Sitting of 30 November 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present session of Parliament.

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
  EMPLOYMENT

    Trade Unions
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has held with trade unions relating to the rights of employees to trade union representation.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have had a number of discussions with the Trades Union Congress at which the rights of employees to trade union representations have been raised.
    Mr. McAllion: The right of employees to establish and join organisations of their own choosing, including made unions, is one of the basic freedoms that are available to workers around the civilised world. Why do the Government continue to deny that basic freedom to their own workers at GCHQ? As January marks the 10th anniversary of the Government ban on trade unions there which was described at the time by the Tory Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) as the "nasty, thin wedge of fascism", is it not time that the Government got back to democratic basics by lifting the ban that has internationally isolated them in their anti-worker and anti-trade union bigotry?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the workers at GCHQ can join a staff association. Conservative Members will take no lectures on the rights of trade union members from the party that supported the closed shop and that only a year ago voted against the right for members to join a trade union of their choice.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute tragedy that 400 jobs have been lost at the Timex factory in Dundee? Does he agree that the left-wing extremists there seemed to be more interested in trade union rights than they were in the maintenance of jobs, and that those people who were involved should be thoroughly ashamed of their job-destroying tactics?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree that, unfortunately, the extremists in the trade union movement denied Dundee job opportunities at Timex, as before at Ford, and most people in the country and in Dundee would accept that inward investment depends on a good record of industrial relations. We have achieved that record thanks to the reforms that the Government brought forward, which were opposed by hon. Members opposite.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to ensure co-operation between regions of the European Union in the common effort to overcome unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Europe will overcome its structural unemployment problem only by becoming competitive and removing unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that some areas in eastern France have lower unemployment than difficult areas of Wales, Merseyside, north-east England and Scotland, yet have higher inducements for attracting employment despite having a better infrastructure and being nearer to the heart of the European Community? What mechanisms can his Department use to co-ordinate incentives to develop unemployment opportunities through the regions of Europe to ensure that there is not unfair competition against areas in Wales with higher unemployment, so that they get a fair crack of the whip?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should cite France—a country which has a higher level of unemployment than Britain and where unemployment is rising—when Britain is leading the Community on unemployment and where unemployment is falling. It is falling in Britain because of the supply-side reforms introduced in the 1980s by the Government, which were opposed by all Opposition Members, including the hon. Gentleman. The way forward for Europe in terms of jobs is not through subsidy, but by becoming competitive and abandoning the kind of nonsense that is included in the social chapter.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Has my hon. Friend noted that it is important for all regions in this country and elsewhere in the Community to ensure that unit costs of production and labour do not outstrip those of our competitor countries? Since the beginning of the 1980s, unit costs of production in Europe have risen ahead of those in America and Japan, our big export markets. Can my hon. Friend ensure that the German Government continue to push in their presentation to the Commission their ideas, which are very similar to those advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree that we need to make Europe competitive to tackle the problem of unemployment in Europe. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise Europe's poor record in creating jobs. The United Kingdom has been among the most successful countries in Europe in that regard. Over the past 20 years, 36 million new jobs have been created in the United States; only 8 million have been created in Europe, most of them in the public sector. The way to create extra jobs in Europe is to oppose the social chapter, and to make the European Commission understand that competitiveness depends on setting free enterprise free.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind that it is intended to cut the common agricultural policy by 50 per cent. over the next five years, can the Minister confirm that special attention will be given to rural areas such as Wales, where tens of thousands of jobs will be lost? Will he give an undertaking that schemes will be prepared to produce substitute employment where agricultural begins to show signs of collapse?
    Mr. Forsyth: Is it not extraordinary that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not find time to say that unemployment had fallen by 17 per cent. in his constituency? Is it not extraordinary that he did not recognise that Wales benefits from considerable inward investment, as does the rest of the United Kingdom? It benefits from that investment because we have set aside the kind of policies that he would sign up to tomorrow, including the social chapter.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Can the Minister explain why Britain, which contains one third of the European Community's working children, is the only member state once again to opt out of an EC directive to protect 13 to 15-year-olds from working for more than 12 hours per week? Is he not ashamed that the only victory that he has secured is for rotten employers who continue to exploit the hidden army of child workers as cheap labour? For that lot,"back to basics" means back to kids up the chimney.
    Mr. Forsyth: The Government took the position that they took because we thought it right for youngsters to have the chance to do paper rounds and Saturday jobs. I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not accept that. While she is talking about unscrupulous employers, she might look into the case of the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors her. According to The Mail on Sunday, workers at the seaside hotel owned by the Transport and General Workers Union are complaining that the TGWU gives them a deliberate eight-week break to circumvent employment legislation. Because their employment is interrupted in that way, they cannot be classified as full-time workers. The hon. Lady should look in her own backyard.

    Working Hours
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effects on British industry of a statutory maximum 35-hour week.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): It would be highly damaging to British competiveness and jobs.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this afternoon he has confirmed my worst fears about the 35-hour working week? It would lead to a dramatic increase in the employment costs of British businesses, which in turn would have a major impact on our competitiveness throughout the world. Would not that mean thousands of British workers being thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment? What does my right hon. Friend think of any party leader who would sign up for that package?
    Mr. Hunt: A compulsory 35-hour week would mean passing legislation in the House of Commons that would prevent 14 million employees from working the hours that they now work and want to work. It would also impose costs of £20,000 million on British employers, as well as asking those 14 million employees to take a £20,000 million pay cut. It is the politics of despair, and I am shocked and surprised that the Opposition should sign up to such a damaging policy.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Secretary of State aware of what is increasingly going on at the other end of the labour market? There is an increasing prevalence of zero hour contracts, which mean that an individual is given a contract of employment with zero hours to fulfil and is then expected to be on the end of a telephone, to be called in at the whim of the employer, not knowing from one day to the next how many hours they will be expected to work. What effect does the Secretary of State think that that will have on British industry?
    Mr. Hunt: I must tell the hon. Lady that, in the UK, there has not been a substantial increase in casual or temporary working. Those are the facts. [Interruption.] There has not been a substantial increase. The increase—[Interruption.] Listen to the facts. The increase has been only 6 per cent. The number of permanent jobs in the United Kingdom now exceeds 20 million. The hon. Lady will not succeed in trying to portray a different picture from the one that is reality: that a greater proportion of the working age population are in work in the United Kingdom than in most other countries in the rest of Europe; and that they do so at an average gross weekly wage of £316. That is because we are competitive and are winning new markets all the time.
    Mr. Churchill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite difficult enough already for British and other EC workers to compete with Pacific rim countries, without putting the added shackle of a ball and chain around the ankle of every British employee? Will he and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister carry on spearheading the fight against this 1950s socialist mentality, typified by Mr. Delors and those on the Opposition Front Bench?
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is positively ridiculous that, in this day and age, the Labour party and some socialists in the rest of the Community should believe that there is a definite parcel of work that can be divided between the available work force. We benefit in the UK because we have a flexible labour market. Why is it—as my hon. Friend has pointed out—that, in the UK, unemployment is falling, while in mainland Europe, in every country, unemployment is rising?
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State accept my official copy of the European socialist manifesto, which makes it absolutely clear that any such changes in the working week will be imposed not by legislation but by agreement with the social partners? Is he not aware that, in companies in the Netherlands, Germany and France, where such 35-hour agreements have been agreed, they have led to increased productivity and an increased work force, without a reduction in pay? That is one reason why they have a higher level of pay and a lower level of unemployment than Britain.
    Is it not true that, only last week, the Secretary of State himself refused to vote against the 48-hour week European directive, which means that it will be he who introduces legislation to reduce the working week? Will that be in his European Tory manifesto?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to the Front Bench. I also welcome the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and also the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
    Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.
    Mr. Hunt: I will. The trouble with the Opposition is that they do not know a compliment or tribute when it hits them in the face.
    I have to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that I know that he has been doing his job for
    906
    only a short time, but I have spent some considerable time reading through the manifesto that was distributed at the press conference.
    Mr. Prescott: Here is the official one.
    Mr. Hunt: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to pretend that the French version is the more authoritative one, but I rely on the English version. Paragraph 32 says:
    "These measures must include a substantial cut in working time to ensure a better division of the available work. Several approaches are possible: a working week of 35 hours or four days".
    Already, the deputy leader of the Labour party in the European Parliament has said that the party will campaign on a 35-hour week. Either the document to which the Labour party signed up is not worth the paper that it is written on, or it is the most damaging document for the United Kingdom that I have ever seen. Instead of reducing unemployment, it will spread unemployment.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is not the evidence clear that, where legislation of this type is imposed on a working population, higher levels of unemployment result? Is not the evidence also clear that Britain is winning respect from its European partners by stating the case clearly, negotiating firmly and not backing down until we get the deal that we want?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. First, no country in Europe has a statutory 35-hour working week at present. Secondly, we are winning respect from our partners in Europe in seeking to contest any rigid regulatory measures which would only stiffen up the labour market and stop unemployment coming down. Thirdly, it is a fact that, in the United Kingdom, unemployment is coming down. It is down 137,000 so far this year, whereas on the mainland of Europe, it is rising in every country. My hon. Friend is right that people are listening more and more to the United Kingdom Government's message and the message of the Conservative and Christian Democratic parties, not the socialist message from the past.

    VAT
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs that would be lost as a result of the introduction of a 17.5 per cent. rating of value added tax on books and newspapers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I am not prepared to speculate on matters still within the realm of hypothesis.
    Mr. Denham: Is not that a most extraordinary and complacent reply? Is it not the case that the imposition of VAT on books and newspapers has been widely canvassed as an option in the Budget, and that it has been estimated by the printing industry that the measure would cost 20,000 jobs? Yet the Minister has not even bothered to estimate the consequences for employment.
    How many other measures that may be announced this afternoon in the Budget have slipped through the Minister's fingers without any estimate of the consequences for unemployment? Why on earth do we have Ministers for employment if they will not do their job properly? Is there not one cut in public expenditure on

