  Mid Devon

  1,717

  459

  1,258

  1115

  North Devon

  2,008

  338

  1,670

  1145

  Torridge

  1,591

  262

  1,329

  3320

  West Somerset

  899

  201

  698

  Bath

  0105

  Bath

  1,799

  395

  1,404

  0115

  Kingswood

  915

  120

  795

  0120

  Northavon

  2,406

  397

  2,009

  0125

  Wansdyke

  1,540

  298

  1,242

  Bristol

  0110

  Bristol

  4,954

  650

  4,304

  0130

  Woodspring

  4,116

  349

  3,767

  Exeter

  1105

  East Devon

  3,208

  590

  2,618

  1110

  Exeter

  1,780

  173

  1,607

  1130

  Teignbridge

  3,646

  652

  2,994

  1140

  Torbay

  2,140

  484

  1,656

  Gloucester

  1605

  Cheltenham

  2,264

  666

  1,598

  1610

  Cotswold

  3,309

  588

  2,721

  1615

  Forest of Dean

  2,612

  449

  2,163

  1620

  Gloucester

  789

  192

  597

  1625

  Stroud

  3,195

  425

  2,770

  1630

  Tewkesbury

  1,335

  208

  1,127

  Plymouth

  0805

  Caradon

  1,830

  247

  1,583

  1120

  Plymouth

  2,863

  747

  2,116

  1125

  South Hams

  3,532

  644

  2,888

  1150

  West Devon

  1,835

  262

  1,573

  St Austell

  0810

  Carrick

  2,306

  353

  1,953

  0835

  Isles of Scilly

  214

  16

  198

  0815

  Kerrier

  2,065

  417

  1,648

  0820

  North Cornwall

  2,111

  284

  1,827

  0825

  Penwith

  1,432

  143

  1,289

  0830

  Restormel

  1,756

  245

  1,511

  Taunton

  3305

  Mendip

  2,551

  294

  2,257

  3310

  Sedgemoor

  1,897

  362

  1,515

  3325

  South Somerset

  3,659

  705

  2,954

  3315

  Taunton Deane

  2,256

  450

  1,808

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  76,532

  13,085

  63,447

  202 203

  Council Tax

  Proposals by billing authority Cumulative to 31 October 1993

  VOA region and office

  DoE Code

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Outstanding

  West Midland

  Birmingham

  4605

  Birmingham

  7,082

  1,219

  5,863

  Coventry

  4610

  Coventry

  2,411

  619

  1,792

  3705

  North Warwickshire

  902

  133

  769

  3710

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  1,218

  137

  1,081

  3715

  Rugby

  1,116

  154

  962

  Kidderminster

  1805

  Bromsgrove

  1,406

  240

  1,166

  4615

  Dudley

  2,490

  271

  2,219

  1845

  Wyre Forest

  1,402

  209

  1,193

  Lichfield

  3410

  East Staffordshire

  1,478

  161

  1,317

  3415

  Lichfield

  1,589

  219

  1,370

  3445

  Tamworth

  284

  32

  252

  4630

  Walsall

  1,288

  269

  1,019

  Sandwell

  4620

  Sandwell

  1,392

  300

  1,092

  Shrewsbury

  3205

  Bridgnorth

  1,628

  442

  1,186

  3210

  North Shropshire

  1,646

  479

  1,167

  3215

  Oswestry

  605

  37

  568

  3220

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  1,949

  169

  1,780

  3225

  South Shropshire

  1,317

  58

  1,259

  3230

  Wrekin

  1,349

  132

  1,217

  Stoke-on-Trent

  3420

  Newcastle-upon-Lyme

  1,226

  289

  939

  3425

  Stafford

  2,062

  441

  1,621

  3435

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  1,583

  242

  1,341

  3440

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,138

  226

  912

  Warwick

  4625

  Solihull

  1,964

  283

  1,681

  3720

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  3,695

  610

  3,085

  3725

  Warwick

  2,307

  322

  1,985

  Wolverhampton

  3405

  Cannock Chase

  862

  224

  638

  3430

  South Staffordshire

  1,893

  247

  1,646

  4635

  Wolverhampton

  1,915

  427

  1,488

  Worcester

  1810

  Hereford

  483

  193

  290

  1815

  Leominster

  1,969

  408

  1,561

  1820

  Malvern Hills

  2,586

  473

  2,115

  1825

  Redditch

  811

  147

  664

  1830

  South Herefordshire

  1,459

  218

  1,241

  1835

  Worcester

  915

  111

  804

  1840

  Wychavon

  2,254

  415

  1,889

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  61,678

  10,556

  51,122

  TOTAL FOR ENGLAND

  707,467

  109,536

  597,931

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost to public funds of processing an appeal against a property valuation for council tax purposes.

  Mr. Curry
  The estimated average cost of processing a council tax appeal in the current financial year is £115. This estimate includes Valuation Office Agency and valuation tribunal costs.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of transitional costs in respect of local government reorganisation in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has made no estimate of the transitional costs of local government reorganisation.
  204
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the level of total standard spending and aggregate external finance to meet the transitional costs of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  We intend to take any transitional costs of local government reorganisation into account in deciding the appropriate provision for local government expenditure for a year. My right hon. Friend intends to announce his proposals for the 1994–95 local government finance settlement shortly.

  Nirex
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be done with the toxic effluent arising from the excavations for the Nirex low level radioactive waste repository.
  205
  Mr. Yeo
  Construction and operation of the Nirex repository will be undertaken in accordance with the statutory controls.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volume of rock and spoil will be or has been removed in the construction of(a) the reference design for the Nirex low and intermediate level radioactive waste depository and (b) the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Yeo
  United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. is currently working on the estimated volumes of spoil to be removed in the construction of the planned deep disposal facility for intermediate and low level radioactive waste. I have arranged for the chairman of United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. to write to the hon. Gentleman. Some 7·5 million cubic metres have been excavated in building the channel tunnel.

  Name

  Position

  Company

  Derek Wanless (Chair)

  Group Chief Executive

  National Westminster Bank plc

  John Baker

  Chief Executive

  National Power PLC

  Peter Bonfield CBE

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  ICL plc

  Cedric Brown

  Chief Executive

  British Gas plc

  Ann Burdus

  Non-executive Director7

  Dawsons International

  Rodney Chase

  Managing Director

  British Petroleum Company plc

  Mike Clasper

  Managing Director and Vice-President

  Procter and Gambke Europe

  David Davies

  Chairman

  Johnson Matthey PLC

  Peter Davies

  Managing Director

  DHL International (UK) Limited

  Oliver Doubleday

  —

  Bax Farm

  Richard Gamble

  Group Chief Executive

  Royal Insurance PLC

  Ian Gibson CBE

  Chief Executive and Managing Director

  Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK)Ltd

  Christopher Haskins

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  Northern Foods plc

  Roger Hewitt

  Chief Executive

  Shanks and McEwan Group plc

  Derek Higgs

  Deputy Executive

  S.G. Warburg & Co. Ltd

  Ron Huggins

  Managing Director

  Kimberly-Clark Limited

  Sir Gordon Jones

  Chairman

  Yorkshire Water plc

  Martin Laing CBE

  Chairman

  John Laing PLC

  Robert Lawton

  —

  Lawton Farms

  David Malpas

  Managing Director

  Tesco PLC

  Jean Parker CBE

  Director

  Vacu-Lung Traction Tyres Ltd

  Robin Paul

  Deputy-Chairman and Managing Director

  Albright and Wilson Ltd

  George Phillipson

  Chairman

  Redland Aggregated Ltd

  Sir Antony Pilkington

  Chairman

  Pilkington plc

  John Speirs

  Managing Director

  Norsk Hydro (UK) Ltd

  Geoff Turnbull MBE

  Chairman

  GT Group Limited

  Alan Smith

  Managing Director

  B&Q Plc

  Development Plans
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department has given to local authorities about how to carry out environmental appraisal of development plans.

  Mr. Baldry
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 asks local planning authorities to carry out an environmental appraisal of their development plan policies. In addition, the Department today published "Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: A Good Practice Guide" which provides advice on a straightforward range of techniques and procedures. It clearly shows the benefits of environmental appraisal, and how it can be easily integrated into stage of the plan-making process. Environmental appraisal can be an important tool in

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment was appointed for an initial two-year term in May 1991. It proved an extremely valuable forum for strategic dialogue between Government and industry in environmental issues, and produced a series of practical, action-orientated recommendations in its three progress reports.

  In light of the importance of the committee's work, I am delighted to announce that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have appointed a successor committee under the chairmanship of Derek Wanless, Group Chief Executive of National Westminster Bank. The reconstituted committee met for the first time yesterday. Its membership is as follows:

  helping to meet the wider goal of sustainable development. Local authorities should carry out plan appraisals to ensure that they contribute to this aim.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many cases he has taken statutory action against local authorities in relation to compulsory competitive tendering of council services.

  Mr. Baldry
  The table lists the number of such cases from January 1989 to the end of September 1993. It gives full details of the cases in the period July to September 1993, summary figures for the year to date, and the cumulative total from 1989.

  I am publishing this information today and propose to issue regular up-date reports.

  The table shows that in the period January to September 1993, the Secretary of State served 17 notices and 9 directions relating to anti-competitive tendering of council

  207
  services; and 80 notices and nine directions relating to the financial failure by local authorities' direct service organisations to achieve the required financial objectives.

  Compulsory competitive tendering statutory action bulletin —England

  3rd Quarter 1993 (July to September)

  3rd quarter 1993

  Total for 1993 to date

  Total from January 1989

  Notice served ralting to anti-competitive behaviour

  5

  17

  54

  Adur DC

  Other Cleaning

  Bradford MDC

  Building Maintenance

  Langbaurgh on Tees BC

  Street Lighting

  Leeds CC

  Refuse Collection

  Osestry BC

  Sport and Leisure

  Notices seved ralating to financial failure

  20

  80

  188

  Ashford BC

  Ground Maintanance

  Ashford BC

  Refuse Collection

  Barking and Gagenham LB

  Refuse Collection

  Bedforshire CC

  Ground Maintenance

  Castle Point DC

  Other Catering

  Castle Point DC

  Other Cleaning

  Colchester BC

  Ground Mainatenance

  Corby DC

  Vehicle Maintenance

  Harrow LB

  Ground Maintenance

  Hillingdon LB

  Other Catering

  Hillingdon LB

  Building Cleaning

  Hillingdon LB

  Welfare Catering

  Kingston upon Hull CC

  Other Catering

  Kingston upon Thames LB

  Other Catering

  Leicestershire CC

  Groung Maintenance

  Northavon DC

  Vehicle Maintenance

  Richmond upon Thames LB

  Ground Maintenance

  Sefton MBC

  Building Maintenance

  South Bedfordshire DC

  Refuse Collection

  Directions given relating to anti-competitive behaviour

  4

  9

  27

  Birmingham CC

  Building Maintenance

  Portsmouth CC

  Building Maintenance

  South Tyneside BC

  Ground Maintenance

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Other Cleaning

  Directions given relating to financial failure

  7

  9

  41

  Camden LB

  Vehicle Maintenance

  Camden LB

  Highways and Sewers

  New Construction £50k

  New Construction £50k

  Camden LB

  Building Maintenance

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  Highways and Sewer

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  Building Maintenance

  Sefton MBC

  Building Maintenance

  Waltham Forest LB

  Ground Maintenance

  Oslo Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the transfer of responsibility for the Oslo Commission from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Yeo
  Responsibility for policy on the questions covered by the Oslo Commission (principally relating to 208
  dumping of materials at sea) has not been transferred: this remains with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What has been transferred is responsibility for the payment of the annual contribution to the commission's costs. This follows from the merger of the budgets of the Oslo Commission and the Paris Commission (for policy on which the Department of the Environment is responsible) in the run-up to the establishment of a single commission when the 1992 convention on the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic comes into force.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
The Earl of Minto—The Earl of Minto— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Beer: Tax Rates
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to equalise the tax charged on beer brewed in the United Kingdom and French beer.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the duty and VAT charged on French beer imported commercially into the United Kingdom is the same as that charged on beer produced in this country.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that obvious Answer. Is he aware that under the present European arrangements it is possible to import duty free any quantity of beer or other commodity for personal consumption? In those circumstances, is not the much higher rate of tax on British beer as compared with French beer a considerable competitive disadvantage to our brewing industry and a temptation to people who go overseas to bring back large quantities of lower-taxed French beer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that one can go to France and that one can buy duty-free goods, in particular beer, spirits and tobacco, and bring them back for one's personal use. That was part of the Single Market agreement. When it was considered it was estimated that there would be a full year revenue loss of about £250 million from the increased cross-border shopping.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, with a £50,000 million deficit, can the Government afford to lose £250 million? Is he aware that the issue applies not only to beer but to all alcoholic drinks and to tobacco? Is not the Chancellor likely to lose an increasing amount of money as people realise that they can go to France, stock up with tobacco, drink and so forth, pay for their fare and probably for the family holiday and still come out with a profit?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is probably wrong because it costs money to go to France and to buy the goods. Therefore, there will not be a profit at the end of the day. The increased cross-border shopping figure of £250 million includes spirits, beer and tobacco.
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone: My Lords, assuming that the sole object of a visit to France is to buy French beer, how much beer must one buy for one's own consumption in order to pay for the fare?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that would depend on the beer that one bought and the price of the fare.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in addition to the £250 million lost to the Revenue in duty, what is the estimate of the loss to the brewing industry and to the Exchequer in tax? In addition, what is the impact on the retail trade, in particular in the south of England, and the impact on jobs in that area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the £250 million included all the issues which my noble friend raised and more. The Danish Government, when faced with the same problem, reduced the duty on beer and wine in anticipation of the cross-border shopping difficulties. The result has been a net reduction in excise duty revenues compared with previous years.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate that the Government take a little more seriously than his earlier Answer suggested the damage to the competitive position of many British producers, not only those of beer, which is caused by the higher rates of duty in this country being affected by the free entry under European arrangements for domestic consumption? Do the Government realise that that is a serious issue for a number of British industries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we certainly take the matter seriously. However, perhaps he will agree with me that all member states must retain the freedom to set rates appropriate to their own circumstances.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister first answer the question asked by his noble friend Lord Brabazon about the loss to the British brewing industry and to jobs in the industry rather than the loss of revenue to the Government? Does the Minister realise that his statement expressing the Government's persistent hostility to fiscal harmonisation within the EC is exactly what is losing British jobs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's last remark, the position is quite the contrary. It is because we believe that every country should be able to set its own rates that we remain competitive. That is why our unemployment is on a downward trend and theirs is on an upward trend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do the French take advantage of the reciprocal trade and buy a great deal of duty-free beer in this country to take home?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think it unlikely, but in other areas of the Single Market I have no doubt that British goods are more competitive than those from other parts of the Continent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one is allowed to bring into this country

343
goods only for personal consumption? Have the Inland Revenue made an estimate of what, in those terms, "personal consumption" is? That seems to be a decisive factor in calculating the loss to the Revenue.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm that it is only duty free for personal consumption. The department concerned would not be the Inland Revenue but Customs and Excise, which has people watching this aspect of the trade to make certain that there is not an onward sale in this country.

Southern Iraq: Marsh Arabs
3.8 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking at the United Nations to ensure protection for the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we frequently raise the plight of the Marsh Arabs at the United Nations, most recently during the review of sanctions on 18th November. We have also drawn the attention of the United Nations weapons inspectors to reports that chemical weapons have been used against civilians in Southern Iraq. We support the call of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights for the deployment of monitors in Southern Iraq. In addition, British aircraft are deployed over Southern Iraq in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that worthwhile reply. It will give great encouragement to those people who are concerned about the fact that Saddam Hussein's policy is to exterminate the southern Arabs in the marshes. As the noble Baroness said, he is using chemical weapons. He is bombing the place. He is trying to starve the people and take away their water. The noble Baroness's words will give a great deal of encouragement to those of us who are deeply concerned about the fate of the Arabs in the southern marshes. I hope that our Government will continue with the policy which the Minister has just enunciated.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should make it clear to the House that I did not say that chemical weapons have been used. I said that we have drawn the attention of the UN weapons inspectors to reports that they have been used. There is a subtle difference. Perhaps I may say further that the special commission team sent to Iraq on 14th November to interview eye witnesses and to seek evidence has now managed to visit the marshes. If confirmed, the use of chemical weapons will obviously constitute a serious breach of Security Council Resolution 687. A sample analysis is being done. It will take some time. Although it is premature to consider now what action may be taken, we are taking a very close interest in the matter.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness report any progress in discussions within the Security Council and elsewhere so that a formula may be devised to allow Iraq to sell immediately a limited amount of oil sufficient to alleviate the poverty, malnutrition and breakdown of public health services which have led to the deaths of more children than total casualties in the Gulf War?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if I remember rightly, the Iraqis have it within their own hands to agree to Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 which would certainly allow them more resources. But of course they are able to take in humanitarian goods and we have made sure that that is so. The present situation is difficult but we hope that the obligations under Resolution 688 will be complied with. Humanitarian supplies will then be able to reach all those who need them, such as those to whom the noble Lord referred.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted the remarks made in another place in the debate on foreign affairs last Friday by the honourable Member who has visited the area on many occasions? She stated that Phosgene had been used against the residents of the marshes. Will the noble Baroness reconsider her statement that it would be premature to consider what steps the United Nations are likely to take when it is more or less certain that chemical weapons have been used against the victims of those attacks?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord that we should stick to the facts. Nobody is more in support of Miss Emma Nicholson's efforts to publicise the plight of the Marsh Arabs than we are. That is why the United Kingdom has supported her Amar appeal to the tune of half a million pounds. Whatever she may have said in the debate, I must inform your Lordships that until that analysis has been carried out, nobody is in a position to say that Phosgene, which is a chemical weapon, has been used, nor is anybody in a position to say, as I believe some commentators have done, that white phosphorous, which is not a chemical weapon but which has desperate effects on people, has been used either. As soon as we know the results of the sample analysis, we shall be able to take definitive action.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government continue to support the United Nations' report of Mr. Van Der Stoel in which he states that he believes that Saddam Hussein's policy is one of genocide with regard to the Marsh Arabs? That view is shared by the Australian, Mr. Roger Hill, who has conducted examinations and who is also of the opinion that poisonous weapons and weapons which are outlawed by the United Nations are being used on the Marsh Arabs by Saddam Hussein's government.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, refers to the second report by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Van Der Stoel, on human rights. We condemn the widespread abuses which are being committed by Iraq in all areas of the country. That

345
report showed yesterday that there is no improvement at all. A difficulty which we face is that Iraq must accept international obligations, including Resolution 688. But I must point out to your Lordships that Resolution 688 is not a Chapter 7 resolution; in other words, it is not mandatory. Were it to be so, it might be easier for us to make progress on this matter.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether or not yesterday's press reports are true about Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government attempting to circumvent UN resolutions by storing heavy weapons within the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait? If they are true, what steps are being taken to deal with that circumvention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot tell your Lordships at the moment whether those press reports are true. When there is any information, I shall be happy to make it available to your Lordships.

NHS Administration: Cost
3.16 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the percentage rise in the cost of NHS administration since 1985.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, in the six years between 1985 and 1991, the total NHS revenue expenditure rose by 26 per cent. in real terms while the costs of headquarters administration rose by 23 per cent. in real terms.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that according to NHS sources, while the salaries of doctors, nurses and midwives and drug costs rose by about 20 per cent. in that period, family health service authority administrative costs rose by 80 per cent.? Can the Minister explain why hospital administration costs rose by a magnificent 1,700 per cent.?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, what is relevant is the proportion of staff who provide direct care to patients. That has increased from 60 per cent. in 1981 to 65 per cent. now. Clearly, as the NHS budget increases, so does the number of managers, administrators and clerical staff because there is a bigger budget to administer. We are treating more patients today than ever before and have brought down waiting times. A great deal of that has been accomplished by better management.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that there is a great deal of extravagance in the administrative costs? For example, is it necessary for one of those new-style managers to fly to America in Concorde? Is it necessary for the wife of another to have a car for her own use, although she does not work in the hospital? If all that is true, should not those matters receive the Government's attention?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, where there is waste and where trusts are being profligate, clearly the Government have an interest and will take action. I have done some work with the CBI today and the level of salaries of general managers in the health service in no way compares with those commanded in industry and commerce. They are much, much lower.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is not the National Health Service a service industry? Therefore, should it not be managed like a service industry? If management costs are running at a rate of 2 per cent., is not the country getting a very good rate of return on management in the National Health Service, especially when I understand that it compares, internationally, with over 3 per cent?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Whenever the Audit Commission has commented, it has urged the health service to invest in management because clearly, with its enormous volume of work and complex organisation, it needs good management. In fact, 2 per cent. is a very modest figure.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, do not those statistics show that the recent criticism by the Secretary of State for Wales of the Secretary of State for Health was right and that the Secretary of State for Health was wrong?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the position in Wales is totally different from that in England. There is a difference between bureaucracy and management. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is anxious to reduce bureaucracy. That is why she has announced that we intend to reduce the number of regions from 14 to eight and that, subject to legislation, we shall abolish them altogether by April 1996. We shall reduce the number of health authorities, through mergers, from 192 to 108 by April 1994. We also intend to streamline the management executive and shall set and keep to tough limits on total staff budgets for headquarters staff.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is it possible for the Minister to develop a little the point that she made in reply to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about the increase in headquarters' costs? What concerns many of us is the cost of management in the area health authorities and in the management of trusts. I believe that it has been established that the number of such managers has grown by over a quarter during the past year. Although the Minister mentioned the Audit Commission, is it not the case that its chief executive recently said—and I heard him say it myself—that there were serious questions to be asked about whether value for money was being given in the health service reorganisation in terms of those bureaucratic, managerial developments?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend has responded to that in reducing headquarters' staff at regions, districts and in the management executive. However, as regards the increase in staff—and I make no bones about it—we

347
have chosen to invest in better management in the National Health Service. I believe that that is bringing returns. However, in relation to the question about numbers of administrative and clerical staff both in hospitals and the community, a quarter of those staff are directly supporting clinicians. That is something that we welcome; we want to see more ward clerks, medical records staff and medical secretaries because we know that they take the burden of administration off doctors and nurses. As for the others, as I said, we welcome them in that they are there to support more patient care, shorter waiting times and better management.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House how much is paid per annum to executive and non-executive directors of trust hospitals? In the old management days, we were only given a certain amount for expenses and the administration costs were very small.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I cannot give a definitive answer to that question. It is up to trusts to decide how they will run their organisations. They choose how much to pay their executives, but clearly they have to work within their overall budget allocations. Increasingly, it will be up to trusts to obtain the work from purchasing authorities by winning contracts. We would like to leave as much flexibility to local management as possible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's question was not about the expenditure on executives but about the members of trusts. Is that not under the control of government? Further, cannot the Minister give an answer to that question?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, they are non-executive members. Of course, there is a pay level: it is £5,000 for each non-executive member on a trust.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, it certainly seems as though we have a lot of Red Indians and not enough cowboys. In order to put the matter into perspective, would it not help if we had some idea of the present number of doctors and nurses as opposed to the number a few years ago?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, year-on-year we increase the number of doctors and nurses in the National Health Service. In fact, their rates have considerably increased. If the noble Lord particularly wants those figures, I should be very happy to give them to him. However, I do not think that the situation will continue indefinitely. What we are seeing in the NHS is greater productivity. I think it unlikely that we shall see year-on-year more increases in front-line staff as we get more day cases and other different procedures being introduced which do not need that level of staff working such hours.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that, since the introduction of the new reforms, there has not been a very substantial increase in the number of management staff? Is she not aware that the doctors, nurses and other organisations within the health
348
service, apart from the general public, know that there has been a massive increase in accountants, managers and business folk? Why does the Minister suggest that, somehow or other, that is not so?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have given the increases in numbers. Indeed, I accept that there are increases. Some of the increases are due to the way in which we are redefining staff. That is especially true of nursing staff, many of whom are still involved in clinical work but have been redesignated as managers. That also applies to student nurses under their new training scheme; they used to be counted as nurses, but now they are counted as students. Therefore, they are no longer in that particular band. However, I do want to be very bullish about this: we need better management in the National Health Service and we are prepared to invest in it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, surely the Minister can briefly acknowledge the simple comparative statistic that whereas there have been 30,000 more managers and administrators since 1989, there have been 20,000 fewer nurses?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords; that is not true. I tried to explain that much of it is to do with redesignation of nurses. In fact, it is because they have now gone into a different band, with many of them being reclassified as managers.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, although we all acknowledge the fact that we need better management, does the Minister agree that better management does not necessarily correlate with more management?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we always seek the highest calibre of staff in all walks of the National Health Service.

Welsh Schools: Truancy Tables
3.25 p.m.
Baroness White Baroness White asked Her Majesty's Government:
What considerations precluded the Welsh Office publishing the results of the recent truancy tables compiled in Welsh schools.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Wales fully supports the policy of publishing school attendance information; however, there would have been difficulties in publishing the data for Wales last week. But this vital information on school attendance will be published by the Welsh Office next year.
Baroness White: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. I presume that "next year" means a fresh round of tables. The Secretary of State for Wales, as a panel member last Friday evening on the well-known BBC programme "Any Questions", spoke at considerable length and quite properly about the importance of the truancy evaluations in schools. However, can the noble Viscount tells us why his right

349
honourable friend failed to make any reference to the particular situation in Wales for which he is responsible?
Will the noble Viscount convey to his right honourable friend Mr. Redwood the acute dissatisfaction felt in well-run Welsh secondary schools because, after having spent valuable time this year preparing tables, the Welsh Office now says that it cannot use them? That work was based on requirements that were not fully thought out—a characteristic of this Government in so many spheres—and, according to my inquiries among senior officers in Welsh local education authorities, was done without consulting them or even informing them. However (I suppose to show that there was no ill feeling) some packets of envelopes were sent to local education authorities to enable them to return the tables to the Welsh Office.
Noble Lords: Question!
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I was listening to a question or a speech. The problem in Wales with the gathering of the information has been that schools adopt different registration systems and procedures to record absences. The format and extent of information recorded by schools in Wales were not consistent and could not easily be collated and validated in a standard format for publication. However, the Welsh Office is looking to give guidance to schools on the issue.
Baroness White: My Lords, but whose fault was it that they were not done on the same basis? Why did the Welsh Office not think the matter through before it asked schools to carry out the work?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, all schools are required by the Education (Pupils Attendance Records) Regulations of 1991 to record both authorised and unauthorised absences for all pupils. Schools are required to include the information in their school prospectuses and in the governor's annual report. Welsh Office guidance is contained in Welsh Office Circular 45/91. However, there was a great deal of flexibility allowed within those guidelines and, in the event, that proved to invalidate the figures that were provided.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his initial reply, the noble Viscount said that the figures had not been published at present because of difficulties. However, he has not explained precisely what those difficulties were which prevented the figures from being published. Can he say at what time next year they will be published? For example, will it be at the beginning or at the end of the year?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am unable to answer the second part of the noble Lord's question, but I shall gather the information and write to him in due course.
The department publishes annual details of pupils present in schools derived from a census on a particular day in the autumn and spring terms. For the school year 1991–92, 91 per cent. of pupils were marked as present in the autumn term and 93 per cent. in the spring term. Next year the Welsh Office will be able to provide that
350
information in a more informative way. Next year the information will give a picture across the whole school year instead of a snapshot of a single day.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many representations the Welsh Office has received from headmasters and headmistresses of schools about the definition of truancy or unauthorised absence with which they have been required to work? Have those representations been discussed with the Welsh Joint Education Committee?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am unable to answer either part of the noble Lord's question today, but I shall write to him in due course.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Friday, 17th December. It is expected that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is expected that the House will return on Monday, 10th January.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Schedule 9 to the New Towns Act 1981. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Thursday last by Viscount Montgomery of Alamein—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I am delighted to open this important debate this afternoon, particularly since it deals with economic and industrial affairs. I am particularly pleased with the list of speakers who are due to perform this afternoon, many of whom will bring their distinguished experience of industry to bear. Others have no direct experience of industry but feel that they have a part to play in this debate.
I am very pleased by the inclusion of our two maiden speakers this afternoon—the noble Lord, Lord

351
Dahrendorf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde—who will bring their great wisdom to bear in this debate. I know that that wisdom will be tempered by the fact that this debate takes place against a background of economic stability—low inflation, low interest rates, falling unemployment and a competitive exchange rate—which demonstrates the Government's commitment to industry and our desire to create the right environment for business to flourish; that is all business, both manufacturing and services. In a modern economy the two are inextricably linked. One cannot exist without the other.
Our policies towards industry can be summed up in one word —competitiveness. Without a competitive industrial base we cannot generate the rising living standards we all desire and help the poor, the elderly and the needy. The importance of competitiveness is gaining wide acceptance within the United Kingdom. We must also convey that message to our European partners. The temptation to turn inward and to reduce even further the flexibility of the European economies—with well-meaning but misguided legislation of the kind supported by the Labour Party—must be resisted.
Improving competitiveness is primarily a matter for industry itself, as the CBI recognises. The Government also have an important role to play in many other areas. The most important contribution government can make to competitiveness is creating a stable economic environment in which effort and enterprise are rewarded.
Low inflation is not an optional extra, it is the essential pre-requisite for a successful and expanding economy. Headline inflation has been below 2 per cent. for 10 consecutive months, the best performance since 1960. It has been below the Community average for the past two years and in December last year fell below the G7 average for the first time in 10 years.
Our success in reducing inflation has enabled us progressively to lower interest rates. Interest rates in the United Kingdom, further reduced this week, are now the lowest for 16 years and the lowest in the European Community. British industry is also benefiting from a more competitive exchange rate, although we must not allow this to substitute for continued tight control over costs. We have the lowest main rates of corporation tax in both the EC and the G7.
The benefits of those policies are clear for all to see. The first is rising output. GDP is up nearly 2 per cent. on a year ago. Over the past year industrial output has risen in the UK but fallen in Germany, Japan, France and Italy.
The second is rising exports. Non-EC export volumes are up 14 per cent. on a year ago. We are succeeding in some of the most demanding markets in the world. So far this year we have doubled the value of our exports to China and increased our exports to South Korea by nearly a third and to Japan by a fifth.
The third benefit is falling unemployment. It is down by 137,000 since the start of the year and falling at an earlier stage in the recovery than in the past. The best news of all is that these strong signs of growth are being accompanied, not by steadily rising inflationary
352
pressures as in the past, but by their total absence. We are not simply achieving growth; we are achieving long-term sustainable growth.
However, important as they are, there is much more to competitiveness than low inflation and low interest rates. Time businesses waste wrestling with unnecessary red tape is time that could be spent creating profits and jobs. We are determined not to impede the creation of wealth. That is why we are placing such a strong emphasis on deregulation.
The Government's deregulation initiative is aimed at attacking unnecessary burdens on business, not, as the scaremongers would have you believe, removing essential health and safety requirements or consumer protection legislation. It is an attempt to eliminate those regulations whose costs to business are out of all proportion to the benefits, if any, which they bring. It is not always because those regulations were bad when they were adopted, but because changing circumstances mean that their day has passed.
This comprehensive review of legislation is well under way. Much can and will be done through secondary legislation and administrative action. However, some changes require primary legislation. The Deregulation Bill announced in the gracious Speech will provide a means of achieving these.
The Government can only help business if they are aware of business's changing needs, of its strengths and weaknesses and the opportunities and threats it faces. This requires a thorough and on-going dialogue between government and industry. That dialogue is taking place through the DTI's sector divisions and our programme of industrial secondments to give civil servants and business people a greater appreciation of each others' concerns.
Competitiveness is a dynamic process. The search for competitiveness is never finished. Business must always be willing to innovate and to respond to the changing needs of the global market.
Innovation is not just about investment in research and development. It is about applying ideas, whether old or new, in novel ways to meet new challenges. Innovation must become part of the culture of every business in this country.
The Government are playing their part in that process. The White Paper on science, engineering and technology stressed the role of wealth creation and the importance of a strong partnership between industry, academia and government. We are improving the climate for innovation and spreading best practice, with programmes such as "Managing in the 90s". We are encouraging better relations between companies, investors and financial institutions. We are also bringing to the attention of companies proven techniques most relevant to their businesses.
We are putting greater emphasis on the exploitation of technology. More of our resources will be focused on helping companies gain access to and use technology, whether from within the United Kingdom or from overseas. We are promoting schemes to help businesses develop innovative ideas. These schemes include

353
SPUR, which gives support for products under research, and SMART, the small firms merit award for research and technology.
It is those small firms which are making a large and growing contribution to the economy. The small firms sector was an important generator of jobs in the 1980s. We are firmly committed to the continued growth of the sector. To damage small firms is to drain the lifeblood of the economy.
Small firms will be greatly helped by the creation of business links. These will bring together local organisations, including chambers of commerce, TECs, local authorities and enterprise agencies, in partnership to deliver high quality, easily accessible, integrated services at a local level. The first business links are already operational and a national network will be established as soon as possible.
Naturally, small firms also benefit greatly from deregulation. But the Government are also committed to more direct assistance targeted at improving access to finance., information, professional advice and training.
A range of practical help and assistance is available under the umbrella of the Enterprise Initiative. This includes financial assistance designed to encourage small firms to improve their efficiency through greater use of outside expertise. It is vital, given small firms' record of job creation, that we ensure that onerous employment regulations, such as those contained in the social chapter, are kept to an absolute minimum.
We are a major trading nation. We export more per head than Japan. It is therefore important that a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round remains the Government's highest priority. That will bring enormous benefits to both the United Kingdom and the world as a whole. It will boost business confidence and yield major gains in the longer term from lower tariffs, better multilateral disciplines and the extension of GATT rules to new areas such as services, intellectual property and investment.
The OECD has estimated that a successful GATT deal would raise world income by 270 billion dollars. This is almost certainly an underestimate once the dynamic longer term effects of liberalised trade are taken fully into account. That is why the Government continue to press hard both within the Community and elsewhere for all the parties to the negotiations to make the final effort needed to achieve a solution.
We therefore warmly welcome the vote by Congress in favour of the North American Free Trade Agreement. We have consistently stated our belief that free trade agreements, like NAFTA, will contribute to the liberalisation of world trade. We fully expect NAFTA to create substantial economic opportunities in the North American region and will be working to ensure that United Kingdom companies are well positioned to participate in the benefits of this growth.
We are seeking to increase the opportunities available to Britain's exporters in many other ways. Export services are available to all sectors of industry and commerce. The package of support comprises a wide range of services to match the stages through which successful exporters go in developing their businesses. Following consultation with industry, we
354
are piloting a range of new services in selected markets to assist UK exporters to visit overseas markets to follow up opportunities where those have been identified. The new services build on the wide range of marketing and promotional. services that we already provide.
A high quality transport network is an essential factor in the functioning of a modern developed economy. Industry relies on transport to carry goods and people and to link business with the marketplace. Government support for the infrastructure is now at its highest level in real terms in over 20 years. Capital spending on maintenance has trebled in real terms since 1978. The current national roads programme will add almost 3,000 miles of new or improved roads to the national network.
But infrastructure provision is not just a matter for government. The private sector also has a key role to play in providing finance and the management skills and ideas to deliver projects efficiently. The benefits of public/private partnership can already be seen in such projects as the M.25 bridge between Dartford and Thurrock, the Jubilee Line extension and the Heathrow express rail link. The private finance initiative will therefore play a key role in improving both the quality and the quantity of the nation's capital stock.
No speech on the subject of industrial and economic affairs would be complete without referring to education and training. Those are the keys to the long-term competitiveness of the United Kingdom. In the increasingly global world marketplace, people and their skills are our greatest asset. We cannot hope to be successful without a quality labour force at every level.
The national curriculum has laid the foundation for ensuring that school-leavers are equipped with the core skills needed by business. We are raising the levels of literacy and numeracy, and intend to see that standards are uniformly and consistently applied in all our schools. We have published details of school performance.
We are committed to ensuring that the views of business are fully taken into account in our education policy. We have established the training and enterprise councils and endorsed the national education and training targets. The number of young people in higher education continues to rise and the national system of vocational qualifications (NVQs) is beginning to take root.
The world is becoming increasingly competitive. Our businesses face new challenges and opportunities every day. The Government are committed to helping our industries fight and win in the world marketplace. As the Prime Minister has said,
"All our policies—not just our economic policy—need to be focused on the future strength of the British economy".
I have laid out for your Lordships today the programme which the Government intend vigorously to pursue: a programme which involves removing obstacles to success where it is possible to do so and providing active support for business where that is the appropriate course to take. Only by focusing all our efforts in both government and business on increasing the competitiveness of British industry can we expect to win in the global markets in which we compete and

355
deliver the prosperity for which we all hope. That demonstrates that the Government's policies for industry are working. It is on that basis that I look forward to the remainder of the debate. I hope that it will play a part in the dialogue that is taking place to improve the performance and competitiveness of British industry.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall devote much of my speech to economic and industrial policy. However, my first duty is to thank the Minister for his short introduction to those parts of the legislative programme in the gracious Speech which correspond to our interests today. I regret to say that my comments will take a little longer. They will include one area of omission; but I shall then discuss what is included in the gracious Speech.
Before coming to the substance of my speech, it is my pleasant duty to say how much I look forward to the contributions from our maiden speakers. I have known the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, since early days when she was appointed to the Price Commission on which she served with such distinction under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I know that she will have much of interest to say today and subsequently.
It is also with particular pride that I look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I speak as an alumnus and former member of the staff of the London School of Economics. I am aware of his enormous distinction as director of that institution and in the academic world in general, and the contributions that he has made to the analysis of policy matters. I have heard it said that there are too many of us here from "the school". I know that the noble Lord will demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth.
One omission from the Minister's speech is any reference to competition policy. I am particularly concerned about the Monopolies Commission. More than one of its recent reports has been eccentric to say the least. But its most recent report on perfumes can only be described as barmy. I do not have to remind noble Lords that as Adam Smith told us, industry exists for the consumer, not the other way round. In the case of the Monopolies Commission Report, that dictum seems to have escaped the commission. Indeed, the report seems to open a gateway to undermine one of the more valuable contributions of an earlier Tory Government, the abolition of retail price maintenance. I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who notices that all kinds of products, usually durable consumer goods such as cameras, have the same price in all retail outlets. I do not for one moment believe that that is the one market price resulting from perfect competition. It is rather the rigged price which suits the manufacturer and complacent retailers.
In that connection, I am amused to see the contradictory reactions of one of our more prominent retailers to competition. He dutifully wrote to the papers a couple of weeks ago attacking the worker protection that the European socialist leaders, including my right
356
honourable friend Mr. John Smith, said that they were in favour of, on the grounds that it would weaken the competitive position of British industry. But the moment that that particular retailer discovered that he would be subject to the best form of competition; namely, price reductions by a more enterprising competitor, he threatened to use his market power to try to cut off that competitor's source of supply. It appears that protection for workers is a bad thing; protection for industrialists and retailers with high margins is good. I hope that the Minister's department will tell that particular contributor to his party's funds that such predatory behaviour is illegal as well as damaging to the consumer.
While I am on the subject of management, did other noble Lords, including the Minister, notice a rather important speech reported in yesterday's Times in which it was said:
"we have a rather too fulsome opinion of our own performance … In particular, the rest of Europe did not think our managers were particularly hard-working or that our companies were focused on the market place".
The report states that the same person said that,
"It was unacceptable that UK productivity was 25 per cent behind its main European rivals and even further behind the United States. A recent survey had identified only 2 per cent of British firms as world class, while 42 per cent were contenders for such status".
That is after 14 years of business-oriented Tory Government. Those remarks were not made by a socialist—at least, I do not believe he is a socialist.
I welcome the trade marks Bill. I am delighted to hear that it will start its passage in this House. It is entirely non-political and it is a matter in which the expertise of this House will be shown to its best advantage. We shall subject the Bill to expert scrutiny, but the sooner it reaches the statute book the better. It cannot be said too often how much the economic future of our country depends on activities leading to the creation of intellectual property and how vital it is that the ownership of such property is protected by law. The scale of illegal copying and the passing off of such material through the world is truly breathtaking. We cannot afford to take a complacent attitude.
I wish that I could be equally welcoming to the proposed deregulation Bill. I cannot comment upon it until it appears, and I should like to know, perhaps from the Leader of the House when he speaks, whether he can give us any indication of when we can have sight of the Bill. I agree, of course, that there are many regulations which may have been valuable in the past but which, when examined again, turn out to be doing no good at all or are even doing harm. We must search out those regulations and remove them from the statute book. But equally, there are many other regulations of great importance. Some protect workers; many protect consumers; and others protect firms, not least those subject to unfair competitive practices. We can all think of examples of obsolete regulations—for example, those to do with the licensing hours, and in my judgment the Sunday trading laws. It is an anomaly of our governmental arrangements that Sunday trading, which is entirely a matter of economics and industry, is dealt

357
with by the Home Office, a department uniquely unqualified in those areas. This is, therefore, my only chance to say how glad I will be to see such laws go.
But having said that, if the dominant criterion of deregulation is to help firms which claim that they are so inefficient that they cannot give their workers decent working conditions and treat them as human beings, then I for one will oppose it as vigorously as possible. Let me also say that I have heard a rumour (it is only a rumour) that the essence of the Bill is one gigantic Henry VIII clause which will enable ministers to repeal, by order, primary legislation without full parliamentary scrutiny. If that is so, it will be the duty of this House to amend the Bill to take out such offensive clauses. The Prime Minister has said that he is in favour of "back to basics". There is nothing more basic than parliamentary democracy. If this House has any justification at all, and we know that that is a debatable question, it is to reject an overweening Government's attempts to by-pass Parliament. This is a classic example.
Before making some remarks on economic policy, and following the noble Lord the Minister on that, I must also take a moment to congratulate the two noble Lords who proposed and seconded the loyal Address. They did the job with real distinction. Perhaps I may say in particular how important were the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. It is not merely because of the special position that I hold in this House that I say that his implication on the contribution of the food industry to the economic welfare of this country is too little appreciated. I know that the noble Viscount will never let your Lordships forget that, and nor shall I.
On economic policy, I will not make the mistake of criticising the Budget before I know what is in it. I shall have plenty of opportunities to do that later in the year. Instead, I wish to make some general remarks on economic policy. Let us start by looking at inflation. The published figure shows clearly that the rate of rise of prices is low—I am almost inclined to say unbelievably so, but I shall not labour the point. The Bank of England continues to emphasise that inflation is not finally conquered. My own judgment accords with that of the noble Lord. There is no obvious inflation outburst on the immediate horizon.
Pursuing the statistical theme, because of changes in the system of data gathering, it is hard to have any belief in the export and import figures at all. The Government can take solace from the fact that it looks as if the current account is improving. If I were them, I would not be too optimistic. If the gross domestic product figures are correct, it is hard to make them fit with any improvement in the balance of payments. In addition, the unemployment figures show a small decline. They, too, do not seem to fit with what has happened to gross domestic product. What does all that mean for policy? If we take the figures at their face value—which is what I understand the noble Lord was doing—and are optimistic, it is obvious what the policy stance should be; namely, to be much less timid than the Chancellor, and reduce interest rates much more drastically than he has done. Although against most currencies sterling looks quite competitive, it could still be allowed to fall
358
further. Perhaps I may say parenthetically on this theme that, oddly enough, the Treasury argument that was put forward last year, that the deutschmark/sterling rate that we tried to maintain in the ERM was the correct one on competitive grounds, remains true on the latest available calculations. More generally, given the uncertain outlook, while the unified Budget is to be welcomed, in some ways we would have been better off to have had the Budget in April this time, rather than now. We could then have more confidence that the recovery is really under way and could then introduce the tax increases that are necessary to finance the Government's fiscal policy. But that is not going to happen.
On fiscal policy, the likely expansion of gross domestic product would help to reduce that part of the fiscal deficit which is cyclical. One difficulty in trying to say how much of the deficit is cyclical is that the Government refuse to have an unemployment target. That difficulty does not arise for me. I believe that full employment in the Keynesian sense is attainable; and a target of about 1 million unemployed—near what the last Labour Government left—is certainly attainable. In that case, some £20 billion would come off the fiscal deficit by sensible expansionary policies. On the structural deficit, clearly tax rates are too low, and the Government are having to face up to the false prospectus that they put before the nation in order to win the general election. In essence, they raised public expenditure to buy votes, and pretended that that would not have to be paid for. The tragedy is that it still seems to be the Government's intention to place those tax burdens on those least able to afford them.
But what if the Government do not believe their own rhetoric and base policy on a less optimistic scenario? In some ways it would be wise—I am wearing my pessimistic economics hat—to do so. The outlook in the European market is poor and might be getting worse. It should never be forgotten that in economic and trade terms Europe matters most to us. If our markets abroad are not good, monetary easing here could be dangerous and less likely to be effective. What is required is a co-ordinated fiscal and monetary stance on the part of all the governments of the European Union. I note with despair how far away that is and, despite the benefits that it would bring us, how unco-operative our Government have been.
Frankly, given the Prime Minister's recent article in the Economist, I sometimes come near to believing that your Lordships wasted all the time that we devoted to Maastricht and that the anti-marketeers could conceivably be right—I only say could conceivably be right, but I shudder at that. Whether we are talking about Bosnia, GATT or economic policy, there is little to be proud of in the European Union's recent activities. I say that with deep sadness.
Let me say a few words about a long-term strategy for unemployment. That enables me to pay tribute to the National Commission on Education, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and responded to so negatively and deplorably by Mr. Patten. Indeed, I was quite horrified at the complacency shown today by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he spoke about education. I do not think that such complacency is