    907
    which we can all agree—getting rid of Employment Ministers' salaries because they are not prepared to do the job they are paid for?
    Miss Widdecombe: The job that I am paid to do is not to be led into using the Department's investigation resources by the mere speculation of the Opposition. Why does not the hon. Gentleman confine himself to some facts? Instead of spreading gloom and despondency, why does he not point out that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 13 per cent. since January? [Interruption.] I shall believe that the Opposition really care about employment when they greet questions like that with cheers.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is illogical for the working man to have to pay VAT on the boots and shoes that he needs to go to work, but not on The Sun, pornographic magazines or The Tatler? Does she also agree that the printing industry has benefited from our industrial relations legislation, which has enabled it to cut its costs, more than any other industry?
    Miss Widdecombe: I suggest that my hon. Friend puts his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an appropriate time.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give figures for the total adult unemployment in Lewisham West on 1 January for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: Since 1989, 3,747; 2,978; 3,966; 5,895 and 6,904 respectively.
    Mr. Dowd: Is the Secretary of State aware that those figures show that, for every marginal decline in the numbers of unemployed in my constituency and across London as a whole, there has been a far greater increase in the numbers out of work? Those numbers reveal not only the numbers out of work but the number of jobs that have been lost to London's economy since the Government took office. Almost half a million jobs have been lost to the London economy in the past 10 years.
    When will the Secretary of State understand that the Government's two greatest failings are their economic policy and their inability to deal with that question? No synthetic anger towards those who point that out to him will obscure that fact; nor will his bogus enthusiasm for a recovery that has not touched London.
    Mr. Hunt: So far this year, there has been a fall in unemployment of 231. The Lewisham jobcentre has placed 2,745 people into jobs since October of last year. I am saddened that the hon. Gentleman has not paid tribute to the tremendous amount of work being done by the South Thames training and enterprise council in providing opportunities to the long-term unemployed. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that the Employment Service has placed 190,273 people into jobs in the past 12 months, up 13.6 per cent. on the year before.
    Ms Gordon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of London local authorities to discuss unemployment.
    Miss Widdecombe: Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any consultations with the local authorities, nevertheless they are in close consultation with the training and enterprise councils. Any request for a meeting would be sympathetically considered.
    Ms Gordon: The Minister has boasted that unemployment in Britain is lower than in Europe. Will she tell that to my constituents in the east end, where unemployment is about 20 per cent., 25 per cent. in some places and 60 per cent. for young black males? Will the Minister tell us the arrangements that are being made to ensure that east enders benefit from developments such as the Jubilee line and that they get the jobs created-unlike other developments, which have left us with a net loss of jobs?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady would benefit from a lesson from Martyn Lewis, which might give her constituents some other facts of equal relevance—for example, 13.6 per cent. more people put into work by jobcentres, from which her constituency has benefited; the advent of jobs, as she has admitted, from the Jubilee line, from Argos, from United Parcels and from Tesco-Metro. Why does not the hon. Lady bring hope to her constituents instead of always trying to depress young people who want to work and the long-term unemployed, all of whom our initiatives are helping? Why does she not welcome those initiatives and back her local TEC and local employment services? She should stop trying to spread gloom when there is obviously good news to be had.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Again referring to Martyn Lewis, should it not be remembered that there 20,000 manufacturing businesses in London, and that London creates almost 20 per cent. of our national wealth and contributes £8.5 billion more in taxation than it receives from the Exchequer? Will my hon. Friend continue to support measures that will enhance the potential of London as one of the nation's greatest assets?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes. In addition to that good news, there is the winning of city challenge and all the potential that that has, and the fact that the highest number of people since records began left the unemployment register for London and the south-east.

    Queen's Speech
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the Queen's Speech in relation to his responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: Several.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 7 per cent. in the past year and by 34 per cent. in the past six years? Will he urge our European partners to follow our successful enterprise policies and not the job-destroying socialism of the Opposition?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. What has been remarkable about this Question Time is that every time Conservatives have pointed out the extent to which unemployment has fallen in the constituency of an Opposition Member, that has been greeted with a round of booing from the Opposition. It is clear that good news is bad news for them and that is a sad reflection of the lack

    909
    of any policy on their part. My hon. Friend is right. Employers are responding more quickly to the upturn in the economy because of the flexible labour market. Long may that continue.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What representations have been made concerning the fall in the number of unemployed disabled people? What steps are being taken to remove discrimination against them?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to focus and target more resources on the disabled among the unemployed, particularly those who are long-term unemployed. He will be aware that, earlier this year, I announced some proposals to enable those people to gain greater access to work. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and to several colleagues on both sides of the House who have made representations to me concerning that scheme and the new dimension that it gives to extend the range of help to a wider number of disabled people. I am now considering those representations and I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussion he has had with his EC counterparts about unemployment.
    Mr Michael Forsyth: My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with our EC counterparts, at which we discuss unemployment.
    Mr. Willetts: Can the Minister confirm that Britain's unemployment rate is lower than that in France, Italy, Spain and across the European Community as a whole? Does that not show that we have nothing to learn from Mr. Delors about curing unemployment? They need to learn from us that deregulating the labour market is the best way to create more jobs rather than by piling new restrictions on.
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite right to say that our unemployment rate is lower and also that our employment figures are higher than elsewhere in the Community. My hon. Friend is right to single out France and Spain, as they are the only two countries in the Community that have embraced the Labour party's minimum wage policy and they have paid the price in lost jobs.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister ever predict to his ministerial counterparts in the Common Market when he expects the Government's economic policies to bring the level of unemployment down to what it was in 1979 at just over 1 million people?
    Mr. Forsyth: If we were to take the hon. Gentleman's advice and embrace a minimum wage we would put 2 million extra people on the dole. If we were to take the Opposition's advice and embrace the social chapter, with all its nonsenses, we would put many more hundreds of thousands of people on the dole. The hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture the Conservative party on jobs for the unemployed.
    Mr. Paice: Will my hon. Friend continue to discuss with our European counterparts the voting basis for many of the measures that come from Europe? Will he
    910
    particularly continue to challenge hard the use of the health and safety provisions, under majority voting, to introduce what is no more and no less than socialist legislation, such as the working time directive?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that we do not add to non-wage labour costs in Europe, because the price will be paid in other people's jobs. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks about challenging the abuse of article 118A of the treaty of Rome. I should warn my hon. Friend, however, that if the Labour party were ever to get into power it would remove the necessity for unanimity on matters concerning the labour market and thereby expose many people in Britain to unemployment needlessly as we became less competitive.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Last month, seasonally adjusted unemployment fell by 49,000 and now stands at 2,855,100, which is a fall this year of 137,000.
    Mr. Skinner: Now that the Government have admitted that they say one thing in private and another thing in public, is not it time that we had a little honesty about the unemployment figures? Why does not the Secretary of State admit that there are 500,000 women who do not register who should be added to the figures? There are another 500,000 young men and women who have been thrown on the scrapheap of slave labour schemes, and more than 100,000 miners and others on special schemes. In Bolsover, some of those people do not figure on the unemployment benefit records. Let us have some honesty all round. If the Secretary of State wants the money to get the unemployed back to work, why does not he tax the rich rather than adding VAT to fuel and power?
    Mr. Hunt: I am sad that the hon. Gentleman did not welcome the fall in unemployment of 137,000 this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the question by referring the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at the CBI where, for the first time, the leader of the Labour party acknowledged that unemployment is now below 3 million.
    Mr. Skinner: It is not.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is not, but the leader of his party says that it is. In this, I believe the hon. Gentleman's leader because he was expressing the truth. Our statistics show the truth and it is about time that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall visiting my constituency 10 days ago when he was made aware of the importance of the hosiery and knitwear industries? Does he believe that the competitive position of the industries with the far east will be enhanced if further working hour restrictions are imposed by Europe?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the imposition of a statutory working week of 35 hours would prevent 14 million people in this country from working the hours that they want to work. Compulsory legislation of that type would undermine the

    911
    competitiveness of key industries. That message came across to me loud and clear when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Health and Safety
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with the TUC on health and safety issues.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have had several meetings with the TUC to discuss health and safety, the most recent of which was yesterday.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that since the Labour Government introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 the numbers of people killed or seriously injured at work have been reduced dramatically? How will workers taking their own toilet rolls and towels to work help British industry and resolve its problems? Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government's proposals on the deregulation of health and safety comply with the EC directive?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Government have no proposals to deregulate health and safety. The deregulation review is being carried out by the Health and Safety Commission, which was established by the Labour Government. I am astonished that the hon. Lady seeks to attack the commission in carrying out that review. The hon. Lady's point about workers bringing their own soap and toilet rolls to work is fatuous nonsense in which the Government will have no part.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement that the Government deregulation proposals will have no impact on health and safety will be warmly welcomed by workers in my constituency? Is he aware that the biggest employers in rural areas are in tourism, hotels, restaurants and catering and that they want to see the Government's deregulation initiative put into practice?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Deregulation is important to ensure that firms are able to comply to maintain the effective health and safety regimes which everyone wants. The review is being carried out by the Health and Safety Commission, on which the TUC is represented and is playing a part. The Department of Trade and Industry has also asked business to make an input.
    Quite frankly, the commission told me that it would need a special van to send round all the regulations which apply to health and safety in the workplace. There must be room for pruning and it is a pity that Opposition Members are not prepared to play a constructive role. Instead, they seem to want to make cheap political capital out of the important matter of safety and the competitiveness of this country.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister tell the House why the vital new regulations introduced, on common ground and without dissent, in the House earlier this year are not yet being enforced at all in industry?
    Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a close interest in the conduct of industrial tribunals, and I assure him that those changes will be introduced as rapidly as possible. I assume that he
    912
    wishes to focus on that aspect, but his question did not make that absolutely clear. If he cares to write to me I shall be happy to assure him.
    Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom has one of the best safety records in Europe, and that, by ensuring that our safety procedures are not overly bureaucratic and burdensome, we have succeeded both in saving lives and in saving people from injury, while at the same time keeping many significant employers in this country?
    Mr. Forsyth: We have the best safety record not only in Europe but in the world, and my hon. Friend is right to say that that depends on conduct in the workplace. For Opposition Members to argue that we should retain rules such as the agricultural ladders regulations, which specify the distance between the rungs of a ladder and the grain of the wood to be used to make it, is fatuous and nonsensical. No one with the interests of safety at heart would seek to portray the regulations in the emotional way in which Opposition Members, even those on the Front Bench, have sought to do in the press and elsewhere.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister tell us whether it is right and proper for his Department to allow the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to repeal health and safety legislation by means of statutory instruments such as those laid down in clause 52 of the soon-to-be-published deregulation and contracting out Bill? If he, like me, has confidence in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and in the Health and Safety Commission, why does he not let the commission, rather than the ideologues in the Department of Trade and Industry, repeal unwanted legislation?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman would do better not to spend his time ferreting around in dustbins; he would not then be misled, as he clearly has been. The draft in his possession does not represent what will eventually appear. The hon. Gentleman should know that the House decides on regulations, and says which of them should be repealed, not the Health and Safety Commission. The commission makes proposals about regulations, and that will continue. The review is being carried out by the commission, with trade union representatives involved. The hon. Gentleman would do better to spend his time talking to those people, rather than scurrying round the dustbins of Whitehall.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact upon employment in the United Kingdom of companies moving their manufacturing centres to sites in eastern Europe.
    Mr. David Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is potentially serious, but provided that the United Kingdom remains competitive, it will not happen.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful, albeit brief, reply. Does he accept that our manufacturing industries are critical to the United Kingdom economy, and does he support the objectives of the all-party Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance launched in the House earlier this year, which believes in free but fair competition, and in constructive