359
characteristic of him. The Government's record is not good. Certainly, given the needs of the nation, the projected education legislation mentioned in the gracious Speech is simply a waste of time.
The Walton Report contains many good ideas. I wish to comment solely on education and training and their connection with economic performance. I accept its statement: "Our vision for education and training in the United Kingdom is ambitious"—that is the vision of the report—"but it is the minimum necessary for any reasonable set of economic and social goals that the nation should set itself". How right that is.
The connection between education and economic achievement is complicated. But it is clear—to some extent I again echo the words of the noble Lord—that the days of widespread employment for unskilled labour have gone, as have the good times for employment of inflexible labour. Only a workforce that is highly skilled and can change its skills when needed can compete in the international markets of the future. If we are to become again a high real wage economy, it must be done by continued investment in what economists call human capital; namely, education and training.
Businessmen write to the papers supporting their Tory friends and saying that they want cheap labour. But nowadays industrial processes are so easily copied by the emerging nations that our labour can never be cheap enough. The way forward is exactly the reverse: expensive labour, but labour that is highly trained and (again I echo the words of the noble Lord) working in innovative and science based enterprises. The business-men to whom I refer would be better off running their own concerns and not dabbling in matters of economics that they do not understand or writing letters to the newspapers. Equally, the Secretary of State for Education should not tell us that we are so poor that we cannot afford the education and training that we need. Quite the contrary, we shall be poor if we do not afford the education and training that we need.
My conclusion is simple. The nation has been brought to a dangerous economic and industrial condition as a result of the failure of government policy. It is not the people who have failed; it is the Government that have failed. That is largely the result of misplaced ideology and prejudice. The sins have been compounded by Tory leaders who see no higher goal and have no other values than the re-election of their party. They have failed the nation. The tragedy is that they continue to do so.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, a somewhat thin Queen's Speech has managed to sustain itself to become five plump, even if not very extensively reported, days of debate in your Lordships' House, which have included several very interesting maiden speeches. Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I mention particularly those of the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who both worked closely with me in various capacities; the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in the Home Office and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, as a Commissioner during my presidency of
360
the European Commission. Both noble Lords made notable maiden speeches of unusual interest, combining a challenging originality of thought with emollience of manner suitable to maiden speeches. Today, we greatly look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean and my noble friend, Lord Dahrendorf.
Today's debate is directed towards the economy, although particularly in this final and summing-up day, it does not exclude dealing to some extent with the Government's overall view of the Session. Five days before a Budget, particularly one which has invited so much advance attention as has this one, is not the most constructive time to talk about what is or is not in it. However, I should like to offer a word of sympathy to the Chancellor, although it is perhaps one of his strengths as a politician that he does not appear to invite or to need sympathy. Nonetheless, there is a certain awesomeness in finding oneself in a position in which the whole future of the Government—let alone that of the economy, which is a rather minor matter by our current political values—is said to depend upon the Chancellor's skill on Budget Day. I had something of the same experience in 1968, although I believe that then The Times threw in the future of political democracy for good value as well. The word of cautionary advice that I give to the Chancellor from that experience is that it is possible to produce a well-received Budget, even though it is a harsh one, and then be disappointed at how slow the economy is to respond to it.
We all hope that the economy is at last showing real if hesitant signs of pick-up. If so, it is a time of real opportunity for trying to get the recovery on the right lines and correct some of the faults which have for so long hobbled our performance. The best hope of doing so lies in ensuring that as the pick-up comes along we are spared the triumphalism, complacency and dogmatism which have been the hallmarks of this Government right back to 1979 whenever disaster was not actually knocking at the door. It may be a vain hope, because I cannot entirely exclude the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, from allowing certain notes of complacency and indeed triumphalism to creep into his speech this afternoon.
We have already heard it proclaimed quite recently—I believe in this House—that our productivity is now the highest in Europe. That is absolute nonsense. It is still one of the lowest in the countries of the OECD. It is the case that, owing partly to our being somewhat out of step with our neighbours in the timing of the trade cycle, our productivity has recently been increasing faster than others and a small but welcome reduction in the gap is consequently being made.
But the essential gap remains and I noted with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, also mentioned it in his speech. Mr. Heseltine brutally but courageously pointed it out in a speech on Monday night; and we are all very glad to see him vigorously back in action. However, this morning I could not help but reflect that it is a sad commentary on the tone of parliamentary discussion that he chose to make his serious speech on Monday night outside Parliament

361
while reserving his inconsequential knockabout for the Chamber of the other place yesterday afternoon. As for Mr. Howard's speech on Tuesday, as a contribution to the august authority of the Home Secretary's office it simply beggared description.
In relation to the direction of the pick-up, it is clearly desirable that the Budget should encourage it to be export and investment led. That is a platitude, one could almost say, but sometimes platitudes contain many truths. It is not clear what is the export trend at the present time. There have been some disturbing indications that the benefits of devaluation—that brilliant economic coup that the Government planned so skilfully—have been taken out more in improved profit margins than in increased volume. To the extent that that is true—perhaps to a large extent —it is part of the wretched short-termism of British industry in which long-term market share, so assiduously sought by some of our competitors, is sacrificed by us to this year's or next year's profit figures.
Investment levels in the private sector are also much too low, with a virtual freeze on public sector projects, except for adding lanes to motorways—perhaps necessary as a precaution against the effects of rail privatisation. The virtual freeze on public sector projects is becoming not merely bad social and economical planning, but something close to national humiliation. A small but highly visible example is the restoration of the Albert Memorial. There has now to be launched a public appeal in order to complete its restoration. There may be mixed views about the Albert Memorial, but there is no doubt that it has been a prominent symbol of high Victorianism and was created at a time when London was the admired capital of the greatest country in the world; and now this Government cannot afford to repair it.
I see that in Paris, apart from the great public works recently accomplished, several major, mainly late 19th century buildings, have suddenly come into a state of disrepair—the Grand Palais and the Opera Garnier. I can guarantee that the Grand Palais will not remain immobilised in scaffolding for a decade or more and nor will the hat be sent round in order to try to pay for it. It is a sad tale of the contrasts between our two cities.
With regard to dogmatism, its destructive grip seems to get even tighter on this poor, sad Government. Now it is the Trevelyan-Northcote tradition in the higher Civil Service, already a little frail after nearly 15 years of one-party government, which is endangered. It has been one of the glories of Britain for the 140 years since it was promulgated and 122 years since it was effectively implemented. But like many other policies it stems, in my view, from a fundamental flaw at the core of the Government's thinking that has been enabled to gain far too wide a currency. That flawed view is that so-called "business values" need to be imported into every aspect of our national life. They do not. They are often unsuited to many forms of public service. One example is the Sheehy Report, from which the Government are now in full retreat. The prime mistake was that Sheehy was the wrong person to undertake the task. He knew how to run a tobacco company but not a public service. However, the error lies deeper than that.
362
It lies in the belief that we should increasingly turn our public institutions into pale imitations of our business companies. That ignores an important consideration.
For nearly 100 years we in this country have had outstandingly famous public service institutions and an indifferent business performance, with the possible exception of large-scale retailing and merchant banking, though most of the most successful merchant bankers came here from other countries in any event. By contrast, we have been or are famed for the quality of our public service broadcasting and television; for the efficiency of our Army, and other services; for our universities, of which at least two are the most renowned on this side of the Atlantic, and for our impartial higher Civil Service.
What do we do? We undermine our public broadcasting services; we shrink our Army; we harry our universities with half-baked Education Bill after Education Bill, and now we try to dilute our policy-advising Civil Service which, certainly until recently, had extremely high standards not only of probity but also of intellectual quality, independence and dedicated hard work. It is the philosophy of the madhouse. We take our best institutions and try to imbue them with the ethos of our indifferent ones.
It will be said that the fuss about undermining standards and independence is misplaced. But I was horrified to read this week that the most distinguished head of the Civil Service was reported as saying to the Commons Select Committee on the Civil Service that the new system would make it easier to retire early those Permanent Secretaries who could not get on with their Ministers. Some compatibility is reasonably desirable, but the idea that getting on well with or even admiring the ministerial performance of Mr. Howard, Mr. Lilley and Mr. Patten is a necessary qualification for not being retired early is preposterous. Edward Bridges, Frank Lee or Evelyn Sharp would indeed turn in their graves.
I found the gracious Speech rather lowering. Generally I believe that the economic sky may be lifting a little. I wish, without great confidence, that the Government may exploit this opportunity more constructively, less dogmatically, and perhaps even a little more humbly than has previously been the case.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, both in another place and in this House over a great many years and I have always found his speeches highly entertaining, if somewhat fictional in many aspects. But I thought—I hope he will allow me to say this—that it was unjustifiable for him to charge the Government in general and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in particular with complacency.
If it is said to be complacency simply to invite attention to the good features of our policy, to the features where the economy is improving as a result of government policy, then it would be a justifiable comment. But most of us would not call that complacency; most of us would call it an understanding of the facts. I thought that my noble friend's speech was far from being complacent; it was very realistic and

363
extremely helpful. He was absolutely right to draw attention to some of the good features of the economy at the moment—the fall in unemployment, the fall in rates of interest and the improvement in exports. It was surely right to invite all those matters to your Lordships' attention. No one is foolish enough to think that we are out of the woods yet and my noble friend did not suggest that. But to ignore the improvements that have been taking place in the past few months is utterly unrealistic. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, marred an otherwise excellent speech by taking that line.
If I were on the Episcopal Bench and bound to take a text for my speech, I would take a sentence from the gracious Speech. The following words have not been referred to either in this debate or on earlier days:
"My Government will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector".
That is an extremely important statement. It casts an interesting light on the likely make-up of the Budget which we will hear on Tuesday. I very much hope that it is borne out, because, if we are to steer the national economy into a position where we have real prosperity, it is necessary to take less and less into the public sector and ensure that more and more of the national wealth that is produced is in the private sector. I was glad to see those words in the gracious Speech and frankly rather surprised that neither the press outside nor (more surprisingly) any of your Lordships here has appeared to pay any attention to them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. I am sure that he is aware that in almost every year that the Government have been in power the ratio of government expenditure to GDP has been higher than under the last Labour Government. At this very time it is higher than it was under the last Labour Government. The Government are criticised for cutting public expenditure, but what is interesting is that they never do.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He has underlined exactly what I am trying to say. This statement in the gracious Speech appears to contemplate a policy which modifies what has been done over recent years. The noble Lord is always extremely clear and lucid. I know that he is trying to be helpful, and I thank him for his great help in making fully clear a point which I am making with perhaps less clarity.
However, it is necessary to continue to exercise great restraint in public spending. Almost every day in this House and another place there are arguments in favour of further public expenditure, mostly concerned with wholly admirable objects: education, health, the arts and many other matters. But the fact remains that unless we can reduce the share of public wealth which is taken by the state, and thereby increase the share that remains in the hands of industry and the citizen, we shall not get the full recovery that we wish to see.
I would like to suggest one or two areas in which it is desirable further to restrain and control public expenditure. I am conscious of the fact that any public
364
economy is almost certainly publicly unpopular, but equally I ask your Lordships to accept, with your very great experience of public affairs, that unless action is taken on this line the power to sustain all the good things that the national economy supports will be diminished.
I take, for instance, legal aid, the cost of which is still rising. I do not know how many of your Lordships heard the excellent speech the other day of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon in which he indicated that it would be possible, by adopting a system that had been successfully adopted in other countries, for the civil side of legal aid very quickly to eliminate public expenditure in that direction. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will indicate that at least Her Majesty's Government are looking at it. If not, I feel that the only step required to be taken is simply to reduce the legal aid provision.
I also refer to the Channel Tunnel link, which I am glad to see has been postponed. I wonder whether the sensible thing may be to scrub it altogether and accept the fact that the speed of traffic through the tunnel is not necessarily of great national importance. If any of your Lordships, or any citizen, wished to get to and from the Continent in a hurry he would go by air anyhow from Heathrow and Gatwick. To spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a new railway line that will go through and damage some of the most beautiful country in the South East of England at least merits reconsideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. The noble Lord talks as if the Channel Tunnel link is designed merely to shave minutes off the journey time for passengers. Does he not recognise that the basic argument for the Channel Tunnel rail link is concerned with through routes for freight?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, of course it is. But freight can be carried on the present track. The point of the new link is to increase speed. There is no doubt that traffic can be handled, though more slowly, by the present railway structure. If the noble Lord has studied this matter he will appreciate that the purpose of the link is simply to accelerate traffic coming through the tunnel. I suggest—he will probably accept this—that that is unnecessary, and it is not worth several hundred million pounds and damage to some very beautiful countryside.
There are other areas of the economy where expenditure is also rising. I am sorry to see that the European Commission's demand this year goes up by £80 million. That is a substantial amount to add to our contribution, particularly when it is remembered that the European Commission is spending £900 million a year on the production of tobacco. Your Lordships know well from the many arguments which have been had that tobacco is a harmful product. To spend such a large amount of public money on the production of a poisonous substance such as tobacco, while at the same time issuing pamphlets urging people not to use it, seems to be an area where a drastic reduction can be made. I go further and say that it is unnecessary to spend anything at all on the support of the tobacco industry. Though there may be a need to phase out the growing of that product over a year or two in Greece, Spain and

365
Italy to some extent, this is an area which calls for resolution and for the European Commission to show that it has leadership and courage and that when something is right it is prepared to do it and not be frightened of the political repercussions.
If time permitted a good many aspects of this matter could be attacked. However, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the contrast between the state of our economy and that of Europe. The fact is that the poor state of the European economy is one of our handicaps. After all, between 50 and 60 per cent. of our exports go to Europe, and the fact that Europe is now in a state of depression, with 18 million unemployed, makes our own position, though so much better than theirs, nonetheless more difficult than it need be. We wish to see our European partners become better off.
One can see one explanation for it in figures that have recently been published. In the past 10 years European labour costs have gone up by 50 per cent.; labour costs in the United States have gone up by about 10 per cent.; and Japanese labour costs have not gone up at all. There is a very clear lesson to be learnt from that. The position therefore is that Her Majesty's Government have to ensure that costs are kept down and that, in the words of the gracious Speech, more and more of our resources are left in private hands.
It is for that reason that I must stand firm. I protest against the proposal to impose VAT on domestic fuel. VAT is a very bad tax. It is directly inflationary. It inflates all costs, particularly when it is charged on productive labour. To impose it on domestic fuel is a very unfortunate thing to do. Certainly, the weather we have been experiencing over the past few days confirms that domestic fuel is a matter of life and death for a very large number particularly of disabled and elderly people. Therefore, I venture to say that I find it disappointing that a government who I support should be apparently—we must await the Budget before we form a final view—contemplating this unfortunate step. I would much prefer more emphasis on economy in expenditure.
I quite accept—and I am sure your Lordships accept—that there must be an improvement on our balance of payments. Of course there must be; of course we must get expenditure and income much more into line. But there are two ways of doing it, and it seems to me that the right way to do it is by a reduction in public expenditure. Your Lordships may think that that is the understandable reaction of a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is true that if one is in that office one sees something of the high rate of spending and of the pressures for spending which develop. But it is very important indeed that we should get expenditure down and that we should not increase taxation. In that way we can secure the recovery in our national economy, signs of which we are already seeing.
I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will accuse me of complacency when I say that it seems that we really are improving the position and that we are not very far off going to a position of good working of the economy, good trade and prosperity. I know that that is what all of your Lordships on both sides of the House will wish to see and I believe
366
that we shall see it if the policies of the Government are pursued with the same determination and courage as they have been pursued so far.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I have been met with the greatest kindness and consideration since I arrived in your Lordships' House. I realise that that is usually said on these occasions, but that also happens to be the truth. I should sincerely like to thank your Lordships, the Officers of the House and the staff for the welcome and assistance they have given me.
Members of this House come from all walks of life. They bring every kind of experience to it and have a reputation for listening to each other, and sometimes where the arguments have strength in them, of being prepared to vote for the opposing view. Indeed, if it is not too presumptuous of a newcomer like myself to say it, I feel that that is why your Lordships' House appears to work so well. Real debate can take place. Compromise and consensus are refreshing experiences yet sadly are rare in today's world where the attitude of "Devil take the hindmost" and the "me now" society too often prevails.
I am advised that maiden speeches should not be controversial. That is a rather new experience for me having worked in the controversial area of labour relations for over 30 years. The most controversial term in my union career was having been involved in 1986 in the newspaper dispute with News International—a brutalising experience for everyone involved and one which I hope will never ever be repeated in this country. But that dispute did not represent and never has represented industrial relations in Britain—no more than Fleet Street ever did. Yes, the world of labour relations is controversial, but that does not prevent agreements being concluded in the vast majority of industry; agreements for the good of both the employees and companies. I never forgot, and never will forget, how lucky I was to be part of manufacturing industry, which contrary to much of public opinion is invigorating, interesting, innovative and creative as well as being wealth creating for the community.
I represented trade union members working in the printing and paper industries which collectively provide employment for 440,000 people in Britain today. These important industries are highly trade union organised and, for the most part—the national press perhaps being the exception —have an excellent record of labour relations. Printing and paper in Britain can claim to be among the first ever manufacturing industries, each being over 500 years old. My former union, SOGAT, is over 200 years old. Printing is the fifth largest manufacturing industry in the UK and has a net trade surplus with the rest of the world. It will be my experience of working in industry, with the people I have proudly represented and with the many decent: employers and companies, which will very much influence my views and contributions in debate in your Lordships' House when industry and employment matters are discussed.

367
It was not the provisions for deregulation in industry which improved industrial relations, no more than the over-regulation we have seen on the activities of trade unions. Indeed, it might just be the case that if the trade unions had not been so undermined by the almost yearly legislation enacted against them the Maxwell pension scandal would not have happened.
The many hundreds of thousands of people unemployed through no fault of their own will understandably feel that there is nothing in the gracious Speech which will give them hope for the future and nothing which will give them the dignity of being able to provide for themselves and their families. Unemployment, even on government statistics, has risen by some 34 per cent. since 1988. Against that increase in the numbers of unemployed, who could blame them for being disillusioned? And especially when they read press reports that unemployment benefit may well be cut to a maximum of six months' payment. I hope that there is no truth in that rumour.
One of the most distressing aspects of my work as a trade union official was that of the industrial injuries and illness sustained by my members. It was equally distressing for the many thousands of responsible employers who cared for the work environment they provided for their employees. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 has proved to be a great support in gradually improving standards, reducing accidents and protecting employees. The very real improvements reported only this week by the Health and Safety Executive showing that the number of fatalities at work is down for the third year running to 430 is encouraging. I suggest that 430 fatal accidents at work is still too many.
Despite these improvements, the latest Government statistics reveal some 1.6 million accidents at work each year at a cost of 30 million lost working days. The cost to industry is estimated at between £4,000 million and £9,000 million, or 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. of gross trading profits. That is much more, may I say, than was ever lost in days through strike action in this country.
I believe that we would all agree that any civilised society wants to protect the well-being of its people at work and needs to protect them. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act has been changed from time to time and there is a specific provision that any changes must not reduce the standards which are currently provided for in the Act. It is that underpinning of standards which appears now to be possibly at risk. Those who might wish to dilute the protection in the Act for employees should be reminded that health and safety protection is not a burden on industry but is a basic responsibility of the employers to their workers.
It seems, too, that the European Union proposals for regular eye tests for those spending long periods at the screen of a computer may be targeted on the advice of businessmen. I cannot but help wonder how many businessmen have sat at a computer keyboard for hour after hour, as many of my members have, or who have experienced a blinding headache resulting from light glare, or who have any idea just how crippling repetitive strain injury is. I can assure your Lordships that RSI is
368
a real, modern-day industrial illness; that it is not in the imagination and neither is it due to too much knitting as some have tried to suggest.
My former union, SOGAT, won substantial compensation in the courts for working people who were rendered totally incapable of continuing to earn their living because their hands or arms were incapacitated with RSI. It is interesting that this week the Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that RSI does exist and that it is on the increase. It is for those reasons that employees will be perplexed—and feel betrayed too—if there is any reduction in the standards and protection now provided through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I feel that those views will be shared by this House.
In the very short time I have been in this House it has become clear to me that there is no shortage of important and interesting topics and issues to be debated. I very much look forward to participating in the proceedings of the House. It is my intention to listen to those with opposing points of view with tolerance and good manners. I hope too that, in the spirit of consensus and compromise, agreement and understanding will on occasion prevail—qualities which I like to think that the British people will insist are brought back into the way we work at all levels in public life in this great country of ours.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is a particular privilege for me, as someone who entered this House just over one year ago, to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, on her maiden speech. We all know of her as an effective trade union official at, as she mentioned, a very difficult time for the union which she represented. I was pleased to know of her work then. I like to think that in her maiden speech she has already indicated to the House the way in which she expects to bring her own experience to bear on our proceedings here. I am certain that that will be of major benefit to us all. I congratulate her warmly.
Since he is speaking after me, perhaps I may also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and anticipate his contribution. May I say how pleasant it is to have a person of European intellectual standing as a Member of this House on the Liberal Benches.
This is the final day of debate on the gracious Speech. I intend to follow the approach taken by a number of noble Lords already in taking an overview of the issues although concentrating my remarks on industrial and economic policy. I commend to the House the importance of an integrated approach to policy and its implementation, linking economic, industrial and environmental policy and education and training and linking that with the importance of the role of the public authorities at all levels; whether at the level of the European Union, the member state government, regional governments where they exist—of course, that does not include the United Kingdom at the moment—and at levels of local government. I am not selecting one level as being lower than another.