    913
    deregulation? Will he tell the House what measures and initiatives he will take to improve both education and training to ensure the continued competitiveness of British industry?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of manufacturing industry. Secondly, the deregulatory effects of the abolition of wages councils will enable manufacturing industry to be even more competitive. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will confirm, the Government have focused heavily on manufacturing industry in Wales, where output is now 124 per cent. of what it was in 1979, and have done much to reinvigorate industry throughout Wales.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Is it not Government policy that we should compete successfully with eastern Europe and, for that matter, with the Pacific rim countries, by driving down wage levels and worsening terms and conditions in this country?
    Mr. Hunt: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the take-home pay of the average worker in the United Kingdom is one of the highest in Europe, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the reason for that. Of course, it is because our non-wage labour costs are much lower and much more competitive. Instead of focusing on the subject that he mentioned, he would do better to abdicate from the socialist charter, which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has signed, to impose a compulsory 35-hour week and a compulsory four-day week, which would be grievously damaging to British industry. It is about time the Labour party dropped that sort of socialist nonsense.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that contacts have played an initial part in bringing about the process in the middle east and in bringing people together in South Africa; but contacts have always played an important part in bringing an end to violence? Hon. Members want my right hon. Friend to continue his courageous search to bring an end to bloodshed in Northern Ireland.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend and I welcome the strong support yesterday given by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the efforts to promote peace and political settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that contacts can play a useful part, for the reasons set out yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that those contacts will have helped the IRA to understand that violence must stop before those who justify it can enter negotiations with the Government, and that the Government stand firmly by their public position.
    914
    I regret very much that there has not yet been a permanent cessation of violence, as events in Northern Ireland over the past day have sadly demonstrated yet again. But if our present efforts do not succeed, we will not cease to explore opportunities for peace.
    Mr. John Smith: As a former Chief Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as Prime Minister for the past three years, does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the £50 billion Budget deficit?
    The Prime Minister: During the recession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] I shall answer in my own way. During the recession, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues were keen to see us increase spending to protect people who are vulnerable. It was the protection of people who were vulnerable and the collapse of income during that period that increased the size of the borrowing requirement. What is presently odious about the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that his party objects now to spending reductions, having previously asked for spending increases. They complain about the size of the borrowing requirement, they complain about tax increases and they still promise extra expenditure.
    Mr. John Smith: I will not bandy cheap insults with the Prime Minister. The House will notice that he did not answer the question as to responsibility. If he seeks to blame it all on the world recession, can he explain why Britain's Budget deficit is significantly worse than that of Japan, the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain why our inflation position is better than that of all those countries, why our unemployment position is better, why our exports position is better, why we have unemployment falling and they have unemployment growing, and why we have the largest growth rate in the European Community this year and projected next year. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reflect on that.
    Mr. John Smith: Perhaps the Prime Minister will reflect on why, if everything in the garden is growing as well as he suggests, we have a £50 billion deficit? Is not economic mismanagement the fundamental reason for that? And is not that the fundamental reason why, quite apart from anything the Chancellor does today, the British taxpayer faces a major tax hike next April?
    The Prime Minister: I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman's third question in my first answer. If he cares to look at it again, he will see that that is the case. Once again, he is trying to face both ways at the same time and attacks us both on the level of the deficit and the level of taxation. If he thinks that taxes are too high and the deficit is also too high, what spending would he cut? He cannot go on living in an Alice in Wonderland world where taxes fall, the deficit drops and spending rises effortlessly upwards. Whenever the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks, the natural laws of economics are suspended.
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most significant result of the survey of manufacturing industry published yesterday is that our consumer-led recovery is providing a significant and sustained boost to manufacturing industry right across the country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Consumer demand is rising, manufacturing output is growing, retail sales are at record levels, exports are up, and car registrations are up, which is all good news for British manufacturing. Opposition Members who continually knock the record of British manufacturing should ask themselves how, if it is not doing well, British exports have risen so dramatically. We were certainly the first to go into recession, but we are also the first to be clearly out of recession and we are set to grow faster this year than almost any other European nation.
    Mr. Ashdown: Should not those who hope for peace and wish the Prime Minister well in his pursuit of it in Northern Ireland nevertheless recognise that the events of the weekend, for whatever reason, have served to dent the trust of the Unionists, put the extremists centre stage and check the momentum of peace in Northern Ireland? Does the Prime Minister recognise the absolute urgency now of taking action to restore the momentum for peace by proposing, after discussion with the Irish Prime Minister, actions that will unite the majority on both sides?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, who made his own comments about the leaks over the weekend, might have been prudent to wait to hear what the Government had to say before he made those comments and to study the documents which the Government released to justify the position that they have taken, as those documents clearly do. I believe that when people in Northern Ireland have had a chance to study what was said, they will see that the Government have acted properly and done their duty throughout this whole affair.
    If there had been a terrorist tragedy of some sort on a massive scale this week and it then became apparent that we had ignored the message that we received earlier this year, that would have been unforgivable, and I dread to think what the right hon. Gentleman would have said in those circumstances.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind that there is strong and firm support for the Home Secretary's recent proposals on law and order, particularly with regard to people on bail and remand—reforms which have been urged on the Government over a period of years by the Norwich crime prevention panel—will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will encourage business leaders and local councils in Norwich to support the panel's campaign to install security cameras in the city centre, leading to the deterrence of crime and more convictions, as sure as night follows day?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is determined to make Norwich as famous as Basildon, and I suspect that he may succeed. I agree with him about closed circuit television and reject outright the views of those people who claim that it is in some way Big Brother. The public rightly
    916
    want less crime, and closed circuit television has an important part to play in achieving that. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is strong support in the House and beyond for the anti-crime measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that they will have the support of hon. Members across the House when they come before the House for consideration.
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Trimble: May I refer the Prime Minister to the channel of communication with the IRA that was revealed yesterday? Is the Prime Minister satisfied about the reliability and accuracy of that channel in view of the denials now issuing from Belfast about the February statement to which the Prime Minister referred earlier? Was the dialogue with the IRA in any way prompted by events in England? Were any messages sent on that channel of communication by or on behalf of any Minister other than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Were they in any way related to recent events in England?
    The Prime Minister: For the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend set out yesterday, it is useful to continue to have a confidential channel of communication—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and his hon. Friends said yesterday, has been available for many years. Any private communications on our part will, on all occasions, be consistent with the Government's public position, as was the case with the documents published yesterday. On the reliability of the channel, experience has proved it to be extremely accurate and extremely reliable over many years. But the real test over time is action not words. We need to see what the final outcome is. The documents published yesterday set out a full record of the exchanges and I have no further exchanges to report to the House.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last month, not only was there a decrease in unemployment in my constituency of 7 per cent., but Brintons Carpets, my constituency's largest employer, has just announced a year-on-year increase in exports of 86 per cent? Is not that indicative of the huge improvement in competitiveness in British industry, and would not that improvement be severely damaged by the social chapter, the minimum wage and the European super-state, with which the Labour party increasingly seems to be obsessed?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear the good news from my hon. Friend's constituency, and to hear that unemployment is falling there, as it is now in all parts of the country. It is true that while I have no doubt that the Opposition wish to create jobs, their policies would, in practice, destroy jobs. A minimum wage would destroy jobs, a 35-hour week would destroy jobs and levelling up business taxes would destroy jobs. People will notice that

    917
    unemployment is falling here with our policies, but rising in other countries that follow the policies advocated by the Opposition.
    Mr. Grocott: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in the three years that he has been in the job, 1,300,00 people have lost their jobs, 250,000 people have lost their homes and 150,000 businesses have gone bankrupt? As he continues to draw a full salary, can we assume that, whatever else is in the Chancellor's Budget, there will be no reference to performance-related pay?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm a lot to the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that when I became Prime Minister inflation was 9.7 per cent. and is now at 1.4 per cent., interest rates were 14 per cent. and are now 5.5 per cent., unemployment was rising and is now falling, the economy has been in recession and is now growing, and 137,000 people have come off the unemployment register total this year. I can also confirm that last month alone nearly 500,000 people came off the register. The hon. Gentleman can name no other country in the western world currently in that position.
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in all parts of the House about too-easy access to pornography produced on computers? Does he join me in welcoming the announcement last week by the Home Secretary of measures to curb these activities, which can be so harmful, especially to children?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, and I strongly share it. Parents feel particularly revolted by pornography involving children. The measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced will be included in the criminal justice Bill in this Session. They will make it quite clear to the pornographers that we are determined to defeat them, and we intend to crack down especially hard on the appalling trade in child pornography.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise an important point of order about a serious matter—the leaking by the Secretary of State for Education of part of the statement that is to be made by the Chancellor this afternoon.
This is the first occasion on which we have had a unified Budget with announcements on expenditure as well as taxation. Clearly, any announcement on expenditure can be taken as an idea of the revenue to be raised by the Chancellor. Such an indication has been given by the Secretary of State for Education by way of a press release this morning—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be heard if she has a point of order.
Mrs. Taylor: Although this press statement makes bogus claims about increases in Government expenditure on education, along with cuts in student grants, it is an official statement by a Minister of the Crown on the unified Budget.
That is more serious than just a discourtesy to the House: it is a clear breach of Budget security, and has been acknowledged as such by both the Department for Education and 10 Downing street. In view of this, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Education has asked to make a personal statement to the House, because clearly he should resign.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Secretary of State that he seeks to make a statement today. I have, however, had an opportunity to look at the document that has been referred to. It is an account of the expenditure plans of the Department for Education for 1994-95. The premature release of such information, ahead of the unified Budget statement and an associated parliamentary answer, does not have the gravity of the pre-release of tax proposals that are to have immediate effect.
It is nevertheless a most serious discourtesy to the House to disclose such information before it has been made available to Members. I most strongly deprecate what has happened, and I trust that all Departments will take note of what I have said, and that they will take steps to see that they prevent anything similar from happening again.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.] Listen, you berks. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Faulds: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In view of the comments that you have just made, that the House should be properly treated, is it not now incumbent upon the Secretary of State whom you have commented upon to make an apology to the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: What I have said stands and will be reported in the Official Report. We shall now move on. With permission, I shall put together the seven motions relating to statutory instruments.

Points of Order
  Statutory Instruments, &c
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  Statutory Instruments, &c

    LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Limit) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    COURT OF SESSION
    That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    INSURANCE COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS)
    That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Insurance Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Insurance Undertakings) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that, at the end of the Chancellor's speech, copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  3.35 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): A politician presenting his first Budget is rather like a lion tamer trying out his act for the first time, but I have decided to tackle the difficulties I face in a direct way, on the basis of the clear policy objectives that I set myself when I became Chancellor.

  Budget Statement

    INTRODUCTION
    My first priority has been to sustain the economic recovery now under way and to create the right climate for growth and for jobs. I have been determined to take no risks with inflation. We have brought inflation down to the lowest level for a generation and low inflation must now remain a permanent feature of the British economic landscape.
    To achieve these objectives, the task of my first Budget has been to set the Government's finances on a sustainable path for the rest of the decade, to make the decisions necessary now to secure lasting recovery and rising living standards in the future.
    "The Financial Statement and Budget Report", together with a number of press releases filling out the details of our spending plans and my Budget tax proposals, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.

    ECONOMIC SITUATION AND PROSPECTS
    Britain's economic performance this year has been encouraging. It is now clear that the recovery started in the first half of 1992, well before sterling's departure from the exchange rate mechanism. GDP has risen for six successive quarters, and in 1993 as a whole, I now expect the economy to grow by about ¾ per cent.
    Unemployment has fallen since the beginning of the year, at a much earlier stage in the economic cycle than past experience would suggest, and crucially the recovery has been accompanied by continuing low inflation. Underlying inflation has not been lower since 1968, and unit wage costs in manufacturing have actually fallen this year, allowing British industry to establish a durable improvement in our competitiveness.
    As a result, despite the weakness of activity in the other major European countries, Britain's trading performance over the last year has been excellent. Exports to countries outside the European Union were up by no less than 14 per cent. in the last three months compared with a year ago—a sharp increase in our market share. After the last three difficult years, that performance convincingly demonstrates the strength of British manufacturing today.
    Continued growth in consumer spending, together with further increases in exports and investment, should bring faster growth in 1994. Economic forecasting is an unreliable art, to which in my opinion far too much
    922
    importance has been attached in recent years, but on the best judgment I can make, growth next year should be about 2½ per cent.
    With considerable spare capacity in the economy, inflationary pressures remain subdued. The tax measures announced in March, and the further measures I shall be announcing today, will push inflation up a little in the next few months, but this should not feed through into higher inflation over the medium term.
    I expect underlying inflation to remain inside 'the Government's 1 to 4 per cent. target range over the year ahead, and to decline steadily into the lower half of that range by the end of this Parliament. Monetary policy will continue to be directed towards meeting that objective.

    ECONOMIC SITUATION AND PROSPECTS

      MONETARY POLICY
      As now, my decisions on interest rates will be based on a careful assessment of monetary conditions and inflationary trends, focusing particularly upon the growth of narrow and broad money, changes in the exchange rate and movements in asset prices.
      On the basis of these indicators, I felt able last week to reduce interest rates to 5½ per cent., the lowest level for 16 years. The effect of that is very marked. Since 1990, industry's interest bill has been slashed by nearly £12 billion each year, and the typical mortgage borrower is now paying £170 less each month. That is a massive boost to spending power, fully justified by the remarkable progress that we have made on inflation.
      Starting with last week's change, I decided to give the Bank of England responsibility for the precise timing of interest rate movements. That underlines my commitment to the new framework for monetary policy established by my predecessor last September.

      FUNDING POLICY
      The increasing credibility of that framework has brought our long-term interest rates down to their lowest level for over 25 years. That fact also demonstrates the ease with which this year's borrowing requirement has been financed, but the very success of the funding programme, coupled with last year's substantial gilt sales to banks and building societies, has squeezed the liquidity of the banking system, complicating the task of managing the money markets.
      To offset the purchases made by banks and building societies last year, I intend to sell some £7 billion worth fewer gilts than would otherwise be necessary to fund the public sector borrowing requirement through to the end of 1994-95. Using this flexibility in our established funding policy will ease money market pressures, while continuing to ensure that borrowing is financed in a non-inflationary way.

    RISKS TO THE RECOVERY

      WORLD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS
      As I turn to look towards 1994, the prospects are encouraging, but two substantial risks remain. First, there is the continuing weakness of world economic activity, particularly in continental Europe. With Britain the only major country in the European Union likely to have grown at all in 1993, what manufacturing industry needs most is a pick-up of activity in the rest of Europe.
      However, economic recovery on the continent will not be enough on its own. Europe's economic problems are not just cyclical. The continent as a whole faces a number of

      923
      deep-rooted and long-standing challenges, inflexible markets and declining competitiveness, which have combined to produce mounting structural unemployment.
      There were more jobs created in Britain in the 1980s than anywhere else in Europe, and in the period ahead we must not only fight to export our goods and services, but also to win the battle of ideas in Europe. We must continue to work for more flexible and deregulated labour markets right across the continent, and we must continue to fight for free trade, not just within the European Union, but between the Union and the rest of the world. The first essential step is to secure a satisfactory conclusion to the GATT round.

      THE PUBLIC FINANCES
      The second major risk to the recovery in Britain is the public finances. The overriding need is to place the public finances on a sound footing. That is the immediate task of the Government, and it is the main theme of my Budget today. Business can plan ahead with confidence only if it knows that Government borrowing is under control. My task today is to deliver that confidence.

    FISCAL POLICY
    In his excellent Budget in March, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—[Interruption.]—who at this moment is no doubt commenting on my remarks on television, announced a series of tax measures designed to reduce public sector borrowing over the medium term. But necessary and controversial as those measures were, they still left the prospect of a borrowing requirement of over 4 per cent. of GDP by the end of this Parliament. In my judgment, we now need to go further. The first Budget that combines decisions on taxation and spending, a reform instituted by my right hon. Friend, gives me the opportunity to do so.
    As a prudent Government, we cannot sit by, simply hoping that faster growth and forecasting changes will come to our rescue. As a Government committed to high quality public services, we must prevent ever larger sums being swallowed up in debt interest payments. As a Government with a long-term tax-cutting agenda, we must stop ever more national debt piling up for future generations to pay. As a Government determined to deliver sustained recovery, we must ensure that billions of pounds of the nation's savings are not poured into the public sector—savings that are better used by the private sector, to support investment, expansion and jobs.
    It may seem easier to take the short-term view, but Britain's recovery can only be sustained if we tackle the deficit now. In my opinion, the Budget must sort out the problem of public borrowing once and for all. The measures I am announcing today will in themselves reduce the public sector borrowing requirement by a further £5½ billion in the next financial year, by £7 billion in 1995-96 and by £10½ billion in 1996-97, equivalent to 1¼ per cent. of GDP by the end of this Parliament.
    Coming on top of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend in March, these are substantial sums, but, in my judgment, this is the minimum necessary to ensure that the public finances are on a sustainable track for the rest of the decade. It will help to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement from just under £50 billion in the current year to about £38 billion next year. It should
    924
    eliminate borrowing to finance current spending by 1997-98 and eliminate Government borrowing entirely by the end of the decade.
    In short, my proposals today should meet their objectives in full—establishing sound public finances into the next century.

    VAT ON FUEL AND POWER
    Before I set out the Government's new plans for public expenditure over the next three years, I have one important piece of business to conclude from the March Budget. My right hon. Friend's decision to extend VAT to domestic fuel and power was in my view fully justified, and I have no intention of asking Parliament to change the measure which it has already voted in favour of and put on the statute book.
    To reduce borrowing, we had to raise revenue. In a full year, VAT on domestic fuel will raise nearly £3 billion, without affecting the job-creating sectors of the economy. It will also help to meet Britain's commitment to aim to return carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels by the end of this decade—[Interruption.]—a commitment to which the parties opposite were fully committed until we turned to do anything about it. However, the Government recognised from the outset that the poorest would need extra help. I can now announce to the House our detailed proposals.
    First, even before the extra help we intend to provide, all those on income-related benefits will get a substantial increase next April under the normal uprating rules. Benefits will rise by 3½ per cent.—a lot more than many people in work will get next year. On top of that automatic increase, the Government have decided to provide further, substantial help.
    For poorer households other than pensioners and the disabled, we will calculate the benefit increases that would be paid at the April 1995 uprating from VAT on fuel, and pay them a year early—this coming April. This will ensure that extra help is available before the bills arrive.
    In April 1995, we will adopt a similar approach, bringing forward the VAT element in the benefit uprating once more. In April 1996, this extra payment will remain as a permanent addition to benefit.
    Beyond that, for poorer pensioners and disabled people on income-related benefits, we intend to go further. Next April, we will give a special increase on top of the normal uprating: 50 p a week for single people and 70p a week for couples. In April 1995, this will be doubled to £1 a week for single people and £1.40 a week for couples, partly through the normal uprating and partly through a further special increase. By April 1996, benefits will be £1.40 a week higher for single poorer pensioners and £2 a week higher for couples than they would otherwise have been.
    The immediate impact next April will be to give a pensioner couple on income support a total increase in benefit of £4 per week. Cold weather payments will also be increased, to help the most vulnerable groups during periods of exceptionally cold weather. Next winter, these payments will go up from £6 to £7 a week; and there will be a further increase to £7.50 a week from November 1995.
    This is a substantial package of help, which fully discharges the promise we have made. It will ensure that the introduction of VAT does not put the cost of fuel beyond the reach of the poorest in our society. That

    925
    promise was, of course, restricted to people on means-tested benefits, benefits which exist precisely in order to help those in the greatest need.
    However, I recognise—over and above the promises that we have already given—that there is another group who have struggled to cope over recent years and will also have difficulty in meeting their higher fuel bills. Many retired people on modest incomes have worked hard all their lives and have been careful to put something aside each week. Often, these savings mean that they cannot claim benefit. Yet, while millions of families and businesses have benefited from falling interest rates over the last three years, many of these people feel that they have lost out again. Falling inflation helps to preserve the real value of their savings, but the interest that retired people receive on their savings has dropped very sharply.
    The Government have therefore decided to give extra help not just to those on modest incomes, and not just to those who receive benefit, but to all pensioners. We will do so in three ways. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided to boost the home energy efficiency scheme by £35 million a year over the next three years. An equivalent extension will be made in Northern Ireland. This will provide substantial financial assistance with home insulation, helping people to reduce their fuel bills whilst staying warm. By almost doubling the present provision, we will be able to extend eligibility to all pensioners and all disabled people.
    Secondly, I shall help savers, and particularly those whose incomes are made unpredictable by changes in interest rates. I intend to introduce a new pensioner's guaranteed income bond, which will combine a fixed rate of interest, guaranteed for five years, with regular monthly interest payments. Full details will be announced in the new year, but I can tell the House now that the rate will be a competitive one. Pensioners will be able to invest their savings with complete security, and know exactly what income they will be getting —month in, month out.
    Thirdly, and most significant, I intend to make a special addition to pensions —and to the benefits linked to it —over and above the normal uprating in line with the retail prices index. Over the next two years, I propose to give all pensioners exactly the same extra help with their fuel bills as those pensioners on income-related benefits will be getting.
    This extra help will build up over time. By April 1996, the weekly retirement pension for a pensioner couple will be £1.85 a week higher than it would otherwise have been without the VAT increase. A single pensioner will receive £1.30 a week more.
    The help for pensioners that I have outlined will not precisely match increases in fuel bills in each and every household, because not everyone has an average fuel bill, but on average, pensioners are likely to find that, after taking account of falling real fuel prices, the extra help they receive will broadly cover changes in fuel bills, including VAT, over the course of this Parliament.
    This is the first break since 1980 from our policy of uprating pensions strictly by the retail prices index. It must be regarded as wholly exceptional, and it cannot be repeated whenever a particular tax or price increase is opposed on the grounds that retired people should not pay it. In a very difficult year for public spending, this amounts to a huge package of extra help with VAT bills.
    926
    Fifteen million people will benefit. We shall be providing around £400 million of extra help next year, and around £l¼ billion extra in the year 1996–97.
    These massive sums more than deliver the Government's firm commitment to help the less well-off groups in society. They extend that significant help to all our pensioners. I am sure they will be welcomed by everyone who wants to see revenue raised in a sensible and fair way.

    PUBLIC SPENDING
    Let me now turn to the Government's new spending plans for the rest of this Parliament. In June, the Cabinet imposed tight ceilings on public spending over the next three years—a real terms freeze in the new control total over the next two years, with growth limited to 1 per cent. a year thereafter. In my view, as I have frequently said, nothing tougher has been attempted since this Government came to power in 1979.
    Anyone who has actually run one or more of the big Departments of State knows how unacceptable it would be to contemplate cuts in the health service, in our education system, or in the resources needed to improve law and order. In a modern and civilised society, no one can regard all public spending as a bad thing.
    Of course, more spending is not the only way to improve our public services. Quality public services also depend crucially on greater efficiency, better value for money, and, where sensible, on the involvement of private sector money, management and advice.
    Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary launched a series of fundamental public expenditure reviews to establish more clearly what the Government's spending priorities should be. Already, this programme is producing dividends. The first four reviews have played a key role in this year's public expenditure survey.
    I can now announce to the House that overall, even including the package of help with fuel bills that I have just announced, the Government's new spending plans are fully consistent with the tough limits agreed by the Cabinet in June.
    For the next three years, Government expenditure will grow by substantially less than the projected growth of the economy. Public spending will therefore fall as a proportion of national income, from around 45 per cent. this year to 42½ per cent. in 1996–97.