369
All levels of government and all activities of public authorities are equally important to an effective partnership. That is perhaps the most depressing aspect of the debate about economic and industrial policy we have heard in the United Kingdom in the past 15 years. That is to try to undermine and belittle the role of public authorities in innovation and partnership; to continually attack public expenditure and state activity as if it were somehow inherently contrary to that of entrepreneurial and enterprising activities.
Of course, no one from any of these Benches would argue for an inefficient public sector, but one would certainly argue for the importance of the role of partnership in the public sector. The irony is, of course, that even those government departments in Whitehall which have been severely critical of the approaches of public enterprise have, when they have come to the Welsh Office, for example—or where their Ministers revert to the Welsh Office or arrive there—certainly have had to adopt policies which are indeed more of a consensual nature and partnership between the public and private sector than the rhetoric of Whitehall. I suspect that that is also the experience of the present Secretary of State for Wales.
When one looks at the activities of public and private enterprise there are certain aspects of the economy which are of key importance in terms of public planning. None is more important than the issue of environmental activity. I welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech at last to introduce an environmental agency. I understand the arguments why that agency is to be structured on an England and Wales basis, but I obviously look forward to seeing the Bill itself and how the arrangements for a devolved structure for Wales (which exists within the National Rivers Authority) are to be set up within the structure of a proposed environmental agency.
That environmental agency will be mainly charged with pollution control, among other aspects of the work of the present National Rivers Authority. But that is only one aspect of environmental policy. We need to integrate far more effectively our approach to economic and environmental policies if we are to pursue the objective of sustainable development. The Government still seem to take the view that competitiveness in industry exists on its own account; that it is not related to environmental standards or indeed to the standards of social provision both for consumers and those who are employed in the productive and service industries.
I wish that they could get away from the rather simplistic view of economic activity and realise that sustainable economic development and environmental protection, as well as effective social legislation and protection of the workforce, are all parts of a current modern economic activity. The integration of environmental policy with economic policy is central to the activity of any effective government at whatever level. I only wish that the Government would see far more clearly that when they are talking about enterprising competitiveness they also need to speak of environmental quality, the needs of consumers and of the rights and obligations for employees in industry.
370
Although we are talking today mainly about manufacturing and service industrial activity, there are certain aspects of economic activity which perhaps highlight the inter-relation between the environment and the economy in a more dramatic way than others. I refer particularly to the tourism sector and not only because of its relative importance to that part of the country in which I live, which is next to the European historic site of Caernarvon Castle. Noble Lords can rest assured that I am not trying to acquire the castle as my invented ancestral seat, but just to make the point that tourism is a major economic activity in that town and in the whole western part of Wales.
Tourism brings immediate benefits but it also brings disbenefits in that where there are substantial increases in the number of tourists—the projections of international studies indicate that there are to be substantial increases over the next 10 years, depending on the general rate of economic performance—those increases bring pressure on fragile environments, whether they are historic sites, mountain areas or coastal zones. Those environmental pressures of additional tourists are also economic pressures, and so it is very important that we look at sustainable forms of tourism, effectively managed, so that they bring benefits to regions while minimising the disbenefits. Therefore, again in that area, when we are looking for expansion in the number of job opportunities in the tourism industry we need also to look at the environmental constraints in order that the tourism is "green" and balanced.
That leads me to another aspect of integration that needs to be emphasised and I am very pleased that it has been already covered by most speakers in this debate: that is, the integration between education and training and economic activity. "An educated and participating democracy" was a ringing phrase of my late friend Raymond Williams, and it is a phrase which I certainly stick to. However, I think we need to add to it and emphasise that it is only through having an educated and participating democracy that we can have an effective and competitive economy, even in the terms set out by Government Ministers. If we are to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said so clearly in his opening speech from the Labour Benches, an effective level of economic competitiveness we need to have that capability for the continual training and retraining of our workforce and for reskilling our population.
In that context, I welcome the publication the other week of the consultative document by the Training, Education and Enterprise Division of the Welsh Office. That document sets out frameworks for consultation to improve the standards of the educational system and the skilling of the population within Wales. I draw attention, in particular, to the need for higher education institutions to do more to encourage graduate entry into small and medium-sized businesses, of which we have such a large share within the Welsh economy. It also stresses the need for higher educational institutions to help develop skills within community enterprise with regard to the possibility of development in that sector.
As we look at the present levels which have been achieved, it is important to note that of the targets set out for education and training a couple of years ago by the

371
CBI and the Government, Wales is lagging behind quite seriously in the target of the percentage of young people reaching NVQ2 —that is, 80 per cent. to be reached by 1997—and in the other target of NVQ3 for all young people who can benefit and in the target of lifetime education. We have suffered in the past in Welsh education from perpetuating a belief in our own myth, as it were, that we were still able to maintain standards traditionally associated with the upwardly mobile sections of our grammar school tradition. We need to look again at the ways in which we can have a far more effectively integrated approach to training and education, and I commend the Welsh Office document for having started on that road and planning that provision at the national level within Wales.
I want briefly to touch on one other aspect of the Queen's Speech which relates to my attempt at an integrated approach. That is the question of the levels of effectiveness of public authorities. I mentioned the importance of a partnership between public authorities, private enterprise and other sectors within the economic and environmental fields and the delivery of public services. This question of levels of government of course applies to all levels. The Government seem to believe that subsidiarity, as a doctrine, begins and ends on the White Cliffs of Dover. In fact, subsidiarity applies at all levels of government, if it applies at all. So when we look at the relationship between this House and the other place, and Whitehall and local government and the absent tier of regional government in the United Kingdom, we need to understand that the decisions made by this House and the other place about local government have to be decisions which are taken sensitively, as relating to the views of the local population. If a public authority is to be effective in the areas of enterprise, culture and all the other services, it must have not only the confidence of but also the affiliation and the identity link with its local population. Continual changes of local government are not helpful in establishing either efficiency or indeed affiliation by the public to its elected authority.
I fear that the next stage of local government reorganisation in Wales, promised in the Queen's Speech, will lead to yet further disaffection from the structures of government. Although I have always been a strong supporter of unitary authorities, I believe that unitary authority in Welsh local government must be related to an elected national authority if it is to be effective. I did not expect the Government to legislate for that, but I think the time will come when either a Conservative Government or an incoming Labour Government will have to legislate for a level of regional or national government for Wales within the United Kingdom to meet the needs of democracy and so that people like myself, who work in a non-departmental public body, will be made directly accountable.
It is also important that the level of local government which is now being proposed should be properly scrutinised and analysed as we take the legislation through this House. I do not apologise for referring very briefly to the area of Merioneth, which I represented in the other place for 18 years, because in the
372
Government's proposals the area of Merioneth is not to have its own unitary authority. I understand the arguments about the scale and the size of population, but I do not understand why these arguments need to apply when the Government are looking at enabling local authorities which are no longer, for the most part, direct deliverers of services.
Indeed, if one takes the Government's own deregulation Bill alongside its local government Bill I do not think there is much sense in abolishing, or not providing, a level of authority for an area like Merioneth, when the very services that would be provided by that authority could well be deregulated or put on an agency basis. Therefore, the old arguments about economies of scale and territory for local government units can, in my view, no longer apply, given the Government's own logic. We need a greater degree of flexibility. It appears to me, although I would never advocate it as a principle, that Wales should follow England or Scotland. There is a greater degree of flexibility in the approach of the Government to local government in those countries than there is in my home country of Wales. Obviously we will come to that later in our debates, but the point is linked to my view of economic and industrial activity as a partnership. If we are to have an effective partnership involving local authorities, then the population of a local authority area must be an active part of its community.
Finally, may I say that I regret that the Queen's Speech does not take us on a new road to greater policy integration or to a greater understanding of the relative importance of the public and private sectors in a modern economy; but, given the ideological background of the Government over the last 15 years, that would be a surprise. When the Prime Minister talks, as he does, of going back to basics, I think it is important that he should also consider that basics are not things which should be returned to. Basics are things which are with us and which are basic to our public life. Basics exist in the future as well as in the past. What I regret about this Government's attitude is that it seems to be re-inventing a selective past while missing out the basics of the future.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, your Lordships' House is courteous and supportive to newcomers, and no one appreciates that more than someone who is a newcomer not just to your House but to this country —a British citizen by choice. Britain is, in the words of a recent author, a civic country, to which one belongs by shared rights and values of citizenship and not primarily, as in ethnic countries, by blood and origin. Ethnic countries are often uneasy and sometimes warlike places, whereas civic countries tend to be open and civilised. I am grateful to have become a part of this tradition, and hope to repay the civility of the welcome by doing what is required of a good citizen.
We are debating today the country's economic future. In doing so we must look beyond one Parliament even if the occasion is Her Majesty's gracious Speech for this Session. In the light of such longer-term concerns, perhaps I may add a footnote—no more—on

373
the vexing issue of unemployment. It is vexing for many reasons. While we are all pleased that the latest figures show a reduction in the number of people claiming benefits of 49,000 in October and an average reduction of 14,000 during the past six months, it would take 57 months like October and nearly 17 years like the average of the past six months to reach zero unemployment. No one expects that to happen.
If recent American experience is anything to go by, we may well be in for a period of economic recovery in which, nevertheless, relatively few jobs are filled or created. The spectre of "jobless growth" is real. That is notably the case in manufacturing. Sometimes the present period of "restructuring" reminds one of what happened in agriculture many decades ago: higher output with fewer workers. During the past 10 years employment in manufacturing has fallen by nearly 25 per cent. while industrial output has risen by almost 15 per cent. More significantly still, the Financial Times reported on 1st November that "Britain's 1,000 largest companies shed about 1.5 million workers in the year to March 1993". The Department of Employment summarised in its October Report that "employment over the year to June 1993 fell by 523,000". In other words, there are fewer jobs altogether.
How do we make sense of that and what do we do about it? I remember an occasion when the late Earl of Stockton, then Harold Macmillan, said in his inimitable way, "I don't known why people get so excited about unemployment. When I was a young MP they all wanted to work less rather than more". The noble Earl was never just facetious or frivolous. After all, when a book entitled Theory of the Leisure Class was published 80 years ago, being unemployed—or at any rate, not having to work—was a privilege and not a punishment. We may well have to rethink the place of work in our lives. But clearly this is not good enough here and now. So how do we find jobs if not for all then for more?
Ever since Maynard Keynes and President Roosevelt's Tennessee Valley Authority, one proposal has been larger infrastructure projects, public or private. I had a closer look at two of them; the Channel Tunnel and the £800 million construction project by a private company, Glaxo Pharmaceuticals, in Stevenage. Both teach the same lesson and it is simple. The Stevenage project employed 3,000 people in the peak period, which incidentally was roughly the number of British employees on the Channel Tunnel project during the past year. They were all skilled people who had to be specially trained for their tasks, which required a lengthy run-up period. Indeed, project managers had to be imported from North America. Of course, all those employed had limited-term contracts.
There is a case for infrastructure projects, and in that respect I emphatically agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. We also need better facilities for training for those who plan and direct them as well as for those "at the coal face". In that respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. But even 10 £1 billion projects would make hardly a dent in unemployment figures.
What about those who do not benefit from big projects? There is much discussion these days about labour market flexibility. There also used to be frequent
374
references to the American "jobs miracle". But the other side of the American experience is often overlooked in Europe. It is true that with lower wages and lesser non-wage labour cost tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of new jobs could be created. But the result would be that we would also create what in America are called the "working poor". Employed people who do not earn enough to sustain themselves let alone their families are the American equivalent of Europe's long-term unemployed; and where unemployment benefits are generous, Europe's unemployed are better off than America's working poor.
I am certainly not arguing that we should make unemployment attractive. Indeed, if I am arguing any particular point it is that the solution of the employment problem today is not simple and it would benefit all if neither Government nor Opposition felt compelled to promise simple solutions. Social well-being has come to be an even more complicated proposition today than it was at the time of one of my distinguished predecessors as Director of the London School of Economics, Lord Beveridge.
But perhaps your Lordships will allow me to conclude with the thought that if we want to go down the flexibility route to more employment it will have its cost. We will have to think of ways of supplementing the incomes of those who have accepted low-paid employment. Professor James Meade, the economics Nobel laureate, is but one of many who suggest in this context basic income guarantees, or a "citizens' income", and a system of taxation which includes what is sometimes called a negative income tax, in order to enable every citizen to live a decent life. But that is a subject for another day and for someone who is no longer a maiden in the midsts of such rich and varied experience.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it falls to me on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on a most interesting maiden speech. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions. We are grateful to him for his thoughtful speech on unemployment and the problems in that area which are so difficult to resolve. I say also to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that she made a splendid maiden speech.
I wish to concentrate on four practical matters relating to manufacturing industry and perhaps move away from the more high-flown debate on economic policy to the more practical points which are relevant to certain industries of which I have some knowledge. Perhaps I may tell my noble friends on the Front Bench that I have a message for my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. declare an interest because I am about to take over as chairman of one of the dairy companies which next year will launch themselves into the private sector. They will be private-sector companies. It will be a difficult, tough and fraught period for those companies. My message is: please, please do not put off vesting day beyond 1st April 1994, for delay in that area will cause uncertainty and confusion, which we certainly do not wish to see.

375
I have not heard much in the way of compliments for the Government in this afternoon's debate so far, but I have a compliment for them. The VAT decisions which were made in the Budget last spring in relation to the bloodstock industry of this country have saved that industry from decimation. I can quote from the Racing Post, which said:
"We should be sure to congratulate the Government for its foresight in granting a concession that saved the day".
I believe that a government who listen to an industry so vital to this country deserve to be congratulated, even though in some other areas they may not receive such congratulations.
I move on quickly to one particular matter that concerns me in relation to the seedcorn small businesses which are involved in exporting. There is a real danger that in looking at public expenditure the wrong things may be cut. There is one area in which I believe cuts could be extremely damaging; that is, the help given to small industries to show and to trade abroad. Two matters need to be looked at in that regard. My noble friend the Minister responsible for small businesses will understand when I tell him that I do not like the three-times rule. He knows what I mean even if some of your Lordships do not. I believe that that is a matter at which the Minister's department should look, which was also the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Committee of another place when it reported on 28th April this year.
Secondly, it should be realised that more and more business is being done at trade fairs. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary for the Department of Trade and Industry to look well ahead so that we do not have a short time-scale, with decisions taken over too short a period. If one is to compete in exporting countries like Japan and so on, it is necessary to plan well ahead so that a small business can decide whether it will gain the necessary support to be able to show its wares in those countries. Again, it must be necessary to avoid uncertainty; and clear information given well ahead must be the order of the day. I do not believe that this Government have covered themselves in glory in that regard in the past year or so.
Finally, I make no apology for returning to a subject on which I spoke in your Lordships' House some time ago. I said at the time in relation to the business expansion scheme that it should be modified and not crucified. I firmly believe that to be the case. I believe also that the principles of the party of which I enjoy being a member mean that, if we talk about getting back to basics, it is important that individuals should help small businesses. The strong should help the starters.
I agree that the business expansion scheme, which is disappearing this year, has been flouted. The original purpose, so ably brought forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, has gone up some alleyways which I am sure he did not intend it to go. But what is absolutely certain is that the best help for small businesses and people starting out in business is to have individuals who, perhaps with fiscal incentives, will be able to assist them to succeed. It should not be left to banks and loan-back schemes, and certainly it
376
should not be left to hand-outs from her Majesty's Government in the form of grants. Those businesses should not be left to try to fend for themselves in the tough world which they enter.
I do not expect an answer from my noble friend the Leader of the House who is to reply to the debate. But I say to him that if the small business sector is to succeed, some son or daughter of BES should be devised. I do not require an answer from my noble friend today, but on St. Andrew's Day I shall look for an answer.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I apologise in advance because I may not be in my place at the end of the debate. Perhaps I may add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers. My noble friend Lady Dean was a member of the general advisory council to the BBC. We welcomed the advice that she gave us there, as I am sure we shall in your Lordships' House, as we can judge from her excellent maiden speech. The same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, whose intellectual prowess has gone before him. The point he made about the spectres of jobless growth is a matter to which I wish to return. That is certainly a major problem which we face in this country, and indeed in many other countries in Europe.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has left the Chamber. He gave us the same form of words which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave in a previous debate; namely, that all is now set for sustainable growth. I see that the noble Lord the Leader of the House nods in agreement. I am sorry to see him doing that. I thought that he would disagree because it is precisely because the public can see that that is not the case, that they are as cynical as they are about what is happening in this country today. I wish to say a few words about that later.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, said that he had not heard many compliments for the Government. I begin by giving the Government some credit for clearing out much of the dead wood in publicly-owned industry, improving industrial relations and bringing down inflation. That is certainly to the Government's credit and I do not seek to do other than to give them credit for that. Whether the rate of inflation would be under control if the Government were to go for the level of economic growth which I personally—and I imagine many others—would wish to see, is an entirely different matter which I beg leave to doubt.
Having given the Government credit in some areas, it must be said also that the market economy has hardly solved our basic problems. Many of them remain. I could not help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had written his speech before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had made his remarks on Monday night.
Lord Jay: He obviously had not.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Jay says, he clearly could not have done. My noble friend Lord Peston referred to some of the remarks which Michael Heseltine made; for example, the fact

377
that we are 25 per cent. behind Europe in terms of productivity and even more behind the United States. Therefore, although manufacturing productivity has certainly grown, that is hardly surprising because it started from such a low level. It would be astonishing if it had not grown; but it has still not grown by anything like the degree required.
The other important point which Mr. Heseltine made was when he said that trade in manufactured goods had declined remorselessly, stabilising at only 6 per cent. compared with 33 per cent. in 1914. I wish to say a few words about that in a moment because it relates to whether we can sustain economic growth at the levels that we all wish to see. We are told that this year the economy is likely to grow at something slightly in excess of 1.5 per cent. I welcome that. We are coming out of a recession. In 1994–95, it may be something in excess of 2.5 per cent. I certainly hope it will, but a lot will depend on other factors, including what is in the Chancellor's speech next Tuesday.
Again, I wish I could be as certain as the Minister that all that can be sustained. I have in mind in particular looking at the financial position; namely, a budget deficit of £50 billion in 1993–94. We were told a long time ago that it will be balanced in the medium term. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Leader of the House would give us a definition of "medium term" because in the last Financial Statement and Budget Report we saw that it would be £35 billion in 1996–97. I do not know whether "medium term" means the end of the century or whenever. Frankly, I am not too worried about that, especially in the current economic circumstances.
What is much worse than the PSBR is the external deficit. That is the really crucial and serious problem. It was £6.5 billion in 1991; £12 billion in 1992; and the forecast was that it would be £17.5 billion this year. Judging from recent figures, it may be a little less but I should not like to guarantee it. But even if it is a little less, they are not exactly helpful figures to give us sustainable economic growth. If we go back to really useful levels of economic growth to start to bring down the levels of unemployment, what will happen during that period when we have those external deficits during a recession?
It is incredible that the Government now think that we have everything in place to achieve a sustainable level of growth and all the improvements in the economy about which we have heard. Of course, I am delighted to see any fall in unemployment. The falls that we have seen in the past few months are worth seeing. I hope that they will continue. However, as I said, we need high levels of growth to bring unemployment down substantially. Again, one is bound to ask: what will happen to the external deficit?
It seems to me that, next Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be between what might be called a rock and a hard place. He is faced with a situation where he can increase tax and cut public expenditure as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is asking him to do. However, I fear that he will be a little disappointed; the best that he will do is to go back to the figure of which he, or rather his predecessor, first thought. But if he
378
increases taxation further, what happens to next year's growth? If he does not do so, he will then be left with the huge public sector borrowing requirement which is certainly not balanced, as I say, in the medium term.
Therefore, what on earth will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do, and what should he do? Like the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, I have made it clear that I do not claim a simple miracle cure. That is not surprising, because there is no such thing. As my first point, I would advise the Government to stop boasting that all is now in place for a sustainable recovery when clearly it is not. We shall not solve the kind of problems to which Michael Heseltine referred in that speech on Monday night in the short term. If we are to bring unemployment down on a sustainable basis, it will take a long time to put those problems right.
Speaking for myself, I would not seek to cut the public sector borrowing requirement for 1995 next Tuesday. I would live with the March forecast of £44 billion. In any event, it will be lower next year as a percentage of GDP; that is, assuming that we get some growth, and it looks as though we will. But that will not be achieved if we reduce growth by increasing taxation further. We must remember that from next April there is already £6.75 billion in the pipeline for the higher taxation. As we all know, that is not the VAT on fuel because that is only £950 million. All the rest will be largely felt in workers' pay packets next year.
I would have what might be called a net "do nothing" Budget on Tuesday. I do not know what effect that would have on the economy: but I have said no net tax increases and public expenditure cuts. However, I would increase taxes in one major area in order to pay for increased public expenditure which is desperately needed to increase public investment and investment in training and education. If we do not do that, we shall never get ourselves out of the mess that we are now in. I would be willing to see us increase taxation to pay for the latter.
However, that is not to say that we shall need that increased taxation permanently; but we shall need it in the short term. I do not think that we can say that we shall not need it. In the medium and longer term, we may be able to avoid any increase in taxation. But we shall certainly need some increase to pay for those extra areas of public expenditure that I personally should like to see. I propose to leave those areas of taxation which I would increase to my Budget speech. In actual fact, I am giving some indication of them in a speech which will be broadcast on BBC 2 Television on Sunday night.
The other area of real benefit to industry which might be slightly more controversial is exchange rate stability. Maiden speeches, as has been said, are supposed to be non-controversial. However, 10 years ago I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in which I strongly recommended that we should join the exchange rate mechanism. The exchange rate was somewhat different then from what it was when we actually joined. In my view, it should not be seen as a short cut to a single currency—out of which we have, in any event, opted; and, if I may say so, unnecessarily. I say that because we are not likely to see convergence of the various economies within Europe that would allow for