    PUBLIC SPENDING

      PUBLIC SECTOR PAY
      To achieve this, we have started with a rigorous approach to the Government's administrative costs. Central Government running costs, including paybills, will be frozen at this year's cash level. Pay increases for public sector staff will therefore have to be paid for by greater efficiency or by savings in the cost of running government itself.
      However, we have also had to conduct a searching examination of spending on Government programmes. That examination began with the largest spending programme of all, social security.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    Social security spending is increasing at an underlying rate of more than 3 per cent. a year in real terms, well above the sustainable growth rate of the economy as a whole. If this trend continues, it will place a quite impossible burden

    927
    on the working population in the future—our children and our children's children. If we do not plan the social security programme properly, we shall be unable to give effective help to those who need it most.
    A good social security system, under which the better-off and people in work pay to support the poor and the disadvantaged, is an essential feature of a modern civilised state. In reviewing the social security budget, the Government's objectives have been to ensure that the social security system is better targeted on today's real needs and to make it simpler and less susceptible to fraud.

    SOCIAL SECURITY

      JOB SEEKER'S ALLOWANCE
      Let me start with two proposals designed to help people back into work. The present convoluted system for helping the unemployed includes two entirely separate benefits—income support and unemployment benefit—and two quite separate bureaucracies for delivering them—the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, employing between them no fewer than 44,000 civil servants to do the one job.
      We intend to cut through this bureaucratic maze by introducing, from April 1996, a single benefit for the unemployed —the job seeker's allowance. This will align rates and rules and reduce the contributory element of the benefit from 12 to six months. But it will also build on the success of the restart programme introduced in the 1980s, by drawing a much closer link between the receipt of benefit and the claimant's demonstrated willingness to look for work. It will be reinforced by a strengthening of restart itself; by an extension of community action places; and by the introduction of pilot schemes offering intensive guidance, assessment and a financial incentive to long-term unemployed people who need it most.

      FAMILY CREDIT
      Our second proposal should have a more immediate impact. The House will be aware of the rising level of concern about the causes, consequences and costs of the growth of lone parenthood in this country. There are many lone parents—and married mothers as well—who have no desire to remain trapped in poverty or dependent on benefits, but who believe that they have no choice. As a result of the cost of childcare, they simply cannot afford to go out to work.
      That cannot be right. The Government have therefore decided to introduce next autumn a new allowance available to those on family credit who need to pay for childcare. This will be worth up to £28 each week per family and it should help tens of thousands of mothers to get back into work and off income support. [Interruption.] I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed by all those who want to see the poorest parents back on the road to financial independence.

      STATUTORY SICK PAY
      I turn next to statutory sick pay. At the moment, employees who go sick and meet the qualifying conditions are entitled to receive sick pay at specified rates. After the first three days of sickness, their employers are entitled to reimbursement from the Government for 80 per cent. of the cost. We have no plans to reduce the sick pay entitlements of employees, but, with effect from next April, we propose to stop reimbursing the cost of statutory sick pay for the largest employers.
      For smaller companies, the current special exemptions will be extended. At present, those with national insurance bills of less than £16,000 a year are fully reimbursed after the first six weeks of each statutory sick pay claim. I propose to increase that threshold to £20,000, to bring more companies into the scheme, and to provide full reimbursement after only four weeks. Two thirds of all employers will therefore continue to get help.

      EMPLOYERS' NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
      The transfer of these costs from the taxpayer to business will reduce public spending by around £700 million a year over the next three years, but to ensure that business as a whole does not lose, my right hon. Friend and I have decided to reduce the main rate of employers' national insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. from next April. This means that, for well managed companies with low sickness rates, there will be a net reduction in the cost of employing people. Other companies will have a much sharper incentive to improve their management of sick leave and to take a greater interest in the health of their own employees.
      However, with unemployment in Britain still far too high, it is vital that we do everything we can to reduce the cost of providing employment. Having reviewed the position, I have therefore decided that, even in a year of acute fiscal stringency, we can and should go further.
      Long-term unemployed people are most likely to find unskilled and semi-skilled work at the lower end of the pay scale. To improve companies' incentives and ability to provide that kind of job, I propose, again from next April, to reduce each of the lower rates of employers' national insurance contributions by one full percentage point.
      Overall, the reductions in national insurance contributions I have announced will reduce the cost to employers of providing jobs by £830 million next year, rising to £1 billion by 1996–97. That £1 billion is well above the overall cost to employers of the reforms that I have announced to statutory sick pay.
      In our discussions within the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear our view that the surest route to higher employment is not the dirigisme of the social chapter, but measures to reduce the cost of creating jobs. That is the message that we will be taking with us to the European Council in Brussels next week.

      INVALIDITY BENEFIT
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security also plans a significant reform of the current regime for invalidity benefit. For those who are disabled and incapable of work, invalidity benefit is important and necessary. But the astonishing growth in the numbers receiving the benefit in recent years indicates that it is now being claimed by many people who are not genuine invalids.
      The Government have decided to make a number of changes to the benefit, which will refocus it for the future on those who are genuinely incapable of work. My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce a new benefit—incapacity benefit—to replace sickness and invalidity benefit. The new benefit will involve a tighter and more objective medical test.
      The Government have always made clear their intention to bring the tax treatment of invalidity benefit into line with that of the retirement pension and most other

      929
      income-replacing benefits. Now that the necessary administrative arrangements can be made, I propose from April 1995 to bring its replacement, the new incapacity benefit, into tax.

      STATE PENSION AGE
      Finally, I can announce one further decision which will have little immediate effect, but will certainly make a considerable difference to the affordability of the modern welfare state in the next century.
      After careful consideration, the Government have decided that the state pension age should eventually be equalised at the age of 65. The change will be phased in over ten years, starting in the year 2010, so it will not affect anyone currently aged 44 or older. By the year 2020, the state pension age in Britain will be broadly in line with that of most of our industrial competitors, although we will still have more generous arrangements than in the United States, where the pension age is to be equalised at the age of 67.
      All developed countries are making similar changes for similar reasons. Women nowadays tend to spend more of their lives in paid employment. They also live longer than men. Pension schemes need to recognise this, and end the current discrimination between the sexes.
      In the next century, the ratio of working people to retired people will fall sharply, and the burdens on taxpayers will rise. The Government's decision will moderate those burdens, eventually by some £5 billion a year, and so help to ensure that they are sustainable. The basic pension is, and will remain, a cornerstone of the welfare state. The Government are committed to it and to retaining its value.
      The proposals on social security overall that I have announced today will in themselves save some £2½ billion a year by 1996–97. Nevertheless, even taking these savings into account, we will still be spending £5 billion more on social security in 1996–97 than we planned last year. The social security budget will continue to grow in real terms, but at a more affordable rate than we have seen in recent years. At the same time, we have honoured our manifesto commitments, we have fully protected the real value of pensions and benefits, and we have provided generous help with fuel bills.
      These are not short-term measures to deal with today's problems. The Government have the courage to take a clear and far-sighted view of the modern social security system. We must make sure that it is a system that future generations will be able to afford. This Government will never take part in any attempt to dismantle the welfare state. We intend to see a better welfare state, well run, well judged and one that meets the priorities of modern society. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will fill out the details in his uprating statement tomorrow.

    OTHER PROGRAMMES
    Let me turn now to a number of other areas where savings have been found this year.
    OTHER PROGRAMMES

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      The first area is local authorities. Growth in total standard spending in England, adjusted for changes in responsibilities, will be limited to 2.3 per cent. next year. There will in addition be extra provision for community
      930
      care. The Government will continue to use their powers to cap excessive spending by local authorities where that is necessary to protect the local taxpayer.

      HOUSING
      The second area is housing. Here too savings have been made on last year's plans. Nevertheless, the new plans for social housing provide for more than 153,000 new homes over the three years to 1994–95, fully meeting our manifesto commitment. In addition, the Government will press ahead with plans to improve value for money in the housing association sector and to introduce more private finance into the development of social housing.
      TRANSPORT
      The third area is transport. British Rail's and London Transport's investment programmes will be maintained at levels substantially higher than in the 1980s, but to make room for this continuing investment in public transport, there will be modest reductions in the previously planned provision for the roads programme. In the past five years, real expenditure on roads has grown on average by more than 10 per cent. a year. With construction prices next year more than 25 per cent. lower than when the roads programme was announced in 1989, the new plans will sustain the recent improvements in our roads network—at less cost to the taxpayer.

      DEFENCE
      The final area where savings have been found is defence. In the next two years, spending will be some £250 million and £500 million lower than previously planned. In 1996–97, it will be about the same in cash terms as in the previous year. The new plans will be delivered in part by lower procurement and employment costs, and through the planned sale to a private sector housing trust of married quarters for service personnel.
      In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has set in hand a major review of all aspects of support, right back to the headquarters in Whitehall. Savings can and will be made without affecting our foreign policy commitments.

      PRIORITY PROGRAMMES
      The new method of controlling the total of public spending has brought big improvements in the system of Cabinet government. The Cabinet now decides its priorities collectively and brings to the House a single package that reflects our key policy objectives. Savings identified in a number of programmes have allowed the Government to meet in full the priorities and promises set out in our manifesto. I turn now to those priorities.

      HEALTH
      We are all proud of the contribution that the national health service makes to the quality of life in this country. Even in a very tough year, we have decided to increase, once again, the level of real resources going into the health service. National health service spending will be over £1½ billion higher next year in cash terms and over 1½ per cent. higher in real terms than this year's plans. Indeed, the programme is set to rise in real terms in each of the next three years.
      To ensure that these very substantial extra resources are translated into more and better health care, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be insisting on substantial increases in efficiency and firm containment of

      931
      pay and the drugs budget. The NHS will be able to maintain the steady improvement of recent years in treating more patients and treating them better.

      EDUCATION
      Our second priority is education. Increased educational opportunities and better standards are an essential investment in the future. Over the next two years, we will therefore be adding more than £1 billion to the plans for the education programme. This will ensure record levels of participation in further and higher education.
      Our manifesto predicted that one in three young people would be in full-time higher education by the year 2000. With seven years to go, we have virtually reached that target already, but with a third of our young people now going to university, the ordinary taxpayer cannot be expected to pay for all their costs. Tuition is free; but why should the bus driver or the pensioner also pay higher taxes to finance all the living costs of tomorrow's lawyers?
      I am glad to say that the recent explosion in student numbers has revealed as ridiculous the fears that the student loan scheme might deter students from poorer families. My right hon. Friend will therefore, as predicted, be bringing forward proposals to reduce the level of the means-tested grant for student maintenance and replace it with an expanded loan entitlement for students. Even taking this into account, spending on education will still be no less than £1½ billion higher in 1996–97 than it is this year.

      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
      I turn thirdly to training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment plans to introduce a new apprenticeship scheme. This will provide a major boost to work-based training and increase substantially the number of young people obtaining the technical and craft skills which not only employers but trade unions agree the country has been lacking. There will also be an increase in training opportunities for the adult unemployed.
      SCIENCE
      The fourth priority is science. The plans fully protect the real value of spending on basic science and technology next year.
      HOME OFFICE
      Finally, in the vital area of criminal justice, previous plans for Home Office spending will be maintained in full. Next year, spending on the police service will increase by over 4 per cent. Over time, the management reforms and reduction in paperwork announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary could put over 5,000 more police officers on frontline duty. A re-ordering of priorities will also allow for extra provision to be made for more prison places and for victim support. Efficiency improvements will meet in full the costs of new policies, including our proposals to deal with juvenile offenders.