379
a single currency in the short term. I would certainly join the exchange rate mechanism. I do not see the exchange rate mechanism as being the inflexible and written in stone measure that some people saw when the Government were forced out of it. I should have preferred another way of doing it. However, as I said, I would certainly want us to join the ERM as soon as possible.
Finally, if bringing down employment is to be our highest priority—and it is certainly mine—then higher growth is essential. Incidentally, I would not dismiss work sharing so easily and lightly as many have, provided that it is agreed between employers and employees. Indeed, it would be very foolish to dismiss it quite so lightly. During the last economic debate, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, mentioned "ambulance" expenditure which would improve employment in the short term. I very much agree with that idea, and I would spend some money on it.
However, in the main, I would ignore any advice from the Bank of England about restraining the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to manage the economy, especially as regards interest rates. I would cut interest rates by a further 1 per cent. I assume that the half-per-cent. cut was a political cut because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not fancy making only a half-per-cent. cut in his Budget speech. But, apart from anything else, I should like to make it crystal clear (as I did in a recent letter to a well-known newspaper) that I would not give the Bank of England independence at any time. An independent bank is not what I want to see. I believe that a bank should be responsible to an accountable government who, in turn, are accountable to Parliament.
When one controls interest rates, one controls very much more than just interest rates and inflation; indeed, such control has a major impact on the economy as a whole. I am glad to see that some noble Lords opposite seem to be agreeing with me. As I said, none of what I propose would be a miracle cure. But, in my view, it would give us a better chance of achieving the objectives that both the Government and myself have in mind as regards present policies.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, notwithstanding some of the optimistic statements that have been made in the debate, the fact remains that our industrial base continues to decline and we have a serious deficit in our overseas trade in manufactures. The situation has been debated in your Lordships' House several times in recent years, but sadly the Government appear to ignore the advice that they should take if the decline that has been with us for two or three generations is to be arrested.
In the public debate leading up to the Budget, we have heard a great deal about the need to bolster the NHS and have a credible defence capability. Do we really think that we can afford either if our industrial base continues to decline? If we are to reverse the trend and reduce unemployment, there must be a vision in government, in industry and in the country at large that
380
together we can compete and win against those countries presently winning at our expense, especially those in the Pacific rim. It is time to discard the very short-term outlook of jam today which we presently demand and lift our eyes to a wider horizon.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two examples of short-termism which should chill the blood. In the years 1985 to 1992 our gross national product grew by 15 per cent. while consumer spending rose by 23 per cent. Personal consumption now represents more than 62 per cent. of total activity in our economy. In 1976 it was 54 per cent. and it has grown rapidly ever since. Secondly, between 1987 and 1993 company earnings increased by 35 per cent. while dividends increased by 100 per cent. That can only be madness, and those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
I believe that unemployment now lies at the heart of our problem. Unless great statesmanship is shown, short-term and therefore damaging policies will almost inevitably follow. The European initiative of a 35-hour, four-day week is an example of a short-term palliative which must bring joy to the hearts of the Pacific rim countries. Labour is a commodity and if we need confirmation of that very unpalatable fact it can be found by looking in almost any UK store at the number of products made in the Pacific rim. An increase in national wealth and a sustained reduction in unemployment will come only from exports, primarily to economies growing faster than those in Europe, mainly in the Pacific rim.
The answer does not lie with government only. We all have a part to play. I should like to set out some important initiatives which I believe would help.
First, our research and development is one third of the international average. To help create a climate in which to carry out the necessary investment, capital allowances of a generous nature should be reinstated. We shall not achieve the capital expenditure level necessary if industry is encouraged—forced by the institutions might be a better phrase—to pay out too much in dividends. The balance of power between industry and the City would be partially restored if everyone, including pension funds, were to pay capital gains tax on short-term gains but none on long-term gains, say, after five years. The exemption of pension funds from paying capital gains tax encourages them to deal, leading to short-termism.
Secondly, education must be geared more to the needs of industry. While government must have a part to play, more companies should take an interest in schools and make careers in industry more acceptable to those top-class graduates who presently seem to think exclusively in terms of the City.
Finally, and most importantly, there is a need for a measure to tackle the immediate unemployment problem. I identify a great deal with what my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said. Unemployment at present levels is not only a waste of a precious resource; it helps to create a serious crime problem. What we need is not a shorter working week, which is likely to increase unit labour costs, but a shorter working life. Companies faced—as mine was over the many years I was there—with reducing their workforce look first to early

381
retirement. To make an immediate and meaningful dent in the present unacceptable level of unemployment I believe that we should devise an imaginative, special offer, early retirement scheme. The aim would be to retire, say, half a million unskilled people—I would like to say men but that may get me into trouble—aged about 60, with long service and in an occupational pension scheme at the pension level they would have received at 65. The Government would play their full part on condition that a young person was taken on from the unemployment pool.
While that may look expensive at first sight, in my view nothing is more expensive, and degrading, than unemployed youth, as the crime statistics indicate. Is it not absurd to keep people aged 60 in work who would be happy to retire given the proper conditions and deny those who would like to work?
Time is running out. Unless energetic action is taken to arrest the decline of our manufacturing sector we shall continue our downward drift.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I should like to examine our economy not as it is today, but as it will be in the future.
Our economy is primarily dependent on our manufacturing and industrial skills. One hundred years ago we provided 50 per cent. of the total trade of the world. That figure is now down to about 6 per cent. Our industrial base and the relative outturn of our manufacturing industries has been steadily declining for a great many years. We have very few natural resources, except oil and gas, and their probable life is short.
Merely for emphasis, I shall give three instances from industry, chosen more or less at random. The figures are in constant pounds, expressed in millions, and show the decline in outturn between 1950 and 1990: railway equipment, down from 2,400 to 1,000; shipbuilding and repair, down from 4,700 to 2,800; iron and steel production, down from 12,300 to 8,600. In 50 years' time, industrially and financially, we shall be an impoverished nation, and our influence in world affairs will not amount to much. It is indeed disturbing to see the fall in our prestige which unhappily takes place year by year.
There is nothing in the gracious Speech, and there has been nothing in its several predecessors, which explains that situation to the public or proposes any remedies. The reasons for the decline are two wars, which have led to exhaustion and complacency; strong, invigorating leadership by competing nations; and the fact that in the past 10 to 15 years many third world industrial countries which had only third world industrial status have raised themselves up to first world industrial status. We have been unable to match the upsurge of other nations.
There has been another reason. Ever since 1945 we have had a series of governments with short-term, conflicting and doctrinaire policies. Our economy is bleeding from our own self-inflicted wounds.
It is quite easy to stem the tide. We have great leadership in manufacturing industry, administration, banking and finance, research, technology and personnel management. At present it is disjointed and
382
unco-ordinated. Massive rethinking of government policy will be necessary. The situation will have to be explained to the nation. It will have to appreciate the long-term tasks which lie ahead.
The structure of our education system must be overhauled in order to provide proper training and education for the workforce. Our industrial companies, not just the few at the top but all of them, must be directed by people with professional management skills and not by amateurs with no or few qualifications. We must convince the country of the need for much greater productivity; and we must educate the public on how that can be achieved.
There must be greater expenditure on research and development with the results more skilfully directed. We must set up new industries to meet the changing demands of this country and abroad and to recapture some of the industry that we have lost. Many of the products that we import from abroad must be produced in this country at competitive prices.
With those aims in view, every sector of industry needs examination, sector by sector, to see what changes and improvements can be made. Partnership sourcing should be commonplace. Better financial management is necessary to ensure that ample funds are available which are used year by year in new investment by industry in the new technologies. Our transport infrastructure needs overhauling. There must be a true partnership between government and industry and not the empty mouthings which have been uttered over the past two years.
Many of those initiatives rest on the Government's shoulders, but the remainder rest on the shoulders of industry. However, the Government—and it is the only authority which can do so—can provide the leadership and co-ordination which will set them in place. They can state the needs and set the objectives. They can inspire and encourage. With their huge volume of purchasing power they can put many of the policies into action automatically. They can provide taxation and other incentives. They can use the weapons of propaganda and publicity to great advantage.
However, unless the Government of the day have the courage to introduce those policies and remedies, our grandchildren will succeed to a weak and impoverished nation with nothing to sustain them but the empty memories of the past. It is we, in this Chamber, and others in another place who carry the responsibility for that dreadful heritage. What is the Government's answer?
5.43 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I was tempted to follow the comments in some of the speeches in today's debate on unemployment. I refer in particular to the fascinating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. But I shall not do so. I shall confine my remarks to one aspect only because I believe it is so important. I refer to monetary policy. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, made reference to the independence of the Bank of England, to which I shall also refer.
The subject of fiscal policy appears in the gracious Speech. It quite rightly states:

383
"Fiscal policy will be set to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term".
That must be right. However, we shall hear more about that over the next few days. There is no reference in the gracious Speech, again quite rightly, to monetary policy. I say "quite rightly" because interest rates and exchange rates, despite the significant effect that they have on economic policy, are not matters which require the consent of Parliament. They are variables for which no parliamentary initiative is needed to adjust them. They are indeed in the control of government. But that is the issue: government control over monetary policy. The question that is canvassed in speeches by economists and in press articles is whether there should be an independent Bank of England which should take over the control of monetary policy. Many urge that.
I urge that fiscal policy (taxation, and factors which go with that) and monetary policy (interest rates and the control of the monetary supply, with exchange rates which flow from it), again an essential part of economic policy, cannot be considered in isolation. Neither policy can be properly or fully considered without full attention to the other. Press articles and economists' contributions over recent weeks predicting what the Budget should or will contain inevitably refer to taxation and interest rates as one combined part of that economic package. The current theme is that, if taxes are to increase, interest rates should be brought down. To what extent that theme is amended by the recent announcement on interest rates I cannot say.
Interest rates, and interest rate policy, are in the control of government. In his excellent opening speech my noble friend Lord Strathclyde claimed credit for the Government on their achievements in bringing down interest rates to the present low level. He is quite right. Government policy was aimed at that purpose; and it has been achieved. There is a general theme that in a fiscal and monetary policy one cannot have one without the other. I am almost tempted to quote the ballad about love and marriage and a horse and carriage—one cannot have one without the other. But I suppose that that ballad is outdated and is no longer applicable.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Shame!
Lord Boardman: I agree with the noble Lord. It is a shame in both cases. The same people who in the press project that one must bring interest rates down or put taxes up and have one economic policy have often been writing powerful leading articles the previous week on the need for the Bank of England to be independent: that there should be no government control over monetary policy and it should not be subject to the domination of government, which the writers say has affected that policy. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that if you alter the tax system you must vary the interest rate, and in the next breath state that fixing the interest rate and monetary policy has nothing to do with the Government, that government must not control it and that it must not be the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The parallel is of two cooks, one of whom is responsible for producing the pudding and putting it on
384
the table, while the other, over whom there is no control, can add, take away or decide what to do with certain essential ingredients which have to go into the pudding. It is an impossible situation.
To date, and for long past, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the overall responsibility for economic policy. That means a fiscal as well as a monetary policy. Of course he takes advice from the Governor of the Bank of England. As I know from experience when I have been present on certain occasions, that advice can be very forceful indeed. It is up to the Chancellor; he can accept or reject it. But it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the Governor of the Bank of England, who stands or falls, as indeed may the Government of which he is a Member, on the acceptance or rejection of that advice. The Governor of the Bank of England is not democratically elected. He can be sacked; he can resign. If the issue is of such importance that he believes that resignation is the appropriate course to take because if his advice is rejected the consequences for the economy of the country are so grave, it would be his duty to resign. The threat to the Chancellor of the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of England must be a very, very powerful deterrent in rejecting his advice.
There are powerful voices on both sides of the argument. For the independence of the Bank of England, there is at least one former governor and certainly one Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is an opponent of the independence of the Bank of England. The noble Lord and I understand the matter from our experience, an experience which the noble Lord shared for much longer than I did as Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and we are certainly at one on this matter.
A very distinguished former deputy governor spoke forcefully against the independence of the Bank of England. We have two former Chancellors who, after resignation, said that they favoured the independence of the Bank of England, but who both appeared when they were in office to be enjoying the control of monetary policy; and indeed they exercised that power.
The noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, who was in his place (I told the noble Lord that I might make a reference to him) has chaired a powerful committee of very distinguished members favouring independence. It is qualified by a reference to a parliamentary committee which would not exactly sit in judgment but would be involved in the process of accountability of that independent Bank of England. I have visions of a Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to prepare a Budget with a parliamentary committee and the Governor of the Bank of England all sitting round in a circle to decide what should happen. The buck-passing that would subsequently go on, and the "boo-to-you" from the Chancellor to the governor and vice versa, would make it quite an impossible situation.
Those who favour independence may quote the US Federal Reserve, or the Bundesbank in the case of Germany, or, as more recently, New Zealand's central bank. Time does not permit me to try to distinguish those, though I will happily try to do so on some other

385
occasion. I believe that very distinct circumstances apply and can be applied to say that those systems are not right for us.
I make two final points. First, there is a temptation for critics of the Government to say that the present system allows government to reduce interest rates in order to win votes. That may or may not be a fair criticism. But I remind noble Lords that for every one borrower there are six savers. However much industry and commerce may plead for interest rates to be brought down, there are certainly individuals who are living on building society and other savings who complain bitterly when interest rates fall (I see certain noble Lords nodding in agreement on that point) and say how hard it is for them to live on their savings income, which has been so harshly hit by the achievements of government.
The plea that I make to my noble friend the Leader of the House is that, because of the importance of this subject and the uncertainty that remains given the very powerful voices on both sides, I hope that there will be a full debate in this House. We have in this House all the living former Governors of the Bank of England. We have here all the living former Chancellors of the Exchequer bar one, who happens to be the Prime Minister. We have a wealth of experience. The subject justifies considerable debate, and I hope that my noble friend will consider that possibility in due course.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, on the issue of a possibly independent Bank of England, I am very happy to agree most warmly with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. We have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the £50 billion budget deficit which is leading the Government to threaten higher taxes and cuts in expenditure in almost every area from defence to social spending. We have heard very little, however, about why that deficit has arisen.
The immediate cause of the deficit is not some sudden increase in welfare spending, other than that on unemployment. It is partly the result of the huge loss of revenue due to the tax reliefs given away in the Budgets of 1988 and 1989 by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, which is now coming home to roost. The peak of a boom period is the very worst time to give away huge amounts of revenue. It causes a very awkward dilemma in the subsequent recession. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, admits in his excellent, and indeed candid, book that he gave away £6¼ billion in tax reliefs, incidentally to people who needed them least, which in today's money values would amount to something like £8 billion.
On top of that, the Exchequer is losing £4 billion a year in mortgage tax relief, which could easily be cut by 50 per cent. Those two sources of revenue alone would give £10 billion towards closing the gap. Most of the rest of the deficit is due to the doubling of the number of unemployed caused by our two disastrous years in the exchange rate mechanism. It can be reduced only by substantial reduction in the numbers of unemployed, and not by more deflationary measures which, whatever else they do, will simply prevent recovery. It was plainly the liberation from the ERM and the fall in the exchange rate after September 1992 that started the recovery,
386
which began three months after the fall in the rate. The failure of the Government adequately to reduce interest rates since then has prevented unemployment falling below the figure of 10 per cent., a figure which stands now, even following the recent reduction. I applaud the half per cent. reduction in interest rates. But it is quite inadequate to the situation.
From a more general point of view, the present deflated and depressed state of the UK economy and many of the western European economies is not due to a mysterious recession visited upon us by providence, as used to be thought about 19th century depressions; I believe that it is due to the mistaken policies of the past 25 years.
The figures are rather fascinating if one looks at them in that light. In the United Kingdom, from 1945 to 1970 we enjoyed a balance of payments surplus in most years, a Budget that was generally balanced, and unemployment that scarcely ever exceeded 3 per cent. Indeed, in the 25 years from 1946 to 1970, UK real GDP rose by an average of 2.8 per cent. per year. From 1970 to 1991, it rose by only 1.9 per cent. a year. It follows, on the basis of simple arithmetic, that if the rate of real growth from 1972 until now had been what it was from 1946 to 1970, our real GDP today would be 18 per cent. higher, or £125 billion a year. Incidentally, tax revenue would have been about £50 billion higher at the same rates of tax.
Why has not merely the UK but most of western Europe, sunk into this quagmire of slow growth and waste of capacity since the 1970s so that, incidentally, the great 1993 European single market with its promised (or propagandised) paradise of prosperity has become almost an economic backwater, with 18 million unemployed in the EC, 4 million unemployed in Germany alone, and even extremism breaking out in Italy? There is no need to look for mysterious economic forces. The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves that are in this mess at the present time, and it goes wider than the UK.
In recent years we have allowed what I regard as an excessive obsession with money values and the value of money, with constant incantations about the perils of inflation, to blind us to the economic realities of production, living standards and employment. Quite frankly, the central bankers are more prone to that disease than almost anyone else. They never cease to warn us about the dangers of inflation and tell us that interest rates will hardly ever be reduced. Our new governor of the Bank at present is not, I am afraid, immune to the infection.
Yet to hold back the full use of capacity and real output for the sake of some particular value of money, miscalled an inflation target, is surely an economic absurdity. The object of economic policy is to produce goods and services that people want, not to juggle with particular money values. Of course the price level must be kept from getting out of hand. But that is certainly not the problem now in the United Kingdom.
But there is a choice. It is no good denying it. There is a choice between rising price levels or rising unemployment, for the reason that, if there is no income policy and pay rates are rising faster than output, one is

387
caught in a real dilemma. Increased demand will inevitably raise prices and failure to increase demand will inevitably raise unemployment. It is no good deceiving ourselves that that dilemma does not exist.
Most of the talk from which we have been suffering lately about the vastly exaggerated burden of welfare payments in the UK and western Europe is, I believe, little more than an attempt to run away from those rather awful basic truths. Therefore the first need, as I see it, is to return to a more balanced target of full use of capacity—let us say a 3 per cent. unemployment target, not more than that—to manage demand accordingly, and to accept whatever inevitable rise in price levels is bound to follow.
What does that mean for UK policy in 1993 and 1994? Even Mr. Sam Brittan, I am glad to say, says that the UK now needs a tightening of policy like it needs a hole in the head. I suggest that the first necessity is a more adequate cut in interest rates if we are to achieve genuine growth. It was barely 30 years ago that the governor of the Bank of England told us that 5½ per cent. was a crisis rate. For those who believe in Victorian values, it is perhaps worth recalling that the Victorian cyclical depressions never started to recover with a bank rate higher than 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. at most.
Certainly a major cut in spending or rise in taxation at present would only check consumer demand, though I believe that later on a rise in taxes will be necessary. If a modest further rise in taxes were thought desirable now, I should prefer, first, recovery of some of the £4 billion a year given away in mortgage tax relief. On the indirect tax front, if we must have something, we should not have an increase in VAT, which is a viciously regressive tax; we should have some rise in the petrol and diesel duties which the ever expanding volume of traffic on our roads, lorries and cars, could easily accept. Our motorways are not a depressed industry at the present time.
Most vital of all, if the recovery from recession is to be genuine, the sterling exchange rate must be allowed to move freely to competitive levels. Indeed probably the best solution proposed, on balance, between the European and Far Eastern economies at the moment would be an adjustment of the exchange rate there. That would cause less trouble than anything else. It would be a far better solution than cuts in welfare expenditure or even a 35 hour week.
The guiding light for the UK at the present time must be to avoid fixed exchange rates like the plague. I believe that with lower interest rates and a competitive exchange rate a real recovery in the UK economy and a genuine fall in unemployment are perfectly possible, but not otherwise.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I should like to offer my congratulations to two excellent maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, speaking from her great experience of industrial relations, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, speaking from his great knowledge and practical experience of international affairs. I
388
certainly agree with the noble Lord that unemployment is a very vexing problem and its solution is not easy. That is a matter to which I shall return.
I also very much enjoyed the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, though I was amused by his call for humility. I am less an admirer of the higher Civil Service than he is. I feel that its record over the post-war period has not been particularly thrilling. It has been accused of being out of touch and remote and certainly its mistakes go largely undetected. I welcome the proposals for opening it up to competition and greater scrutiny.
Like the noble Lord, I also very much regret the decline in the public service spirit to which he referred. But we also have to understand what damaged it. I have long believed that the greatest damage to the public service ethos in this country was inflicted by the inflation of the 1970s. It was an inflation which soured so much of industrial relations. Quite frankly, I was amazed when the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that we must be ready to pay any inflation cost that might be required to reduce the level of unemployment. I do not understand how anyone can say that after what we have been through in the past 20 years.
I must confess that I find the short section on economic policy in the gracious Speech rather thin. The Government pledge themselves to:
"continue with firm financial policies designed to support continuing economic growth and rising employment, based on permanently low inflation".
That is fine so far as it goes. Everyone favours firm financial policies, permanently low inflation, economic growth and rising employment. The question is how we achieve all those desirable things and get them all together. The analysis implied by that sentence in the gracious Speech is a little old in feeling because it ignores the fact that today unemployment, and not inflation, is the overriding problem facing the western European economies. In the 1980s it was widely believed that if governments concentrated on conquering inflation, improving business incentives and deregulating markets, something like full employment would return sooner or later.
It is a sombre fact that the reduction of inflation and the market reforms of the 1980s did not produce anything like full employment. In the 14 years since 1979, unemployment has fluctuated between 6 per cent. and 12 per cent. on the Government's own figures. When it fell to 6 per cent. in 1990, it was accompanied by an inflation rate of 10 per cent.—a clearly unsustainable position. What we learnt in that decade was that the costs of disinflationary policy are not temporary; they are permanent. A shock to demand can damage supply. That means that unemployment does not just go away; something must be done about it. When the new Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, said in his Mansion House speech on 15th June of this year that,
"Low inflation cannot be the sole end of economic policy",
he seemed to be signalling a rethink of basic priorities which is not reflected in the Queen's Speech.
The same policies, pursued in Europe, produced roughly the same results. Today's unemployment rate in the European Community approaches 12 per cent.; Spain and Ireland have over 20 per cent. out of work.

389
The OECD estimates that 40 million people will be out of work next year in its 24 member countries. Of course, no more than in Britain are those figures just the effects of the anti-inflationary policies pursued in the 1980s. Western Europe is finding it increasingly difficult to compete against the United States and East Asia. Its share of world trade has been falling. A great deal of our unemployment is now structural, not cyclical. Whatever the cause, we have today depression levels of involuntary idleness which challenge us to new thought and new effort.
In this grim situation Britain finds herself relatively favourably placed. And here I part company from noble Lords opposite. I believe that the Government deserve full credit for unblocking the hardened arteries of the British economy they inherited in 1979. We are a more competitive, more flexible economy than we were, and that is why we are escaping sooner and faster from the depression than our EC partners. Forty per cent. of the EC' s inward investment comes to Britain; and 40 per cent. of Japan's and 36 per cent. of the United States'. We now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EC, and it is falling. Current GDP growth is 2 per cent; we are growing faster than any other major EC country this year, and we are expected to next year. Most of the growth is output growth and not price growth. The cost and inflation background remain very favourable. Our inflation rate at 1.4 per cent. is now half the EC average.
Noble Lords opposite will say that the one success the Government have had is in turning Britain into a low wage economy—noble Lords have said that in the course of the debate. But low wage economies have a habit of turning quite quickly into high wage economies if the business environment is right. Our most successful competitors were all low wage economies a few years back, and no one today can say that the East Asians live off a bowl of rice a day. High wages have to be earned by producing goods of a quality and price that people want to buy. That has been the Government's main message since 1979 and it is the right message. Against the background of the subsidy culture of the 1970s, it took a great deal of political courage to go on insisting on this point and trying to do something about it.
The other major countries of the EC must now face up to the problem. Of course time will tell. There is nothing as fallible as an economic forecast. But I believe that we are in a good position to escape from the Eurosclerosis which afflicts many of them. One important pointer is that less than 30 per cent. of our unemployed have been out of work for a year or more compared with an average of 50 per cent. in the rest of the EC. That 50 per cent. of long-term unemployment is the most vivid index of Eurosclerosis, as it now exists.
Nevertheless, aggregate demand in Britain is too low and we need to increase it to ensure a strong recovery. We must recognise that we no longer live in a Keynesian world in which we can jump-start economies by a massive fiscal boost. Financial crowding out is a reality in the world in which we live. Also those who call for a big increase in public spending forget that there has already been a large fiscal boost. In a recent
390
paper published by the Social Market Foundation, Mr. Bill Robinson—who advised the last Chancellor of the Exchequer—calculated that, of the estimated £50 billion budget deficit, about half is accounted for by discretionary changes in spending and taxation plans in 1989–90, including the cost of servicing that part of the debt attributable to them. The stock of national debt has increased by over £100 billion over the past three years and is rising at an unprecedented rate in peacetime.
That fiscal background largely explains why real interest rates remain so catastrophically high for this stage of the business cycle, despite the reduction in nominal interest rates which has been so welcome. The most important requirement for strong recovery—here I completely agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Jay, said—is a reduction in real interest rates. But that cannot be done so long as gilts can only be sold at 7.5 per cent. I do not believe that the problem can be circumvented by what is called underfunding—borrowing from the banking system. Savers have had too much experience of governments inflating away their debts in the past. The Chancellor therefore cannot afford to take too many risks with the Budget. By convention we must not discuss the Budget—but why not? All the decisions have already been made.
If the Chancellor is inclined to boldness on the revenue raising side, I would urge him to consider abolishing tax relief on mortgage interest payments. That would raise around £3 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, suggested that it may be £4 billion; it is between £3 billion and £4 billion at current interest rates. The real value of mortgage interest relief has shrunk greatly in recent years and is little more than £400 a year on average—equivalent to a 1.5 per cent. fall in interest rates. The abolition of that tax privilege, long urged by most economists, would also improve the supply side of the economy. We do not need more investment in home ownership; we need it in the small businesses to which my noble friend the Minister referred and in rented accommodation. Therefore let us put the era of tax-subsidised home ownership behind us.
We also need an active labour market policy to get the long-term unemployed back into training and jobs and to supply the skills industry needs. We need to get away from the old idea that industry provides jobs and governments provide income support for those without jobs, and there is nothing between those two alternatives. We must start thinking about how income support for the unemployed can be used as a route back to work. It costs the Exchequer on average £134 a week to maintain a married unemployed person with two young children. How much better it would be if those payments for idleness were converted into training or job vouchers for all those who have been unemployed for, say, six months or possibly a year. It would not only be a way of rebuilding supply in the economy but, in so far as it produced a net increase in jobs, it would also expand demand and boost tax revenues without costing the Exchequer an extra penny.
Workstart, announced by Norman Lamont, was a beginning on which we must build. Of course there are problems in a scheme of that kind and they must be faced. I accept that. But the idea of turning

391
unemployment benefit into re-employment funding is not a revolutionary one; it is becoming increasingly accepted throughout the western world.
I should like to end by quoting from a remarkable speech delivered by President Clinton in Seattle a few days ago:
"So many of our systems, economic and social, are organised for conditions that no longer exist. The unemployment benefit system … was created at a time when the average length of unemployment was shorter than it is today, and when the average unemployed person, when recalled to work, went back to his or her former employer. That is fine for a static economy. It doesn't work for a dynamic economy where the average 18 year-old must change jobs seven times in a lifetime, where the average unemployed person is unemployed for longer, and where most people don't get called back to the same job. The unemployed system, in short, is now an unfair tax on employers because it doesn't function, and a rip-off for employees because it doesn't help them".
To regain prosperity we need to go beyond the prospectus in the Queen's Speech. Speaking from this side of the House, I hope that the Chancellor and the Ministers concerned with industry, employment and education will have the boldness and vision to do so.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as we move towards the end of this four-day debate perhaps I am not the only Member of the House who is not quite sure what the annual ritual of the debate on the Queen's Speech is all about. Today it has been redeemed by two excellent speeches: the first from the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, from whom I hope we will hear frequently on the question of industrial relations, and the second from my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, who I hope will develop not only his thoughts about the question of the unemployed, particularly the unemployed in a period of growth, but also some of his earlier sentiments about the citizen state.
It was the Prime Minister in another place who made clear the most important issue that faced government. It is extremely difficult to disagree with him. He was referring to Northern Ireland, but we did not need a Queen's Speech to tell us that. It is the first priority and perhaps the only issue on which this House can unanimously wish him well. I would be the last person to seek to give any advice on that matter, except to say that I hope that he will be bold and single-minded, but not expect to carry everyone with him in the final outcome.
The second important issue is the economy. Today's debate is overshadowed by next week's Budget. It is the Budget that matters, not what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred to as the rather thin references to the economy in the Queen's Speech.
Close students of the format and balance of the Queen's Speech may have seen that last year 14 column inches were devoted broadly to international affairs and 16 to home affairs. This year, Ministers have stretched international affairs and related matters to 18 inches and home affairs have contracted to 10. I wish that that meant less legislation; I wish even more that it meant better legislation, but I fear that it means abandoning an
392
interest in many areas of great and continuing social concern. For example, there is nothing in the Queen's Speech on housing, despite the scandal of the homeless and the gross under-provision of decent homes at rents that people can afford. I was pleased that my noble friend Baroness Hamwee referred to this matter yesterday. Ten or 15 years ago it would have been inconceivable for housing not to be on the agenda of the government of the day. I very much regret that it is not in the Queen's Speech this year.
Every Queen's Speech represents a high degree of continuity. Nowadays, when it does not represent such continuity, we are told well in advance what the Government intend to do in the parliamentary Session ahead. That usually happens at the party conference. This year was no exception. In order to be impartial as between parties, perhaps I may say that I do not believe that any party conference shows the party at its best. I am particularly glad not to have been sentenced to a large part of the week with the Conservatives either at Brighton or Blackpool. But this year was particularly disgraceful. It achieved a level of political rhetoric of the worst kind to which Cabinet Ministers should never revert. In the coming months we shall see some of the consequences of such irresponsibility. I hope that some senior Ministers who were silently ashamed—I look to the Leader of the House, the noble Lord Lord Wakeham, because I put him in that category—will speak out when the moment comes and dissociate themselves from some of the cheap populist sentiments expressed a month ago.
I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade have made some rumblings at least on Europe. There is no prospect of influence in the world, to which the first half of the speech referred, if we are to remain half in and half out of Europe complaining about our partners, saying that they are always wrong and we are always right, and abusing them. There is no chance of achieving the economic objective in the second half of the speech of growth without inflation—that traditional but illusory achievement—if we behave as if membership of the European Community is all an unfortunate mistake rather than an opportunity that successive governments have failed to grasp. Nostalgia and isolationism are the enemies of any credible future for Britain. Unless that is recognised all the sentiments in the Queen's Speech are irrelevant.
I have referred briefly to one kind of ministerial behaviour. I refer to a different one that disturbs me, that is the role acquired by Mr. Michael Portillo as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I believe that the office of the Chief Secretary was created in about 1961. For a number of years chief secretaries were in and out of the Cabinet, though mostly in. It is an important office. In my years in government it was filled, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—who was here earlier today—and later by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Although they were not always popular with departmental Ministers, they were trusted by them because they saw their role as honest brokers trying to find an accommodation between the needs of the Treasury and the needs of departmental Ministers representing departmental

393
policy. I believe that on ideological matters —what we sometimes misleadingly refer to as Left-Right issues—they were seen to be neutral. Their strength came from the balance that they could achieve between the proper responsibilities of departmental Ministers and the role of the Treasury.
But Mr. Portillo seems to play by very different rules. He is seen to be and sees himself as a candidate for No. 10. He is a standard-bearer of the Right and appears to be happy in the company of those who believe in punishing single mothers, privatising the health service, locking up more and more people in prison and demoralising the teachers, believing that to be the right road for Britain (to use the title of a famous Conservative manifesto).
It may be said that this is a matter for the Prime Minister, as indeed it is. But I believe that when we look at the Government's intentions and the need to preserve this balance it is a matter of concern that the Chief Secretary should be so openly committed to and partisan on matters where he has a special responsibility for public expenditure. It is the task of cabinet in any government to make policy; it is the task of departmental Ministers to find a way of carrying it through. There is a also a role for the Chancellor. But I believe that it would be very dangerous if chief secretaries were to seize for themselves the role acquired by Mr. Portillo. I leave aside the quite different matter of whether it is desirable for the Government or country to have two Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet, perhaps pursuing in a rather loud and discordant way different courses from time to time.
I turn to the deregulation Bill. When I saw the reference to it in the Queen's Speech I hoped to be able to say that if, as the Prime Minister suggested, it swept away excessive red tape it would be something that we should welcome. However, the more I hear about the Bill and the more I fail to hear what it may contain, the more worried I become. It is of course a great surprise that after 14 years of government, during which businessmen have been swarming over Whitehall like angry wasps in summer, only now is it suddenly discovered that government has not been able to function at all because of red tape. That might be an explanation. If indeed the Government are apologising for their failures because in the past they have not identified these regulations, so be it. But that is not their tone. In my view their object in bringing forward this deregulation Bill was to find a centre to the legislative programme, something they could put into the Queen's Speech which might cause them a great deal less trouble than the Railways Bill but nevertheless would win them some credit in the end.
That I do not believe to be the case. The President of the Board of Trade, in another place yesterday, referring to the deregulation Bill said:
"Even then, primary legislation can stand in the way of reform".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/93; col. 472.]
That is a very curious and perhaps rather ominous phrase. Primary legislation can stand in the way of reform; parliamentary scrutiny can stand in the way of reform; Parliament can stand in the way of reform. What does this mean—that parliamentary legislation is
394
to be superseded without reference to Parliament by the acts of Ministers? If it means that, it would be intolerable. Whereas we can support any attempt to remove regulations which are irrelevant or archaic, it would be a very dangerous arrogance of power to pass to Ministers responsibilities which are properly those of Parliament.
We must nevertheless await the Bill and I, for one, am prepared to judge it on its merits. Perhaps we shall find ourselves thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, for all he and the task forces have done. They have produced a report which I understand has gone to No.10. But I would ask two questions of the Leader of the House. If indeed it is the case that a report was sent to No. 10 two or three weeks ago, will he confirm that it consists of four sets of proposals: those agreed by departments; those still being debated by departments; those already rejected by departments; and those needing further work? But more important, if that report is available to No. 10 today and is to be the basis of the Bill, why cannot it be available to Members of both Houses today; and if it is a document too clumsy for such a purpose, why cannot it be put in the Library now?
There is a further curious aspect of this story. If it is the case that the Prime Minister had the report two or three weeks ago and we are to have the Bill in January—we all know that it takes a very long time for Ministers to reach collective decisions on policy; we know how long it takes for the parliamentary draftsmen to do their work—how can a Bill be published in January which is based on a report only available in October? It would be a miracle if one stems genuinely from another. I hope that we shall be told later this evening the answer to this extraordinary conundrum.
I have had some interest in recent years in aspects of the construction industry. I am delighted that the Government have seen wisdom and have dropped their proposal to end the statutory registration of architects. They had second thoughts in the face of an outcry that it was against the public interest so to do. Indeed, they will find a further and perhaps louder outcry if it proves against the public interest to change the regulations which are to be included in the Bill. But I would say only this. Although I am sure that those in the construction industry and other business people will be delighted by the removal of regulations which serve no further purpose, I do not believe that this is the most important issue for the construction industry in the period ahead.
I hope it is true—there seems now to be at least a degree of unanimity about this—that the green shoots which were detected in October last year are slowly coming above the ground. But I have to say that there is no evidence at all of sustained recovery in the construction industry. If I were to ask those men and women who are mostly concerned with it, many of whom have suffered grievously in their business and employment over the past two or three years, they would far rather welcome convincing evidence of growth than bother about the changes in regulations, however important they may be. There would be no single act more dangerous on economic grounds—with

395
reference to the construction industry—or damaging on social grounds than a decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be announced next week that he is cutting support for the Housing Corporation. That would be deplorable both in the light of the social need and of the fact that it would cut off the prospects for growth to which I have referred. I wish the Government a better parliamentary Session than the last one. It is not misplaced generosity; it could not possibly be worse.
6.36 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I fully support the points made by my noble friend Lord Laing about manufacturing industry but I should like to make a few other comments. I shall not repeat any arguments for supporting the importance of manufacturing industry—we have debated it many times and they are well known, although in the past only grudgingly accepted—but I want to draw attention to a major and welcome shift in government attitude. I am not ashamed of that for it is good to change when one sees that past policies have not been entirely satisfactory.
The gracious Speech commits the Government,
"to promote enterprise and improve the supply performance of the economy".
That reflects comments made over the past months by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree, too, with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde when he emphasises the contribution of competitiveness, provided he understands that that is just a means to an end of the ultimate objective of greater output. I am not quite so happy with the significance of figures which he quoted for improvement in productivity, welcome though they are, because they improved from a very low base indeed.
There is now clear evidence that the Government accept the vital importance of manufacturing industry. On Tuesday of this week the President of the Board of Trade, addressing the Institute of Directors, said:
"Our productivity improved a lot in the last decade. But we are still about 25 per cent. behind our major European competitors and more behind the US. That's not acceptable. Our share of world trade in manufactures has declined remorselessly. In 1914 it stood at 33 per cent. By 1950 it had dropped to 25 per cent. and by 1967 to 10 per cent. It has now stabilised, but at just 6 per cent.—about half that of Germany".
A big contributory factor to that dismal story has been inadequate investment in innovation. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the speech of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in somewhat critical vein.
Lord Peston: No.
Viscount Caldecote: I welcomed it because he was criticised for having changed policy.
Lord Peston: I was welcoming it—very much so.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, that is good. We agree. The points that my right honourable friend was making were further underlined in a most interesting speech from Mr. Kent, associate director of the Bank of England. He said:
"Manufacturing clearly matters to our economic welfare … while the competitiveness of our manufacturing sector is rightly
396
the main focus of attention, the actual capacity of the UK manufacturing sector and the extent of our presence in world markets is also important. We cannot keep losing capacity and capabilities under the recessionary hammer … Modern manufacturing capabilities, once abandoned, cannot be easily revived".
That is a welcome comment by a major senior banker and it too represents a change of outlook which is very welcome indeed. So it is indeed a happy day for me, for we see the first step in solving a problem, which is to recognise it and to accept that it exists. It has now been made clear at the highest level that that has now been done. Happily too, this new outlook is fully reflected by the chairman of the CBI's National Manufacturing Council, who wrote in his foreword to the CBI's recent paper Making it in Britain:
"Attitudes towards manufacturing are starting to change. At last we are getting away from the sterile debate about whether we actually need a strong manufacturing base. We can now concentrate on those issues that have to be tackled if we are to increase the size of our manufacturing sector and make it internationally competitive".
Now our task is to implement this welcome change in policy.
As I said earlier, we should be in no way ashamed of having made a change in our strategy for industry. Indeed, sometimes it has been said that we should not have a strategy at all. But we did have a strategy throughout the 1980s. One of its great pillars was that we should have a leaner and fitter industry. Unfortunately, going with that was the principle of "The devil take the hindmost", and he did—with grave damage to our industrial base which must now be repaired.
The main responsibility for doing that is with industry. Where industry is failing—and, as the President of the Board of Trade has made clear, too much of it is—the Government cannot just sit on the touch-line encouraging industry to perform better but disclaiming responsibility for losing the game. They must get into the thick of it and give active support, providing sticks and carrots where necessary. That involves action over a very wide field, and I cannot cover the whole of that field today.
However, I would like to make a few comments. In 1991 the Select Committee on Science and Technology of your Lordships' House issued a report, Innovation in Manufacturing Industry. Innovation was broadly defined as including far more than technological change. In that sense it is the key to improved competitiveness and greater output. Although the Government welcomed that report most warmly, at that time not one significant recommendation of the committee was accepted. But probably the most important recommendation was:
"Government Ministers must be heard to proclaim the central position of manufacturing to our national prosperity".
It is really encouraging that that has now happened so the way is clear to implement more of those recommendations. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is to reply, will be able to assure us that that report will be reconsidered in the new circumstances and with a more open mind.
We must tackle head on the problem of short-termism, as my noble friend Lord Laing has said, because of its damaging effect on investment, which is

397
the basis of our recovery. For too long we have had excessive consumption and too little investment. We must support the small and medium-sized enterprises more effectively for they are the centres of future growth. I hope that the Budget will include a revised business expansion scheme, targeted more closely to manufacturing industry, to help the provision of capital for those companies.
The Government must take a new look at their procurement policies in support of British industry. The cheapest is not necessarily always the best for Britain. Similarly, although market forces must be the driving force, unfettered they may not always give the best results. We must recognise too that implementing new policies will cost money. But we must regard investment in these policies to improve the output of manufacturing industry as a national investment for the future and not as a cost to be minimised.
I have purposely not quoted a lot of figures about manufacturing industry because we have often heard them before. They are all available in DTI and CBI publications. But I wish to mention one because it is at the root of our problem. The percentage of GDP devoted to research and development has been steadily falling. I could not get more recent figures, but in 1988 the UK level was about two-thirds of that of Japan and well below that of Germany and the United States. In that and in many other ways we have fallen far behind our competitors. So industry and government must now go forward in a partnership to achieve greater output from manufacturing industry, stimulated by the President of the Board of Trade' s challenge and in the knowledge that at long last the task ahead is clearly recognised by government and industry alike.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, it has been a great privilege this afternoon to listen to the splendid speeches from leaders, ex-Ministers, ex-members of the Treasury, leading members of business and leading economists. I am not in that category. I have come up through small businesses. The businesses with which I am involved now range from those with a £1 million turnover to £200 million. But it is my belief that it is those very businesses which will produce the extra employment and wealth for the future. In the North-West of England I am very well aware that all our major companies are getting rid of people. There is not one that does not have a plan to go back to its core business and to make investment into labour-saving activities.
Only a few weeks ago I was asked to present the prizes at the Robotic Association dinner. The prize was for a leading university which produced the best, forward-thinking possibility for robotics based on known technology. The winner was a team from Cambridge. It produced a viable plan for the production of a robot which, when put into an environment where it did not know where it was, could find out and work out how to act in that environment. When one looks at the potential of that kind of technology, then the chances of producing greater employment for our established
398
and highly financed businesses is nil. So it is in the small and medium-sized enterprises that our future employment, investment and wealth creation is going to come.
When I look at what is happening in the North-West of England, where I know more about industry than in any other part of the country, I am enormously encouraged by the great technology which is now available within small businesses which can bring great wealth for the future. It is the added value end of business that is going to produce our export opportunities. I believe that the potential and development of technology through the financiers who are investing money into the development of such technology, will provide possibly one of the great opportunities which we have. I welcome the Government's science and technology policy, which I believe is going to take a great step to encourage further growth in that area.
Another aspect I should like to refer to in the gracious Speech is that it says:
"[The] Government … will continue to put forward the case for European countries [who wish] to join the European Community"
I believe that, whenever possible, we should open further contacts with central and eastern Europe when one looks at what has taken place with NAFTA and the whole of the Americas who are going to come together as one trading organisation. The increasing wealth in the Pacific rim countries has already been referred to and how they are to trade more closely together. Even with the advent of GATT which has been mentioned with great confidence—I hope that it comes to pass—the future of our marketeers and producers is going to be very much within Europe. If we can create within central and eastern Europe a much greater demand from their consumers for the kinds of products which our manufacturers can produce, that could be the very engine that Europe needs to create wealth for the future. But at the moment these countries are extremely poor. We have already seen what it costs to bring East Germany into Europe. That has been an enormous cost on everyone within Europe.
The cost of opening up the markets of central and eastern Europe could be very very great. However, I believe that now is the time we have to tackle that problem. The longer we leave it, the greater will be the cost when we do it, and clearly there is now every possibility for increasing trade between those countries and ourselves so that we can start and develop wealth there.
When I look at that argument—and I believe strongly that the Government will support it, and indeed already Government have made it clear that they do support closer trade and bilateral arrangements with central and eastern Europe—the industry which will suffer most is food and agriculture, because those are the products they are most likely to sell competitively in our marketplaces. They can now produce these products much more cheaply than we can. I think it is more than likely that the worst impact of that process will be felt in the countries in Europe which are closer to central and eastern Europe so that, in this sense, Britain would probably be the least affected. But, even so, we shall be