    CAPITAL AND PRIVATE FINANCE
    Spending on health, education, training and science contributes significantly to the long-term economic performance of the economy, by improving the nation's stock of so-called human capital—the health, knowledge and skills of the population as a whole. Important though it is, this contribution is very difficult to quantify. This year, however, as promised last autumn, the public sector
    932
    accounts will identify separately the amount the Government plan to spend on physical capital projects, including improvements to the nation's infrastructure.
    Overall, the new plans provide for total public sector capital spending over the next three years of around £22 billion a year. But just as that figure takes no account of the massive investment programmes of the former nationalised industries which are now thriving in the private sector, so too it ignores the very large amount of investment which is stimulated by Government policies, including investment in housing and urban regeneration. On top of this, the private finance initiative is now adding to spending in areas for which the public sector in the past has traditionally taken responsibility.
    To make a success of this private finance initiative—and to deliver the increase in capital spending within the public services that I want to see—will require a complete change of culture within Government, together with imagination and innovation on the part of the private sector. That cannot be expected to happen overnight. Even so, the flow of private sector projects to date has still, in my view, been disappointingly small.
    To speed the process up, I have already announced the establishment of a working group chaired by Sir Alastair Morton, who I am sure can be expected to work alongside me as something of a warrior in this cause. In the meantime, the Government are today giving the go ahead to three substantial new transport projects under the private finance initiative: first, the extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham; secondly, a new air traffic control centre for Scotland; thirdly, the refurbishment of the west coast main line, one of our most important routes, linking some of the biggest cities in the country—London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow.
    The private finance initiative also offers major opportunities for improved services in the NHS. There are almost 40 NHS projects where private finance is already involved or being considered, ranging from cardiac units to hospital car parks. At Aintree in Liverpool, a scheme involving the construction of a 100-bed patient hotel, four operating theatres and other facilities is going ahead—a model for other private finance projects.
    In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be taking forward proposals to finance and build six new prisons using private finance. He has already announced that he also intends to involve the private sector in the provision of secure training centres.
    Finally, I have always made clear my view that roads provide a major opportunity for private finance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be informing the House shortly about the Government's plans for taking forward motorway charging in the light of responses to his Green Paper, but I can announce today that, when the technology is ready, we intend to introduce a system of electronic motorway charging in this country. This will be a massive high-technology project in its own right.
    In the meantime, the Government plan to introduce new contracts under which the private sector will design, build, finance and operate roads. My right hon. Friend will hold discussions with the construction industry and others to identify the best road schemes to start with. Bringing private finance and management into the roads programme offers the prospect of substantial benefits for the construction industry, the motorist and the taxpayer alike. I am sure this will be warmly welcomed.

    CAPITAL AND PRIVATE FINANCE

      RESOURCE ACCOUNTING
      I have one other announcement to make to improve the way in which the taxpayer's money and public sector capital is used and accounted for.
      In my opinion, Government accounting for public spending has become archaic. In my view, the time has come to move to a system of accounting which identifies more clearly the cost of resources. This will put Departments on to a similar accounting basis not only to commercial organisations but to many other parts of the public sector. I shall be publishing a paper in the first half of next year on the introduction of accruals-based resource accounting by Departments, and its implications for the way expenditure is planned and controlled, and money is sought from Parliament.

    PUBLIC SPENDING SUMMARY
    The new spending plans reflect the carefully chosen priorities of an enlightened and responsible Government. We have taken strong measures to keep public sector pay and Government administration costs under tight control. We have taken a number of crucial steps to restrain the growth in social security spending, while fully meeting our commitments to the poorest members of society.
    We have increased resources to support the Government's priorities, particularly health, education and training and science. We have protected spending on law and order. We have injected new momentum into the private finance initiative. We have honoured all our manifesto commitments. Most important of all, we have managed this substantial reallocation of resources and choice of priorities without breaching the spending ceilings agreed by Cabinet last June.
    This significant achievement owes a great deal to the new arrangements for the public expenditure survey introduced last year by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr Lamont), but a great deal of credit is also due to my colleagues on the Cabinet known as the EDX Committee, and most particularly to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to whose skill and tenacity I should like to pay the warmest possible tribute.

    TAXATION
    I now turn to my proposals for taxation. My task is simple. I need to raise revenue, but to do so in a way which does least damage to the economy.
    TAXATION

      LOOPHOLES
      At a time when taxes are having to go up, it is particularly important to collect all the tax which is properly due. So let me begin with my proposals to counter tax avoidance.
      Suggesting that Budgets should close tax loopholes is stating the obvious. Every Budget over the last 14 years, and indeed every Budget that I have listened to before that, has closed some tax loopholes. It is not a big new idea. The tax avoidance industry is always ingenious, but it is one industry which this Government has certainly never helped. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr Smith) would not know what a loophole was if he were looking one in the face.
      My Budget today contains a particularly good crop of new proposals to combat tax avoidance, starting with an end to the ploy which is apparently growing under which
      934
      salaries are paid in gold bars, coffee beans, cowrie shells, or other exotic payments in kind, simply to avoid national insurance contributions and delay paying tax.
      I also intend to counter the abuse of the tax relief for profit-related pay; tackle the avoidance of stamp duty on property transactions; halt the use of shell companies to avoid payment of tax; and end the use of indexation to create or increase capital gains tax losses. These measures will yield about £2 billion in the next three years. Claims that more might be found in this way are, I regret to say, much exaggerated.

    EXTENDING THE TAX BASE
    Next, I propose to broaden the tax base. I have never disguised my personal view that the coverage of value added tax in this country is too narrow. Under the EC's sixth VAT directive, there are serious limits on the Government's ability to extend it to things which are exempt, but we do have the freedom to introduce separate taxes, and that is what other European countries do. I propose to follow their example —in two particular areas, which I believe are well suited to this country.
    EXTENDING THE TAX BASE

      AIR PASSENGER DUTY
      First, air travel is under-taxed compared to other sectors of the economy. It benefits not only from a zero rate of VAT; in addition, the fuel used in international air travel, and nearly all domestic flights, is entirely free of tax. A number of countries have already addressed this anomaly.
      I propose to levy a small duty on all air passengers from United Kingdom airports. This will be set at £5 for departures to anywhere in the United Kingdom and the European Union; and £10 for departures to other destinations. The new duty will come into force next October, and will raise some £330 million in a full year. There will be exemptions for transfer passengers and small planes. This means, for example, that most flights between the Scottish islands will not bear tax.

      INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
      Second, we have always tended to tax financial services in this country much more lightly than other sectors, including manufacturing. In this Budget, I have decided to tackle one sector of this industry which is exempt from VAT. Virtually every other member state charges an ad valorem tax on insurance premiums. I propose now to do the same.
      The rate will be only 3 per cent., among the lowest in Europe, and the tax will apply to most general insurance of risks located in the United Kingdom. It will come into force next October, and will raise over £750 million in a full year.
      To avoid driving business offshore, I propose to exempt the reinsurance of risk, and the insurance of most ships, aircraft and international transit goods. To avoid taxing exports, I propose to exempt export credit; and to avoid taxing savings, I shall exempt long-term insurance such as life assurance, including assurance for endowment mortgages.
      For the typical family with motor, home contents and building insurance, this tax will cost about 35p a week.

    INCOME TAX
    I shall return later in my statement to the existing indirect taxes, and particularly to VAT, but before I do, let me set out my proposals for direct taxation.
    First, I propose to freeze again the personal allowance for income tax, the threshold for higher rate tax and the income limit for the age-related allowances. I do not propose to change the inheritance tax threshold or the exempt amount for capital gains tax; or the lower, basic or higher rates of income tax. The 20p lower band will be extended by a further £500 next year as planned, to £3,000.
    I intend to raise one allowance which has been frozen for the last four years —the blind person's allowance. This will rise next April from £1,080 to £1,200.
    These proposals will yield £560 million in 1994–95, relative to an indexed base, rising to £745 million in 1995–96.

    INCOME TAX
      MARRIED COUPLE'S ALLOWANCE
      Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently—one of the best taxation reforms in recent years—the married couple's allowance is a bit of an anomaly. As announced in March, from next April it will be limited to 20 per cent. Given the need to raise extra revenue, I propose to reduce the rate of relief further, to 15 per cent from April 1995. This will yield £830 million in 1995–96, rising to over £1 billion in a full year.

      MORTGAGE INTEREST RELIEF
      I propose to take a similar approach to mortgage interest relief. As the House is aware, the rate of mortgage interest relief will fall from 25 to 20 per cent. in April. From April 1995, I propose to reduce it further, to 15 per cent., raising an additional £970 million in 1995–96. For those with mortgages of £30,000 or more, this will cost around £10 a month. That is a tiny fraction of the benefit borrowers are still receiving from the very substantial reduction in mortgage rates in the last three years.
      The limit on loans qualifying for mortgage interest relief will remain at £30,000.

    BUSINESS TAXATION
    The tax increases that I have announced will enable me to give some modest help to businesses.
    BUSINESS TAXATION
      CORPORATION TAX
      There will be no change to the main rate of corporation tax, which remains the lowest in the European Union, or to the small companies' rate, but I propose to raise the profits limit for smaller companies by 20 per cent. This will reduce corporation tax bills for 30,000 companies.
      FOREIGN INCOME DIVIDEND SCHEME
      To help reinforce Britain's place as Europe's most attractive location for international business, I shall implement proposals to make surplus advance corporation tax repayable on dividends paid out of profits earned abroad by companies based in the United Kingdom.
      EXPORT CREDIT
      For exporters, I propose to make an extra £200 million of export credit cover available in 1996–97, and to cut export credit premiums for certain important developing markets, including India, Mexico and Turkey. British exporters of capital goods have been very successful in winning orders over the last year, particularly outside Europe. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I want to see that continue.

      UNIFORM BUSINESS RATES
      The business rates poundage increase next year, based on the 1.8 per cent. September retail prices index, will be the lowest since introduction of the uniform business rate. For properties in England and Wales still protected by transitional relief, I propose to cut the maximum real increase in rate bills next year by a half, to 10 per cent. for larger properties and 7½ per cent. for smaller properties. Small properties that are used for both domestic and business purposes — the shop where the owner lives at the back — will face no real increase at all. Separate arrangements will be made in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
      This will bring significant relief next year to over 600,000 business properties throughout the United Kingdom. It will cost a little over £100 million next year.

    SMALL BUSINESSES
    My particular priority this year has been to help small businesses. In my opinion, the biggest contribution any Chancellor can make to reducing unemployment over the medium term is to ensure that the conditions are in place for new businesses to become established and for small businesses to grow. As a country, we generate plenty of budding entrepreneurs and any number of good inventions and ideas; yet all too often, those ideas stay on the drawing board as money is channelled instead into the safer larger companies.
    My proposals seek to address three separate problems facing small businesses today: the burden of regulation; the shortage of external finance; and cash flow.

    SMALL BUSINESSES
      DEREGULATION
      I can announce today four contributions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's campaign to turn the tide of excessive regulation, which threatens to engulf our smaller firms.
      SIMPLIFIED ASSESSING
      First, the Finance Bill will include the initial tranche of legislation to implement the plans announced in March to reform the current regime for assessing personal tax. The new system will be simpler and more efficient. The changes will be of particular benefit to the self-employed.
      INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
      Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security published last month the report of the working group set up to consider the options for aligning income tax and national insurance contributions. My right hon. Friend and I agree with the group's conclusion that there are significant savings to be had from using the same definitions, same paperwork and same audits for income tax and national insurance. We are now looking at the group's main recommendations, and will be bringing forward proposals early next year.
      VAT THRESHOLD
      Thirdly, on the administration of VAT, firms are currently required to register for VAT when their turnover reaches £37,600 a year. I intend to raise this to £45,000 with effect from tomorrow. This will allow up to 75,000 more traders to opt out of VAT altogether.
      VAT THRESHOLD

        STATUTORY AUDIT
        Finally, the statutory audit. The Companies Act requires all companies to have their accounts audited, but for the

        937
        smallest companies the expense can be out of all proportion to the benefit. When I was at the Department of Trade and Industry, I continually pressed for a change to that. My predecessor announced consultation in the March Budget. I can now announce the conclusions.
        My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have decided that most companies with a turnover between £90,000 and £350,000 a year in future need only get an independent accountant's report on whether the company's accounts correctly reflect its books. For the 40 per cent. of companies with turnover of less than £90,000, we propose to take the deregulation a step further. For those small companies, the audit requirement will be abolished altogether.

        FINANCE FOR INDUSTRY
        However, I do not just want to lighten the burden of regulation. I believe that positive steps are required to increase the flow of risk capital into small businesses.

        CAPITAL GAINS TAX
        For managers and employees to leave steady jobs and take a chance by going into business on their own, the risk must be worth while. At 40 per cent, our top rate of income tax is the lowest in the European Union, and I intend to keep it that way, but our capital gains tax regime still bears disproportionately on the successful entrepreneur.
        In 1991, we increased the capital gains tax relief for business people who sell up on retirement, by providing a complete exemption from capital gains tax on the first £150,000 of capital gains and a half exemption on the next £450,000. I now propose to increase those limits to £250,000 and £750,000 respectively. By rewarding those who have been successful in the past, that measure will encourage potential entrepreneurs and creators of businesses in the future.
        In addition, I propose that any individual facing a capital gains charge should be able to defer the tax indefinitely by reinvesting those gains in an unquoted trading company.

        VENTURE CAPITAL TRUST
        I also intend to create a new type of investment, a venture capital trust, which will channel savings specifically into unquoted trading companies. Investors will receive dividends and capital gains entirely free of tax. By investing through a trust, they will also be able to spread their risk across a number of different companies. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will shortly be issuing a consultation paper fleshing out the details.

        ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SCHEME
        In my view, there remains, too, a strong case for encouraging equity investment in unquoted trading companies.
        I propose to introduce a new scheme, the enterprise investment scheme, to do just that. The enterprise investment scheme will differ from the old business expansion scheme in several important respects. To target the money where we want it to go, property-related investments will be excluded. Up-front tax relief will be limited to 20 per cent., but any losses on investments will qualify for income tax and capital gains tax relief; and all capital gains within the scheme will be entirely free of capital gains tax. The limit for investors will be £100,000 a year.
        Most important of all, to help those who are looking to invest their expertise as well as their money, people previously unconnected with the companies they invest in will be able to take up paid directorships. The cost of the new scheme could eventually rise to some £50 million a year. Taken together with my proposals on capital gains tax and the new venture capital trust, I believe that it could generate substantial new investment in the unquoted company sector.

        LATE PAYMENT
        Finally, on the small business sector, I turn to the problem of small companies' cash flow. There is one issue which year after year tops the list of Budget representations made to all of us by the small business community — the problem of late payment. There can be nothing more frustrating than delivering a quality product on time at a competitive price and then finding that one does not get paid for months. Late payments wreak havoc with cash flow, and for many small firms they can make the difference between survival and failure. The habit of late payment is corroding our business culture. I am quite sure that it needs to be dealt with.
        There are many options for tackling that problem, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I will be looking at two in particular: first, a new British standard for payment performance; and, secondly — more significantly — legislation to provide for interest on late payments. Late payment was a serious problem for small businesses throughout the last recession. I believe that the time has now come to take that issue head on.

      INDIRECT TAXATION
      The Government's clear policy has always been to shift the burden of taxation, over time, from income to spending. This reflects the Government's underlying political philosophy — that people should be allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible. Provided the less well-off are helped, it is fairer and less damaging to the economy to tax people on how much they spend and consume than on the work they do.
      In line with this policy, even in a very difficult year, I have been able to avoid any increase in income tax rates. But to do this I have had to raise further revenue from indirect taxation. Let me start with the excise duties.

      INDIRECT TAXATION

        ROAD FUEL DUTY AND VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY
        First, I propose a modest increase in the vehicle excise duty on cars — the tax disc — of £5 a year. The duty on lorries will be unaffected.
        Secondly, on road fuel duties, with effect from 6 pm tonight, I propose to raise all the road fuel duties by 3p a litre. Even so, petrol will still cost less in the United Kingdom than in most countries in the European Union, and it will be cheaper than it was in real terms in the early 1980s. It is not good policy in these environmentally conscious days to keep road fuel costs so much cheaper than they used to be. Taken together, these increases will raise around £¾ billion next year. Bus fuel duty rebate will be held at pre-Budget levels.
        In March, my predecessor announced that fuel duties would increase on average by at least 3 per cent. in real terms in future Budgets in order to restrain carbon dioxide emissions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

        939
        the Environment subsequently announced in July that the Government would be looking at further measures in this area to help to meet our Rio commitment.
        I have now decided to strengthen the March commitment by increasing road fuel duties on average by at least 5 per cent. in real terms in future Budgets. This will complete Britain's strategy for meeting our Rio commitment. We are the first country in Europe to do this; and we have done so in a way that minimises the additional costs to industry.
        Others in this country—some others in this House—and in Europe continue to canvas unrealistic blueprints for a new European Union-wide carbon tax, which would impose massive new burdens on British industry. Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy.

        TOBACCO
        Next, I come to tobacco. With effect from 6 pm tonight, the total tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes will go up by 11p—a duty increase of 7.3 per cent. The duties on other tobacco products will rise by the same proportion.
        In addition, I have decided to strengthen the commitment on tobacco duties that the Government have given in the past. I intend to increase tobacco duties on average by at least 3 per cent a year in real terms in future Budgets.
        I believe that the approach we are adopting in Britain is the most effective way to reduce smoking. It is clearly nonsense for some European countries to ban advertising to protect state-owned tobacco industries, but then impose markedly lower levels of tax.

        WINE, BEER AND SPIRITS
        Turning next to the duties on alcohol, let me start with beer. I have listened carefully to the arguments put by the industry about the declining consumption of beer in this country, the effect of the change to end-product duty and the growth of cross-Channel imports of beer. Taking all these factors into account, I have decided that, for the first time in five Budgets, there will be no increase this year in the duty on beer.
        Mr. David Blunkett: That is what comes of having a beer-swilling Chancellor.
        Mr. Clarke: Let me assure the House that this decision has nothing whatever to do with the drinking habits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to prove it, I am also proposing to freeze the duty on spirits for a further year.
        The spirits industry, which is a major United Kingdom export business, is facing problems similar to the brewers'. I know that my proposals will be warmly welcomed by the House, and will give right hon. and hon. Members from Scotland something to celebrate on St Andrew's day.
        For wine, sparkling wine and cider, I propose to raise the duty in line with inflation. This will add 2p to a bottle of wine. But it will not take effect until after Christmas. [Laughter.]
        For those hon. Members who are still here, the overall effect of all the tax measures I have announced will be to raise revenue next year by a little under £1¾ billion. By 1995–96, that will rise to about £5 billion, and to £6 billion by 1996–97, about ¾ per cent. of GDP.
        These sums fall a long way short of the reduction in the borrowing requirement I judge necessary. As I announced
        940
        earlier, I intend with my Budget to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement next year, not by £1¾ billion, but by £5½ billion, with a reduction by 1996–97 of £10½ billion.
        The central challenge I have faced in finalising this Budget is how this gap could be bridged. Every commentator realised that one of my options must be to extend the VAT base. The main candidates are food, children's clothes, transport, sewerage and newspapers. A powerful case for each of them can be made, and no amount of lobbying need put us off, but before looking at that, I have always made clear that my first responsibility as Chancellor is to get public expenditure under the firmest possible control.
        I have already announced that the Government's new spending plans fully meet the remit agreed by Cabinet in June, but when the House comes to study the Red Book it will see that the figures for the new control total in each of the next three years are markedly lower than those set out in the March Budget and the cash ceilings agreed by the Cabinet in June.
        The explanation for this difference is simple. The Cabinet has decided to establish new spending plans which are not just consistent with the ceilings that we set for ourselves in June, tough though they were. We have decided to set plans which in each of the next three years are lower than the June ceilings.
        Our spending plans for the coming year have been reduced by more than £3½ billion. The new control total for next year will be £3½ billion below the level we set last year, and £8 billion below the plans for that year that we first set two years ago.
        That is not all. In 1995–96, we have reduced the new control total by £1½ billion and in 1996–97 by nearly £3 billion. Taking into account lower debt interest payments resulting from lower borrowing, I expect that, as a direct result of the Budget, total public spending over the next three years will be around £10 billion less than we assumed at the time of the March Budget.
        Including also the reduction in cyclical spending as the economy recovers, and other changes, the total reduction in public spending over the next three years compared to the March Budget projections will be no less than £15 billion.
        Those public expenditure savings dramatically reduced my need to raise taxes to get the borrowing requirement down. As a result of that achievement —and only because of that —I can now confirm that I have no need this year to propose any changes to the VAT base.
        Throughout the public spending round, all my Cabinet colleagues understood that the essential job in this Budget was to move back towards a balanced budget; and we all understood the clear preference on this side of the House for this to be done, so far as possible, by firm control of public spending. That is what we said we would deliver, and that is what we have delivered, because that is what is required to keep the recovery going.

      CONCLUSION
      My Budget today puts Britain firmly on course for a sustained period of rising prosperity and falling unemployment, based on low inflation and healthy public finances.
      This is a no-nonsense Budget which deals directly and firmly with the main challenges facing the country today. Above all, it is the Budget of a responsible Government which is determined to bring lasting recovery to Britain.
      I commend it to the House.

      CONCLUSION

        PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
        Motion made, and Question,
        That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

        (a) Tobacco products (rates) (motion No. 4);

        (b) Hydrocarbon oil (rates) (motion No. 5);

        (c) Vehicles excise duty (rates) (motion No. 8).—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

        put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means Motions), and agreed to.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the law". It is on that motion that the Budget debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week, and then they will be decided without debate.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

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

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

    (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

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

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

    4.51 pm
    Mr. John Smith: I congratulate the Chancellor on being the first holder of his office to introduce a unified Budget combining the traditional Budget and the public expenditure programme in one. In terms of the material to be covered, it was clearly a greater challenge than that posed to any of his predecessors, and he delivered it with his customary style. He may live to regret saying that he had public borrowing once and for all under control. After all, one of his predecessors as Chancellor, the Prime Minister, told us that there would be tax cuts year on year and that there would be no increases in VAT either upwards or in scope.
    In another respect the Chancellor's Budget is unusual because many of the tax decisions that will hit people next April were taken in his predecessor's Budget last March. In 1993 there are two Budgets. As we heard again today, those Budgets are bad news for the taxpayer, they betray Conservative tax and spending pledges, and they are designed to make the British people pay the price of Conservative economic mismanagement.
    I remind the House and the country that in March the former Chancellor primed a ticking tax time bomb which will explode in April. VAT on domestic fuel of 8 per cent. rising to 17.5 per cent., a hike in national insurance contributions, a cut in mortgage tax relief, and a real cut in personal tax allowances represent an additional £8.50 per week for a typical family from April.
    What did we get today? We got more betrayals of Conservative election promises. I calculate that there are at least three new taxes on income because to freeze personal allowances, not for just one year but for two years in succession, is a devious way of increasing income tax. I calculate that that is another £1 a week extra tax for the basic rate taxpayer. The Government may not change the formal rate, but they wriggle in all sorts of ways to try to increase the income tax bill without the public detecting that they are putting it up.
    I warn the Government that when people examine their pay slips in April next year and in the April after that they will see the true tax cost of the Conservatives. Similarly, cutting the married couple's allowance is another way of increasing income tax; and a third way, of course, is by a substantial cut in mortgage tax relief. Those are three ways in which income tax has been increased.
    If that was not enough on the suffering people, there is to be a tax on holidays. I notice that it will not apply to