399
affected and already, as a result of the CAP and other changes, our rural economy is being very seriously hit and will be even harder hit as that trade develops. I think that we underestimate the importance of the rural economy to the wealth of the country. We are too inclined to think of our rural economy and our rural areas as an environmental and social problem, and not as an opportunity for wealth creation. I think that we need to look much more closely at those areas and their importance, because the new technology is going to give great opportunities to create much more wealth in them.
I read in a publication from the Department of the Environment that investigation had shown that of the new company start-ups, those that were started in the rural areas showed a higher percentage of them as being successful, and in addition a greater number of the successful ones went on to become larger businesses. So the lack of opportunity to create more wealth is not because of the lack of market demand or the working environment that would create wealth in the country areas, but rather the restrictions that are put on to investments in the rural areas by planning controls, the lack of proper roads and structures and the lack of so much which is necessary for the development of those industries. I hope therefore that this is an area we shall all understand and one which we shall all support when these matters come before this House, instead of being inclined to look, as we are sometimes, at the downside rather than the upside of the opportunities within the rural communities.
The gracious Speech refers, as has already been mentioned by many noble Lords, to the fact that the Government will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector—and, by God! I hope they do, because the enormous increase in the share is quite nonsensical. I shall give your Lordships just one example. I hope your Lordships will excuse my mentioning the Department of the Environment again but I believe that this department is that part of Government which does more to discourage the development of wealth than to help it. In 1980 I see that department employed 11,000 people. The figure went down in 1985 to 6,000; in 1990 it was still 6,000; and now it is back up to 8,000 again. I note that the administrative costs—this is a department of administration, I would stress—in 1987–88 were £135 million, and in 1992–93 it is said to be £237 million. This is at a period of time when there is not a business in the country that has not reduced its costs by 15 or 20 per cent.—otherwise it would not have survived —and at a time when what the Department of the Environment does is not in any way related to unemployment or other costs. It merely exists to administer environmental rules and regulations which, by their very nature, make it more difficult for those of us who are trying to produce some wealth in the economy. So I hope that the Government will take note of that very carefully.
One of the issues which I feel has come out in the various speeches that we have listened to is that of how far we need to cater for risk in society. I am very supportive of the proposals that we should have a deregulation Bill. It is quite clear from all aspects of
400
business that I am involved in that we are unnecessarily hampered by the growth of restrictions against the development of entrepreneurial flair and by the unnecessary rules and regulations that are now imposed throughout the whole of industry.
On the other hand, I can see the need for Government to impose rules and regulations if they believe that the most important aspect of society is the elimination of risk. There are far too many groups in society now who believe that the elimination of risk of any kind is the one thing that governments must do. Yet we all know from experience that it is the very expression of risk, the very confidence with which you are prepared to accept risk that is often the very entrepreneurial spirit that creates employment and investment in the first place. I think that society has to come to terms with this in possibly a larger way than we have so far cared to think about.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is now with us, and I should like to congratulate her on her maiden speech. The noble Baroness also referred to the aspect that we must not do anything about regulations which might increase the risk. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in a splendid maiden speech, referred to the problems of further employment. Yet I think that the economists would agree that the demand for employment is infinite. It is only when restrictions are put upon employment that people have to make other arrangements, and they do. So there will come a moment when we have to balance more effectively the risks that people are prepared to take and the rewards which they look for out of society.
I cannot help but draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that many speakers have referred to the costs of VAT on fuel. Although various suggestions have been put forward, I believe that the reason why we are to have VAT on fuel is as a result of the Rio Convention, because of the Government having to comply with further CO2 regulations. I should like to give your Lordships some information on that. If we look at the contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions, in 1985 practically the whole of those emissions were produced by developed countries and the United States of America. If we look at what the emissions will be in 2060 —and we take very, very sensible projections on the value and the use of new technology, and how people will make great controls and we do everything possible to try to reduce them—even so, by the middle of the next century the total amount of man-made CO2 emissions will increase 20 times. And that will entirely come from the less-developed countries; no matter how many laws we produce in this country, they will not have any impact whatsoever. So we have put ourselves in the ridiculous position of all the time putting rules and regulations on ourselves which we think will reduce our risks both as individuals and as societies, and yet at the same time having no power whatsoever to stop whatever it is that anybody else is doing. All we do in practice is to decrease our competitive opportunities and make ourselves less likely to be able to develop markets in other parts of the world.
I should like to leave your Lordships with that message. On the one hand, I greatly support the proposals the Government have made in the gracious

401
Speech, that they lay out what can present much greater opportunity for this country to take the foremost lead in making wealth creation its first activity. We have been inclined—and are still—to take the view that we need social and environmental controls in order to improve them. In fact, those controls on social and environmental improvements are actually the very things that prevent the wealth creation that will be needed to make those improved social and environmental conditions possible. Until we realise that—not just in Government but in society as a whole—and at every stage make a point of encouraging the development of wealth, we shall never be able to provide the very benefits that we all want to see throughout the whole world.
I hope that through the Queen's Speech and through these proposals the Government will drive that message home and that we in this House will support them.
7 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, as we approach the Budget I should like to make two specific points in this debate. The first is that, contrary to fashionable opinion, I hope that the Government will not fret too much about borrowing at this point in the economic cycle. The second relates to the retail prices index and its malign effect on inflation and economic policy generally.
I am sure that the Government can draw comfort from the fact that they are not alone in their economic problems. World-wide democracies are under great tensions as the fulfilliable demands for ever widening welfarism come up against the inescapable reality of inadequate resources which are simply not there to meet ever rising expectations. The consequent problem is a huge rise in public sector deficits for which I believe the only long-term solution is the simple maxim, less government. If noble Lords opposite were ever lucky or unlucky enough to be in power they would face the same realities.
I am, however, concerned that we may be fighting today's economic battles with yesterday's strategies. The universal cry is for the Government massively to cut the deficit now and to follow the economic policies which are reported to have done us so well in 1981. It is the hair shirt theory. Hair shirts should be worn with caution, they can damage your health.
We now have a very robust Chancellor and a man who knows his own mind. While listening to the conflicting evidence of his seven wise men, I am sure that he will ultimately be guided by the logic of his own convictions. I hope so, because for many years I have been fortunate enough to be a trustee of a leading economic institute. If it has taught me one thing it is that none of us, and no economist in particular, has all the answers. The circumstances that favour the theories that explain yesterday's problems seldom fit tomorrow's.
I have become increasingly convinced that economics if it is a science at all is more a logical science than a numerical one and it is for this reason that I think all of us, and the Chancellor in particular, must resist the temptation to be persuaded by purely numerical arguments that are in practice often calculated on the basis of wholly erroneous and often misleading figures.
402
Your Lordships will recall the "fine tuning" of the Macmillan era and the constant application of the brakes at that time because the statistics indicated that the economy was running into trouble due to an apparent balance of payments deficit. There is nothing new about this problem, except that 25 years on research shows that in reality at that time the country was in fact enjoying a very favourable balance of trade but that statistics had missed out a huge chunk of the invisibles that would have put the matter right. So while the Government thought that they were doing good at the time, they were in fact doing grave harm by giving the economy the wrong medicine. I just pray that history will not repeat itself.
The Government are under great pressure from everyone to balance the books. We are told that we are all monetarists now and indeed there is much wisdom in attempting to run a fiscally balanced economy. But this should be done with particular caution until the supply side catches up.
The good Lord above designed the world to go around the sun in 365 days and by convention we have chosen this to dictate our accounting period. But if in practice the world went around the sun in 1,000 days, that, from the point of view of running the economy, would be an infinitely better period over which to attempt to balance the national accounts. I say that because even though the economy is improving it is still very fragile. I believe that the UK today needs a tightening of policy at this moment like it needs a hole in the head; and the same applies to every other country in Europe when Europe matters so much to us.
Logic dictates that the last thing on earth one should do with a patient suffering from hypothermia is to make him colder still. Logic, I believe, dictates that when the economy is cold you should heat it up, and when it is hot you should cool it down. This is not the moment to take the heat out of the economy while the recovery remains so very fragile. Fortunately, this view is reinforced not only by logic but by the fact that the nominal GDP—gross domestic product—is substantially lower than it should be and if we need the comfort of numerical indicators this is certainly one that we should not ignore. The situation is very different indeed from the early 1980s and thus demands different treatment.
I am a Thatcherite and your Lordships may find it odd that these remarks come from me. I recognise that the option of deficit financing is out of fashion. The thesis is tarred with the brush of Keynesianism. But every economist has his time and Keynes at his time was perfectly aware where his policies would lead. It was attempting to practise this art 40 years on with a far more sophisticated labour force, watching the RPI like a hawk, that led us all into such inflationary trouble and consequently discredited his theories.
Like most economists, however, he was neither all right nor all wrong. Logic dictates that the theory of contracyclical investment—putting heat into the economy when it needs it —must have merit. Today, with a huge under-utilised capacity in the UK economy and 2.75 million unemployed, deficit financing is not inflationary. Properly spent in the right areas it could be beneficial in boosting the supply side.

403
Indeed, it is an excellent time to borrow. When the Government borrow at 6 per cent. rather than 12 per cent. it means that they can borrow precisely twice as much money for precisely the same interest cost. In fact, historically the Government's debt levels are not out of line. The world is currently awash with funds looking for a good home and such borrowing would not crowd out the industrial sector, which concurrently can also borrow very cheaply on the equity market.
Some economists argue that all forms of government expenditure are beneficial to the economy; that money spent on unemployment benefit has the same effect as that spent on infrastructure. Frankly, I believe this to be rubbish. There are some forms of activity that are prime movers in terms of creating jobs, and the construction and building industry are the great dynamos of economic activity. Lower interest rates for housing and increased government expenditure on infrastructure would together ripple out into the economy, lowering unemployment, on the one hand, and leaving real tangible assets, on the other. They are assets that could support the economy and make it richer for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in his excellent maiden speech, spoke of employment created by infrastructure work. But he quoted only the on-site labour that such expenditure creates. He missed out in my view the more important off-site labour that is created. At this point in the economic cycle it would be madness to cut back on the infrastructure development that this country so desperately needs and which at this stage only the Government can provide.
I am sure Mr. Ryrie who wrote the Treasury rules did so with good intent. However, it is difficult to see how in an economy, money borrowed from an institution by the Government and subsequently spent on roads or railways is wrong, and yet the same money spent by the same institutions to fund roads or railways is right. The call on the economy is identical, it is merely the convention with which the matter is accounted that causes the confusion.
I realise, of course, that the Government are addressing the problem of public sector financing. But I hope that they will not meanwhile be shy to return to the concept of ear-marked funding which would have precisely the same call on the economy as private sector infrastructure financing, provided that the money is spent efficiently.
So the burden of my first message today is that at this stage in the economic cycle, deficit financing—borrowing for ear-marked purposes for the infrastructure development that we so desperately need—would be positively beneficial. That is the last area where there should be cuts although the temptation for the Treasury will be to cut there because it is one of its few discretionary expenditures.
Common sense dictates what logic demands; that at the current level of nominal GDP it would be perfectly safe for the Government to accelerate contracyclical infrastructure development and to borrow to do so at this point in the cycle without fear of inflation. I urge them so to do.
404
My second point is the sensitivity of wage bargaining to the retail prices index. In fact, 1.8 per cent. of the forthcoming rises in the RPI will be due to value added taxes already in the pipeline. So if inflation were to creep up to the headline rate of 4 per cent. over the coming year, nearly half of that would be due to the self-inflicted wounds of tax increases. It is nothing to do with demand and nothing to do with the money supply. But it will trigger a whole new level of wage negotiations which, in practice, will be almost impossible to resist as the negotiators will hold all the moral chips. Around we shall go again on the inflationary spiral, up will go interest rates, up will go mortgage costs, up will go the RPI and yet again, those responsible for managing the economy will have crippled it.
Why do we get ourselves and why have we in the past got ourselves into this mess? It is partly due to the fact that the high priests of monetarism maintain that it does not matter what you do to wages and taxes, inflation will never take off if the money supply is controlled. I fear that that is a deep over-simplification and a very damaging analysis which is wholly divorced from the real world.
Already one hears the siren voice of the governor of the Bank of England saying that interest rates will have to rise less next year if inflation rises. Yet he must know more than anyone that the underlying rate of inflation will probably hardly have moved.
We are all in thrall to the RPI, but it is indeed a malign index because it reflects indirect tax increases and the cost of money through mortgage rates. Yet, at the same time, it perversely leaves out the big swings and gains in the cost of living caused by changes in direct taxation. But the consequence of clinging to that damaging index means that governments constantly undermine their own economic policies.
I am aware that work is being done to create a more realistic index that measures inflation without taxation. I hope that the Government will face the criticisms and have the courage to re-base the index at an early date. If they do not, economic policy will continue to chase its own tail in an inflationary spiral.
Those are my two points: re-base the RPI and do not fret about borrowing now. The world is awash with money at low interest rates. It is the ideal time to borrow. It is not the ideal time to try to balance the books. That time will, should and must come when the GDP is back at a level at which it should be and when we have substantially less than 2.75 million unemployed. Now is not the time for fiscal tightening on infrastructure expenditure. Therefore, I urge the Government not to fight today's battles with yesterday's economic strategies. I am sure that our present Chancellor is a man who will back his own judgment, and I hope that this will encourage him so to do.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as is usual in debates on major issues in your Lordships' House, there have been a number of important speeches enlivened by two very distinguished maiden speeches. There have been so

405
many important issues raised that in coming to the end of the debate there is a wide choice of subjects that one might well choose to develop.
I should like to home in on a point raised right at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he said that one of the Government's major objectives is to achieve sustainable growth. That question of sustainable growth has been taken up by a number of other noble Lords who have spoken. Indeed, some have queried what it precisely meant and how the Government intend to achieve that desirable objective. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was one of them, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred to that also. I believe that it is absolutely crucial. It is extremely satisfactory that the Government have put sustainable growth at the head of their list of economic priorities, but what is uncertain is how they will set about achieving it.
When one looks back—and it is always desirable to look back before one looks forward—successive governments' ability to achieve sustainable growth has certainly not been very noticeable in the whole of the post-war period. There has been a succession of booms and slumps and stop and go, not least in the past 15 years. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in a most important contribution to our debate.
Therefore, I believe that we must consider what must be done and what are the conditions under which we should work towards that sustainable growth. I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. He reminded us of what is happening in the United States at present with the recent agreement on the NAFTA arrangements which will create a much wider free trade area in North America and then, perhaps even more important, the APEC meeting in Seattle. It is now being said that, while hearts in America are still in Europe—and they are very down to earth people—their heads are looking more and more towards Asia.
We must recognise that the world is now possibly going to be divided into three major trading blocs but, it is hoped, if we are successful with GATT, all knitted together in one huge enlarged trading bloc. That has always been regarded as a desirable objective by successive British Governments but it creates problems. How are we to be able to compete effectively in that enlarged trading bloc, with enormous growth rates in the Far East, with the growth rates which we hope will be re-established in the single market and with the developments in North America?
That really comes back to the old vexed question of investment to which many of your Lordships referred. We have lagged in capital formation in this country compared with our major competitors. Over the past 20 years there has been an increasing proportion of economic output spent on consumption and a reduced proportion on investment. That trend has continued in the recent past. If one compares the first six months of 1992 with the first six months of 1993, consumption has gone up by 1.7 per cent. while investment has gone up by only 0.6 per cent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in one of his early speeches, in, I believe, Birmingham, that he was
406
wholly behind more investment in the private sector. I shall turn to the public sector in a moment. But how is that to be achieved? I believe that private investment is now subject to a hostile fiscal environment. If you are running a business and you incur current expenditure—the wages of a secretary or the purchase of a pencil and paper—you can write all that off immediately against tax. If you do that highly desirable thing called investment, you get only 25 per cent. at a time against tax.
In the Autumn Statement, in order to boost investment, the Government increased that to 40 per cent.; but that has now disappeared. That applied only until 31st October and it is now back to 25 per cent. If investment is crucial in the new global environment in which we must compete, then nothing less than 100 per cent. investment allowance should obtain. Obviously we cannot go there immediately but we should go there by stages. I hope that the first step which the Chancellor takes is to restore the 15 per cent. which lapsed on 31st October and make it clear that, with that, he is taking the first step in a policy towards granting 100 per cent. investment allowances.
That is not the only measure needed to get investment moving, but if there is a tax system which is discriminatory against investment, that will obviously hold it back. This is the very time at which we should move forward. My noble friend Lord Jenkins referred to that situation.
As regards the public sector, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he wanted public expenditure to be cut back. That is fine, but he made no distinction between revenue expenditure and capital formation. The Government said some time ago, although they have not repeated it recently, that in the new-style Budget a distinction would be made between public revenue expenditure and public capital expenditure. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to confirm that that is indeed still the Government's intention. I believe that we need to look extremely carefully at the distinction between those two. Of course revenue expenditure should be kept to the minimum necessary to do the essential tasks but capital formation is a different matter. For example, capital formation applied to the transport system is crucial.
Why did we have the confusion and disturbance on the London Underground yesterday? As far as one can tell from first reports, it was because the electric cable system is now very aged; in fact, it is 70 years old or more. Well, some of us are quite young at the age of 70, but the electric cable system of the London Underground seems to be about to reach the end of its tether. That appears to be a result of the lack of crucial investment in the vital infrastructure. We must look very carefully at what we are doing as regards investment, both in the public and the private sector.
I turn now to the crucial question to which many speakers referred: namely, investment in people. We suffer from a major unemployment problem. My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf raised many crucial issues in that respect. He talked about the problem of jobless growth. We must try to overcome that problem. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, gave us one

407
possible answer to the way in which we can overcome that problem to some degree. While the advance in technology in a particular sector will probably lead to reduced manpower requirements, the way in which that technology develops must be provided by someone else. I found that in my experience in the mining industry. We were aiming all the time to reduce the number of people working on the coal face so that we could increase our underground productivity. But we achieved that aim as a result of machinery and equipment that others developed. So there was a degree of redeployment of the resources of labour and of skills. I believe that we must look at that aspect of the new global competitive age into which we are moving. We must talk about training people to acquire the new diversity of skills which will lead to such benefits—that is, benefits not only of productivity improvement but benefits of diversity of employment.
In his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that there ought to be an intensified debate among the Government, industry and—as I believe he said—academia on such issues. I agree with him. However, we should be looking at it in the new situation. It is not a question of continuing existing policies. To use a phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, we do not want to fight the next economic war with the weapons of the last war. We must devise new weapons for the new situation.
One could say that the same sort of thing should apply to research and development. I recently visited an important university in Yorkshire and while there I talked to the vice-chancellor. The firm with which I am connected is trying to help the university to develop its research into energy efficiency—a subject with which I am involved. I asked him about the prospects for his university. He said that it was doing quite well and that it had raised quite a lot of money from the private sector. He said that it was carrying out a number of projects which were of great interest. However, I asked the vice-chancellor what impact that had on the balance of research being carried out in the university as between short and medium-term projects on the one hand and, on the other, basic research for which we fundamentally depend on universities. He said that there was no doubt that it was impacting adversely on the amount of time and effort that they were putting into fundamental research.
We must look at the matter most carefully. Again, perhaps I may quote from my experience in the coalmining industry. In the heyday, and when it was a unified industry, we had two of the most important research establishments in our sector in the world: one was for mining research and the other for coal research. I do not know what will happen to them under privatisation, though no doubt we shall be debating the issue. However, what I do know is that a similar establishment run by the Electricity Council has now disappeared. Long-term research is no longer being conducted in the electricity industry, as was the case at one time. I presume that electricity companies now
408
obtain such expertise from elsewhere as and when it is needed and expenditure is concentrated on shorter-term developments.
We need to see all this in the context of the single market; that is, in the European context, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred. I say that because in this increasingly competitive and global atmosphere we shall not only have to mobilise our own resources; we shall also have to work very closely with our partners in the European Community. There are a number of areas in which we will probably only be able to face up to the new competition by working together.
What I have been trying to suggest is that, while the objective of sustainable growth is fine, we need to work out what we mean by it. We need to work out the actions that need to be taken to achieve it and we need to recognise that its achievement will be more difficult in the future than it might have been in the past—and we did not achieve it in the past. That is the kind of thinking that I should like to see reflected in the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer next week. I should like to feel that he is looking at the long term and that he will say, "I have these short term problems to deal with, but the solutions that I am bringing to the short-term problems are totally consistent with our long-term objectives". If he says that, then I believe we shall have moved a long way forward.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have had an interesting and, in some ways, a debate worth remarking for two main reasons. First, because of the two maiden speeches that we heard. It is, of course, the custom in this House that, when maiden speeches have been made, people get up and say what splendid speeches they were. I am bound to say that rarely have I been able to perform that task with such sincerity as I do tonight. Both maiden speeches were distinguished and encouraging so far as concerns the future. My noble friend Lady Dean spoke from her long and deep experience of industrial relations, especially in the print industry. On that subject, as on others, we greatly look forward to hearing from her again. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, spoke in perhaps a more cerebral way than any other contributor to the debate. I found his argument most interesting. I am sure that we shall hear from him again; indeed, I hope that in the future he will develop the points that he half developed this afternoon.
The second reason why I believe that the debate has been somewhat unusual is that almost every speaker—that is, at least every speaker that I heard; and I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber at one stage—especially those on the other side of the House, gave some support to the Government, but none of them that I heard gave wholehearted support to them. That applies to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who, if I may say so, is known in the House for his loyalty to the Conservative Party and to the Government. Even he criticised what seems to be the main revenue-raising plank of the Government's policy; namely, the imposition of VAT on fuel.
In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, gave a fascinating speech. He created a new economic animal

409
which seemed to me to be a Thatcherite Keynesian. He started off by saying that he was a Thatcherite; but while the first half of his speech called for deficit financing, the second half was an attack on monetarism. I welcome the emergence of this new economic animal and I hope that we hear more from it. If the noble Lord wishes to keep the label that he attached to himself at the beginning of his speech, so be it: substance is more important than the name. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Laing, and I heard the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Again, there seemed to be a vein of dissatisfaction running through almost all of the speeches that we heard in relation to the way in which the Government are seeking to handle our economic affairs.
In this debate we have inevitably ranged widely across the field of the economy and industrial affairs. We have, rightly, been reminded at times that there is much to be proud of in the British record of skill and enterprise. Of course there is. We have heard many different prescriptions for the cure for our undoubtedly ailing industry and economy. My noble friend Lord Peston, who opened the debate, accused the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde of being complacent. He did verge on complacency. He teetered on the edge of self-satisfaction in so far as concerns government policy. We were told that all would be well, that green shoots were popping up nicely and that in due course they would flower. We are told now by the Government that things are getting better. It is just as well: they could not get much worse. Of course we all hope that Britain is now on the road to recovery, but we cannot assume that everything will now be fine.
I believe, too, that we need to look a little more closely at what we mean by recovery. What are we aiming for? What are the Government doing to ensure that Britain does not quickly fall again into further deficit and into recession?
It is inevitable that one looks back over the past 14 years. After all, this was supposed to be a government that came into office in 1979 determined to put Britain on to the road to prosperity. What has happened, particularly since 1989? After 14 years—and we must not forget that, and this party will not allow people to forget it—unemployment remains at over 3 million with over 1 million people having been out of work for more than a year. It may have fallen in recent months, and we all welcome that, but it is still higher than it was a year ago. It is still well over 1 million more than it was when Mr. Major became our Prime Minister. Those are not just statistics. We must never forget that those figures have a very real meaning for many of the people of this country. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be in work do not experience at first hand the evil of unemployment. None of us can have any real notion of the exhaustion which stems from the poverty which goes hand in hand with long-term joblessness.
Investment in Britain as a share of national income is at its lowest level for 40 years. The level of investment in British manufacturing is at half the level per worker of investment in Germany and the United States of America. Despite what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in opening the debate, UK skills
410
levels are now more than 40 per cent. below the world's best. Britain has fallen to 20th out of 22 in the OECD's skills league. Manufacturing investment has fallen by 24 per cent. during this recession. I can go on. More than 150,000 businesses have failed over the past four years. Engineering employment has fallen by more than 400,000. We are the only one of the G7 major industrial nations where output is lower now than it was in 1990. That is nothing to be complacent about.
It is true that inflation is down, but at what cost? I remind the Government that they seem to have forgotten that it is possible to have low inflation and a growing economy. The last time inflation was at its present level was in 1967. Then we had a Labour Government. The economy was growing at 2.2 per cent., we had a manufacturing trade surplus and unemployment was less than 350,000. If those are the basics we are told to go back to I am happy to lead the charge. If the Government could produce statistics like that now, my goodness, they would be proclaiming it as a great success of economic management over the past 14 years.
Finally, there are the twin symptoms of the failure of Conservative economic policy: the trade deficit and the budget deficit. The trade deficit is the worst ever experienced at this stage of the economic cycle. There is record import penetration and if the recovery comes that will get worse as consumers spend money on imported manufactured goods. The PSBR, running at more than £l billion a week, is the highest ever general government financial deficit, despite the massive privatisation receipts generated in the 1990s.
Who is responsible for the present condition of this country? The Government think that they know and they tell us, but it is not always the same target. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Housing Minister blame the length of local authority housing waiting lists on single mothers. I cannot resist quoting the Home Secretary's view to the House, because when I read it I found it so incredible that I felt that it deserved a wider audience. Mr. Howard apparently blames the record 124 per cent. rise in crime since 1979 on the absent fathers who were away fighting for their country during the Second World War. That applies to people of my age, in their 50s and early 60s. We are the people whose fathers were away fighting during the last war. I asked those who had sent me the quotation to check it. Sure enough, it was reported that:
"Mr. Howard, who was born in 1941, has said he believes that those children, who became parents in the sixties, grew up with their respect for authority and sense of discipline impaired by the absence of their fathers. This in turn has led to less discipline in schools and homes now".
That was so fatuous a claim that Professor Norman Stone, who the House will know is not noted as being a supporter of liberal causes and the Labour Party, was moved to say that it was reasonable that the Home Secretary should float ideas and that,
"he is an intelligent man and will be thinking things through, or trying to".
He then went on to say that the theory that absent fathers were to blame for a moral decline was not tenable.

411
Countries that were not involved in the Second World War, such as Switzerland, had similar experiences to Britain from the 1960s on. He added:
"I think he would have to work very hard to prove that one".
My Lords, really! Why stop at the Second World War? What about all the grandfathers who were away in the First World War? Was there a rise in crime in 1919? It is fantasy land. The only significance of that argument is that it is advanced seriously by a senior Minister of the Crown to explain some of the social ills and unrest that face this country today.
The Secretary of State for Social Security blames the rise in spending on benefits for the poor on foreigners. That was a disgraceful speech and it is high time the Conservative Party disowned it. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade blame the rest of the world for the four year recession from which we are now, we hope, emerging.
I seem to remember a Tom Lehrer song from my university days, the chorus of which went:
"The black folks blame the white folks, and the white folks blame the black folks".
If I remember rightly, the punch line was, "Everybody blames the Jews". One of the main charges against the Government is their capacity to blame something, somebody, some institution, some event other than themselves.
On the other hand, the truth seemed finally to dawn on the Prime Minister at one stage. In a Damascus Road experience of almost staggering proportions the Prime Minister said of his own Government in an interview to the Los Angeles Times this summer:
"We have been here [in office] for 14 years. There is no one else one can blame for anything that has gone wrong".
I asked myself whether that was the repentance that comes before the forgiveness. Then we had the Conservative Party Conference, and all my theological hopes of the Government were finally dashed.
After 14 years what are we left with? We are left with the big idea: "Back, back," the Government cry to their troops and to the country. We are apparently to go back to the 1950s, to the days when (some would say) workers, women and ethnic minorities knew their place and when a clip round the ear from P.C. George Dixon was sufficient to set delinquent young people on the straight and narrow road back to honesty. We are to go back to those basics.
It is easy to be humorous at the Government's expense on this issue. However, perhaps we should rather admire their honesty. However one looks at it the call of "back to basics" is an admission by the Government that what they have been doing for the past 14 years is wrong. Finally, almost in extremis, they accept that Government policy and nothing but Government policy has brought us to our present state. We cannot run the country on the basis of an attempt to recover Britain's lost innocence, if Britain ever had the innocence to lose which the Prime Minister and Government spokesmen now seem to be picturing. Each age has its own problems which it is the responsibility of government to resolve. Other than the failure of
412
government, there is no reason why the 1990s should not be good in their own right. We have to accept where we are now and start from here.
The healing of our society—that is what is needed—has to begin with economic recovery and a new industrial revolution. By "recovery" I do not mean limping along weighed down by the burden of huge deficits only slightly smaller than those we have at present. Recovery must not mean recovery by, and wealth for, only the few people at the top of the heap. It must not mean putting up with a level of unemployment only slightly below the 3 million we now have.
What measures are contained in the gracious Speech? The centrepiece of the Government's policy for business—I do not think that one can dignify it with the description "industrial policy"—is the deregulation Bill. The final detail of the Bill is not clear. Perhaps the Government do not themselves know exactly what the Bill will provide. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, pointed out, it seems likely that powers will be given to Ministers to repeal secondary legislation, and perhaps even primary legislation, which totally bypasses parliamentary scrutiny. I have to say that I would find that intolerable. I do not believe that this House would find it generally acceptable.
Of course some rules and regulations are irrelevant and outdated. But why have consumers and employees not been consulted as to which of those rules and regulations remain necessary? I make the point because it is true. Why is it mainly big business and donors to Conservative Party funds who have been represented on the deregulation task forces? It is supposed to be a Bill to help small businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, expressed that hope. But what input has small business had? I say firmly to the Government that the deregulation Bill must not be used to remove safety standards for employees and consumers or we shall return not just to the 1950s but to the 19th century.
What is the other measure in the gracious Speech for the Department of Trade and Industry? It is a Bill to privatise the British coal industry. The irrelevance of that to Britain's economic problems at present—we have discussed those problems today—is massive. One of the aspects that makes me the most angry is the irrelevance of what is in the Queen's Speech to the industrial problems that this country faces. If one marries up what is in the Speech with an analysis of our economic and industrial position, I am bound to say that such a Bill becomes a pathetic irrelevance.
Finally, perhaps I may say a few words about the Government's economic policy generally. It seems to be more of the same. A reduction in the share of national income taken by the public sector is promised, much to the joy of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, except for the crucial VAT tax on fuel. The average family will pay £8.50 per week more in tax from April next year. While the bottom 10 per cent. pay more in tax now than in 1979, the top 1 per cent. of earners has received £8.7 billion in tax cuts. The gap between the highest and the lowest paid is now greater than at any time since 1886. When that figure was presented to me, I found it hard to believe. I had the figure checked; it is true. That is a

413
staggering proposition. All the Government's attempts to redistribute wealth seem to pass it from those at the bottom to those at the top.
What should we be doing instead? It has emerged firmly from the debate that the British economy requires a major shift from short-term consumption towards long-term investment in people, ideas and infrastructure. Public investment must become a catalyst for wealth creation; but wealth has to be shared and shared equitably. I believe that only when a greater degree of economic justice is achieved will Britain socially be a nation more at ease with itself.
I firmly believe too that the crucial ingredient for flexibility in the modern economy is the skills that the workforce possesses. That too emerged from the debate. We must put an end to the waste of those skills by hugely increasing provision of training and retraining to create a highly educated and sophisticated workforce. It means that effort, money and time have to be put into such training over the next few years in the recognition that it is a long-term process which will take time for the full benefits to be seen.
But, above all, public and private sectors should be working in partnership, not by the absence of government or by the creeping privatisation of public sector responsibilities, but by the input of an active government co-ordinating and expediting projects. Creating jobs by increasing investment from the public and private sectors will help to resolve many of the problems which are finally leading the Government to go back to basics. People, and most importantly young people, might see themselves as having a future. Education might begin again to have a value of its own, not simply leading to the dead end of the dole queue or, as one unemployed graduate recently put it, to,
"the abattoir of self-esteem that is long-term unemployment".
I do not need to talk about the social and medical effects of unemployment. I believe that most people agree that health standards would improve and crime would reduce if a major cause of ill health and at least a contributory factor in criminal behaviour—I refer to poverty caused by unemployment—were removed.
Britain is not fated to be in the economic and industrial second division unless the Government continue their shortsighted and short-term policies. It is time for the Government to acknowledge that they have failed this country and its people. The people of this country have paid too high a price for Conservative economic incompetence and failure to invest. The Prime Minister at least seems to have owned up. He accepts that there is no one else one can blame for anything that has gone wrong; that it is his fault and the fault of his Government. Now it is time to make amends. But there is little in this Queen's Speech which encourages me to believe that the Government are even thinking along those lines.
7.46 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, over the past four days of debate we have heard a number of notable speeches. I should like to add my congratulations in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for his maiden speech. It was an interesting
414
speech. Much of what he said goes to the heart of what concerns most of us: on how, over a fairly lengthy period, we shall find enough jobs in the world for the population. Over the last economic cycle, 1979–90, the workforce in employment in this country grew by 1.5 million. Employment will grow again as soon as the economy recovers. It is a wide subject well worthy of a much longer discussion than the noble Lord had time for when making his most interesting maiden speech.
Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, on her maiden speech. She spoke from long experience, and I know that the House will look forward to hearing her many times. I assure her that we have no plans to sacrifice the high standards of health and safety protection which are already in place. On the contrary, it is vitally important to provide proper levels of protection. Indeed, we aim by judicious reform to ensure protection for employees while at the same time reducing burdens on business. I shall return to that in a moment.
I add my congratulations to the seven other maiden speakers in the debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to offer a special note of welcome to my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on his speech. I know that noble Lords look forward to the contributions in our debates from all those who made their maiden speeches in the debate.
If I am to reply to the many interesting speeches that we have heard today, I shall have to reply fairly quickly. It is customary on the last day of debate on the humble Address to concentrate on the economy. Indeed, I made my maiden speech to this House in the same closing debate last year. The speech is not exactly the same of course; but I shall start by referring to some of the points that I made then and commenting upon them. In that speech I spoke of significant supply-side reforms which the Government had undertaken. I spoke of an economy poised for recovery. I also talked then of the recent renaissance in business confidence and improved order books. Eighteen months ago I could only point to the earliest signs of increased output. But I predicted that those more optimistic signs should soon be translated into higher activity.
It is interesting therefore to look at the position then and the position now. Output is up almost 2 per cent. since last year; manufacturing output is up 1.6 per cent.; retail sales are up 4 per cent.; unemployment is down by 137,000 since January this year; exports are at record levels; and industrial relations are excellent.
Those advances in the real economy have followed steadily falling interest rates. Interest rates are now at their lowest level since 1977, and are the lowest in the EC. Reductions in the base rates since October 1990 have saved business almost £12 billion in interest payments.
Yet inflation remains low. It has been under 2 per cent. for 10 consecutive months, the longest period of such consistently low inflation since 1960. And despite the strong signs of recovery inflation is predicted to stay low. The Bank of England's most recent Inflation Report predicts that underlying inflation will remain

415
within its target range of 1 to 4 per cent. Those very substantial rewards have all followed from the foundations to which I referred last year.
The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Jenkins, suggested that there was perhaps a note of untoward complacency in the speech of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. They contrasted it with the two speeches, both of which I have here, by my right honourable friend Mr. Heseltine in the House of Commons and at the Institute of Directors. My noble friend Lord Caldecote gave me the impression that he had read all of the speech. My right honourable friend Michael Heseltine certainly referred to the difficulties that were still there. But he also spoke very much about improvements that had occurred over recent years.
We cannot be complacent. A productivity gap still exists. We are still less productive than either Germany or Japan, and we are still some considerable way behind the United States. Closing the gap will require both government and business to look to the future, and it will require more flexibility than either the public or private sector has been used to. Competitiveness is not something that can be achieved and then taken for granted. Improving competitiveness is a continuing process, and we must constantly ask ourselves if what we are doing is the best and the most appropriate way of achieving our aims. We must always be ready to adapt to change.
I hope that I shall not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but it is interesting to note in passing that the noble Lord did what I gather none of his colleagues in another place would do; namely, to commit the Labour Party to a target of 1 million unemployed. I gather that his colleagues in another place have been very careful not to do that.
I noticed also that the noble Lord felt able to criticise the deregulation Bill without having seen it, but at the same time he wisely said that he would not criticise the Budget until he had seen that. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked questions about the deregulation Bill. All noble Lords who are interested in that very important piece of legislation would do best to wait until they see the Bill when it comes forward. I fear that the reality will not be quite so dramatic and exciting as some noble Lords have suggested.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, (as it seemed to me) running down the achievements of British business in the City of London. I remind the noble Lord that it is the wealth creators in the private sector who pay for the public services of which we are all so proud. The noble Lord's analysis did not seem to me consistent with, for example, the level of public sector asset creation over the year 1992–93 of some £30 billion, and also a recognition of the way in which the Government are opening up imaginative, new ways of getting private sector finance involved in public sector projects, which I believe to be a very important development.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as usual in a clear and penetrating speech, reminded us of the need to bear down on public expenditure. It is not for me to anticipate in any way what my right honourable friend
416
will say in his Budget Statement next week. As noble Lords know, it will be the first Budget to bring together public expenditure plans and the Chancellor's revenue proposals on one occasion. I can say to my noble friend that the task that we were set in regard to public expenditure was as tough a task as I have known over many years of involvement in assisting in these exercises. I anticipate that my noble friend will not be totally displeased with our efforts when they are revealed.
It is always a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I have heard his speeches over many years now. Sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes I disagree. The noble Lord may be slightly surprised to know that I agree with quite a lot of what he said in his speech this evening. Environmental improvement cannot be divorced from industrial and economic growth. Partnership between public and private sectors—perhaps I may refer to what I said a moment ago about public sector projects being financed through private finance initiative—for infrastructure projects is a good way in which to encourage greater co-operation in those areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, a number of my noble friends were not entirely complimentary about every aspect of government policy. But I would certainly not put my noble friend Lord Sanderson in that category. I congratulate him on his new job, about which he told us, and thank him for what he said about the economic situation. I listened carefully to his comments on what he would like to see in the Budget. Obviously again I cannot comment on that. I agree that it is important to recognise the need for a long-term approach to exporting. That is why DTI activity has been refocused and specific plans for trade promotion activity in each of the top 80 export markets have been drawn up.
My noble friend Lord Laing, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition talked about Britain's lack of success in the manufacturing sector over a considerable length of time. I had decided that I would not quote any figures until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Richard, quoting figures. It is necessary to put a certain balance into the argument. I would put the central point of the argument this way. I would agree that Britain's economic performance since the war has been generally pretty disappointing. I think that that is a reasonable premise which I could share.
However, any serious analysis of the figures will indicate that since the early 1980s Britain's performance has been substantially better than in the periods for a long time before then. For example, since 1981 the volume of UK manufactured exports has grown faster than in France, Germany, Italy or Japan. Our trade share stabilised in the early 1980s after years of decline. The UK grew faster than Germany, France or Italy in the 1980s and in the previous two decades we had the slowest growth rate in either the EC or the G7 countries. As far as concerns the productivity growth of major industrial countries, we were bottom of the league in the 1960s and 1970s but the highest in the 1980s, and so on.

417
There are many figures to show that we have had a very disappointing performance, if one considers the position since the war. But I believe that there has been a significant improvement since 1980 and that is set to continue. Indeed, the substance of the charge made, not for the first time, by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who speaks with vast experience and is always listened to with great interest, was that the Government had no policy for industry. Frankly, I am not prepared to accept that that charge can be sustained. It may not be the policy that he entirely wants; but to say that we have no policy is not true.
The Government have placed the concerns of industry right at the heart of all their policies and they continue to do so. They have given industry the confidence to invest by delivering low inflation, low interest rates and the lowest rates of corporation tax in the EC or G7 countries. They have helped our companies to win world markets by supporting exports—for example, by making available credit cover for exporters targeting difficult markets. They have promoted innovation and increased opportunities for private sector involvement in the financing of public sector infrastructure programmes. Those are the right policies for this country. I do not believe that the right solution is a sector by sector investigation getting to a plan drawn up by the centre as the way forward.
I believe that a private enterprise solution is the right way forward. I believe that it is the role of the Government to create the right infrastructure for that private sector to be able to thrive. Certainly since 1980 the record shows that we are moving very much in the right direction.
I welcome the contribution to the debate on an independent central bank made by my noble friend Lord Boardman. I share his concern about the need for accountability to Parliament on monetary matters. He had powerful support from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who apologised because he had to leave the debate early. To have two former chief secretaries speaking as one across the Floor of your Lordships' House is important.
But the policies pursued are more important than the institutional arrangements. The Government have set out clear targets and a clear framework for their policy. There are inflation targets of 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. Monthly monetary reports are published. The Bank is invited to publish quarterly inflation reports and has started to publicise reasons for every interest rate change. We have given the Bank greater discretion over the precise timing of interest rate changes. Those are important issues. My noble friend Lord Boardman asked whether we could have a debate on the subject and I believe that it would certainly be worthy of one. But I would not like to be committed to promising him a debate on the subject in the immediate future. Your Lordships have a number of other matters to deal with.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I tried to remember when I first heard him speak. It may surprise him to learn that I first heard him speak at a Fabian Society summer school when I was a schoolboy in the late 1940s. I believe that it was the late Tony Crosland who said to me after his lecture that everyone
418
was very fond of the noble Lord but he was of a rather gloomy disposition. I must say, a great chunk of a lifetime after that, I am not sure that he has changed very much. But I grant him consistency and I was delighted to hear his contribution to our debate. I very much agreed with my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, when he said that he found the disregard of inflation shown by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, to be somewhat breathtaking. It was interesting however to hear him.
I was delighted to hear the endorsement given to our policies on labour market flexibility by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. Without such flexibility the consequent productivity gains that we have enjoyed and the tremendous amount of inward investment to which he referred would certainly not have been forthcoming in this country in recent years.
My old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, regretted that there was no housing Bill mentioned in the gracious Speech. I was slightly surprised that he did not mention the massive housing Bill that we dealt with in the last Parliament. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill dealt with many aspects cif housing policy. We cannot necessarily have a massive housing Bill every year. I believe that that one was a particularly good Bill and its benefits have not yet fully worked through.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Caldecote's remarks on the way in which the Government viewed the Select Committee on innovation in manufacturing industry of which he was a distinguished member—in fact I believe he was the chairman—and the fact that the Government have responded positively to its important report. A number of the measures that he and his colleagues reported have been taken on board by the Government. Obviously there were also matters of a fiscal nature referred to in that report and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those today.
I was very pleased to hear towards the end of the debate the speeches of my noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Vinson. Like a number of other noble Lords who have spoken, they both have the great distinction that they have had great experience at the sharp end of industry and particularly with smaller businesses. It is no fault of theirs that the smaller businesses with which they were connected became bigger rather than smaller businesses after a fairly reasonable period of time. Obviously I cannot comment on the Budget points that they made. But I thought that my noble friend Lord Wade's call for greater trade with eastern Europe could only be welcomed. The transition of those economies to market-based economies will offer tremendous trading opportunity for British firms as well as raising the living standards of their citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, tempted me on to Budgetary issues again, but I must resist that temptation. I say only (this is not to reveal anything about the Budget even if I knew it) that when I was a Treasury Minister in 1981, what worried me particularly—I refer to his point on capital investment for industry—was that at that time there were £40 billion worth (the figure is ingrained in me) of unutilised capital allowances that had been claimed by industry. In other words, there

419
were £40 billion worth of capital investment that had been spent by British companies who were not profitable enough to be able to claim on their capital investment.
Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord: fiscal investments are an important part in obtaining the right climate for investments. But they are not the only part. This is not the time, but I could make the point in regard to the coal industry as to whether or not we actually received a proper return for some of the substantial capital investments that we made.
Britain is moving ahead; the economy has been growing for 18 months. Inflation is well under control and base rates are at their lowest level for 16 years. Of course, the recovery has been held back by the continued weakness of the European economy. However, when the European recovery comes, British business will be well placed to take advantage of the opportunities which will be on offer. In turn, British businesses must be prepared to anticipate new challenges and to open new markets.
The Government have an important role to play. Often that role will simply be to get out of the way; to
420
reduce the burden of government on business, or try to prevent others from obstructing industry's progress. But in areas such as education reform, infrastructure and the private sector finance initiative, this Government intend to play their part to the full.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, read a second time pro forma, and committed to Select Committees.

King's Cross Railways Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, read a second time pro forma, and reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

  CHIEF ADJUDICATION OFFICER'S REPORT
  CHIEF ADJUDICATION OFFICER'S REPORT
  STATE PENSION AGE EQUALISATION: EFFECTS
  STATE PENSION AGE EQUALISATION: EFFECTS
  HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS
  HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS
  MR. RAOUL WALLENBERG
  MR. RAOUL WALLENBERG
  CHINA: POPULATION PROGRAMME
  CHINA: POPULATION PROGRAMME
  IPPF and UNFPA: CHINA
  IPPF and UNFPA: CHINA
  IPPF AND UNFPA: UK FUNDING BASIS
  IPPF AND UNFPA: UK FUNDING BASIS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: NEGOTIATIONS
  COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: NEGOTIATIONS
  NUCLEAR CAPABILITY: REDUCTIONS
  NUCLEAR CAPABILITY: REDUCTIONS
  UNCED FOREST PRINCIPLES: PROGRESS
  UNCED FOREST PRINCIPLES: PROGRESS
  MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES ORDER 1993
  MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES ORDER 1993
  ODA GRANTS
  ODA GRANTS
  PLANNING INSPECTORATE EXECUTIVE AGENCY and WILDLIFE and COUNTRYSIDE ACT
  PLANNING INSPECTORATE EXECUTIVE AGENCY and WILDLIFE and COUNTRYSIDE ACT
  LEASEHOLD VALUATION: MARRIAGE VALUE
  LEASEHOLD VALUATION: MARRIAGE VALUE