    943
    executive aircraft because they are small enough to avoid it. I also noticed that the Conservative party is so out of touch with public opinion that Conservative Members cheered a Budget that increased taxes and cut public expenditure. For example, despite all the Chancellor's verbiage about who he would exempt, there is a new tax on car insurance and home insurance. It will be quite expensive because the premiums for both have soared following the boom in crime under this Government.
    Those are more costs for ordinary and average families. They will have to pay more in income tax and the Government have paid no attention to the widespread cries that they should abandon their rise in VAT. There will be more taxes on income and a continuation of taxes on expenditure.
    The Chancellor argues that he has met the problem of VAT by giving some compensation to pensioners, the disabled and others. At best, he has given them half the extra cost. He meets half of it, but the other half falls upon the poor. It is 50p followed by £1 the year after; and we are aware of the cost of VAT. That is not adequate compensation because there will still be an extra cost falling on everyone as a result of VAT. The Government have totally left out of account the millions of families who are not on any benefit and who struggle every week to make ends meet. They will have to meet the full blast of the vast increases without any Government assistance.
    The Government should have thought about their election pledges and taken away the 8 per cent. value added tax in April and the 17.5 per cent. the year after. There is still an opportunity for Conservative Members to pay attention to opinion in their constituencies because we shall table amendments to the Finance Bill, and the vote on those will test whether they are prepared to stand by their election promises.
    My stomach turned when I heard about public spending and, in particular, about the continued and vicious assault upon the welfare state. At a time of high unemployment, to cut the time for unemployment benefit from one year to six months is, to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, odious, odious in the extreme. As a result, fewer people will register for unemployment. We know that trick because it has been pulled often enough by the Government in the past. They will push more people into income support.
    One reality of modern Britain is that a person who moves from unemployment benefit to income support and whose partner is working for 16 hours a week at whatever salary or wage will lose income support and will have no state entitlement. Conservative Members make all sorts of pious statements about how they care for the poor and the unemployed. No Government who cared for the unemployed would do this to them. The Government put such people in difficulty, but they ignore the huge loopholes in our tax system and all the people who did so well during the Tory years. Then to turn, in their search to raise money, to people on invalidity benefit by imposing tighter medical requirements and by subjecting it to taxation is absolutely disgusting.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Quite right. We will catch the fraudsters.
    Mr. Smith: Quite right, they say. That is the party which believes that when the Chancellor needs to raise money he should turn to the sick and the unemployed before he calls on anyone else. The Chancellor and the Conservative Government and their philosophy stand condemned by those two public expenditure measures.
    But there are other matters. There is the sleight of hand in public expenditure. I have not had an opportunity to go into all the detail of the public expenditure programmes that have been produced, but, as a working rule, I suggest that those who study them should be very very careful about the figures because public expenditure is stated in cash terms, not in real terms.
    The Government claim an extra £1.6 billion on health spending in 1994–95. After adjustment for price increases, that drops to £263 million. The Department of Health admits that 1.5 per cent. extra is needed each year to keep pace. After this adjustment there is a shortfall of £175 million and capital spending will fall by £144 million in real terms. Therefore, let us be careful about the Government's boasts.
    Let us also be aware of what has happened, and what the Chancellor told us has happened, to public expenditure. There will be a cut in the money available to the Housing Corporation. These were the parts of his speech through which the Chancellor hurried. I noticed that he had a tendency to increase his rate of delivery when he came—[Interruption.] He increased his rate of delivery because of his embarrassment at what he was about to announce.
    The Chancellor could have told us that he was cutting the Housing Corporation's budget by £300 million. Instead of cutting it, he should have released the accumulated capital receipts for local authorities in order to allow unemployed building workers to get to work and homes to be built for homeless people.
    I suspect that there have been more cuts in training. Despite our recent experience with London Transport, £64 million is to be cut from its budget. It might have been more upright of the Chancellor to have given those figures in his speech rather than leaving them to be dug out. But we shall dig away and get all the truth about the Government's public expenditure programmes.
    We heard—and people must take account of what the Chancellor says—that there will be cuts in public expenditure, not this year but next year and the next year and the next year. Everyone who works in the public sector, and those who depend for services upon public provision, will bear in mind that nothing else is coming their way but cut after cut after cut. The astonishing thing was that the Chancellor seemed quite proud of that.
    What about the quality of life in Britain? The Chancellor talked about a modern, civilised society. The quality of life in Britain is maintained by public expenditure on our social welfare system and our economic infrastructure and on proper welfare benefits, which the Chancellor has done so much to undermine in the Budget today.
    There will clearly be fierce debates about the Budget, and so there should be. I have already said that it will cost the average British family £8.50 per week in April. [Interruption.] That is no joking matter; it is serious for those families. I hope that those watching this debate on television notice that the Conservative party thinks that it is a matter for humour when we talk about the cost to the typical family being £8.50. That cost will now be at least

    945
    £9 per week and probably more, and probably another £5.40 a week the following April. We have not just had tax increases and public expenditure cuts today; we have more tax increases and more public expenditure cuts to come.
    There has been precious little in the Budget to revive British industry, to put us back on the path of sustained economic growth and to bring down unemployment. The Chancellor made little reference to that in his Budget. He had one basic objective and that was to reduce the deficit. But neither he nor his colleagues seem to understand that the deficit is the symptom, not the cause. The fundamental problems are the skills deficit, the investment deficit, the trade deficit and the jobs deficit. Raising taxes and cutting public expenditure, as the Chancellor has done, does nothing to tackle those. They will make some of them worse because they will threaten our economic recovery.
    Above all, today we needed a Budget for jobs and for social justice. But, my goodness, we got neither of those. Instead, as I am afraid we have come to expect from the Conservative party, a party now well out of touch not only with the British people but with its own dwindling band of supporters, we had a Budget which was a blatant betrayal of election promises, a Budget which continues to pile taxes on the British people and to reduce the services available to them.
    I pick just one example. When we complain about national insurance going up, the Government say, "Ah, but national insurance is not like income tax; it is there to pay for a contributory benefit." Well, here we have national insurance going up by 1 per cent. and the major contributory benefit, unemployment, going down. That is no better nor worse than a fraud on the British people. The Government ignore mass unemployment and economic weakness, the legacy of their period in office. This is not the Budget that Britain needs.
    5.6 pm
    Sir David Knox: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his first Budget speech. It was a well delivered speech. I was somewhat alarmed beforehand that, as this is a unified Budget, it might be a long speech, but it was commendably brief. My right hon. and learned Friend presented to us this afternoon an ingenious package, and he deserves the thanks of the House and country for the measures that he has introduced.
    I welcome the fact that we now have a unified Budget. It was long overdue. It was always absurd to introduce public expenditure proposals in November and the tax-raising proposals later. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to leave the Chamber and I know that he has a meeting to go to, so I shall be pleased for him to do so.
    I was saying that I welcome the unified Budget, bringing together as it does the public expenditure proposals and tax changes at one and the same time. It always seemed to me a strange way to go about things to have them brought in at different times, as has happened in the past.
    The Leader of the Opposition made a commendably brief speech this afternoon. I can only imagine that its brevity was due to the fact that there was very little for him to go on about. He managed to work up a lot of synthetic indignation, but, fortunately, it was very concentrated.
    946
    I welcome the social security proposals in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Obviously, we shall receive fuller details of those tomorrow when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security makes his statement, and when he has done so will be the right time to examine the proposals in greater detail.
    I was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend yet again give the firm commitment that the Conservative party has always given about the state retirement pension being fundamental to the protection of old people in Britain. It did not need repeating, but in recent months there have been rumours that the Government might attack the state retirement pension, so it was right that my right hon. and learned Friend should confirm the Government's intentions in that respect.
    I was also pleased, as were most people, to hear about the introduction of the new child care allowance. We look forward to receiving full details, but I am sure that it will be welcomed by a large number of ladies throughout the country.
    I was glad to hear the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend proposed to help those who will be affected by VAT on fuel. He fulfilled the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) earlier in the year to look after especially vulnerable people and went much further because he extended it to cover all state retirement pensioners and others in receipt of benefit.
    I have always been in favour of the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel for environmental and economic reasons. It was especially ingenious of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames to introduce that phased measure as a clear indication that the large public sector borrowing requirement would not continue indefinitely and at the same time ensuring that the PSBR would not be immediately reduced, which might have cut off the recovery that had only just started. The Government have fulfilled their promise to help those least well off, which I welcome.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the increase for a single, disabled person by 1995 will be £1 per week, and as many disabled persons have fuel bills of £12 to 15 per week, with 17.5 per cent. VAT on top, £1 a week will not go half way to bridging the gap?
    Sir David Knox: I shall not become involved in detailed discussions with the hon. Gentleman about such matters having just heard of them; I prefer to examine them in greater detail. My right hon. and learned Friend said that vulnerable people would be covered, and I have no reason not to accept his word.
    I am pleased that the Government have grasped the nettle on the issue of the equalisation of the pension age in a sensible and phased manner that will not come into force until 2010 and gives ladies plenty of time to become accustomed to the change.
    I welcome the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend announced to help small firms. The VAT ceiling has risen considerably and, if I am correct, his measures will remove 75,000 small firms from paying VAT. When I first arrived in my constituency 23 and a half years ago, employment was predominantly in textiles, mining and agriculture. There has been a substantial reduction in the number of jobs—about 10,000—in those industries, but

    947
    they have been replaced by a mushrooming of small firms. They need even more encouragement. Despite the loss of 10,000 jobs over 23 years, my constituency has the 15th lowest level of unemployment in a constituency in the UK, according to figures produced by the House of Commons Library. That shows the importance of small firms and their ability to provide employment opportunities.
    I am pleased that there has been no general extension of VAT because, over past weeks, hon. Members have been inundated with correspondence from people who were concerned about the introduction of VAT on newspapers, periodicals, books, bus fares and food. It is a great relief to know that we can all reply by saying that those fears were unwarranted.
    I welcome the announcement that there will be no increase in excise duty on beer and whisky, but I am not happy about the increase in petrol tax as I represent a large, rural constituency and the increase will cost some of my constituents more, although as country dwellers I think that we were expecting it.
    A Budget should be about strengthening the economy and today's Budget was aimed at that. One of the most alarming features of the British economy over the past 23 years and the main reason for its weakness has been the performance of the manufacturing sector. In the 20 years from 1952 to 1972, manufacturing output rose by 88 per cent.; it rose by only 8 per cent. in the period from 1972 to 1992. Thus, while the average annual increase in manufacturing output between 1952 and 1972 was almost 4.5 per cent., between 1972 and 1992 the increase was less than half a per cent. a year.
    International comparisons are not available for the whole of the earlier period, but in the 1960s, although the performance of British manufacturing industry left something to be desired, it compared reasonably favourably with the countries in the European Community. However, since 1972, it has compared unfavourably with those countries. While the average increase in manufacturing output in the UK has been less than half a per cent. during that period, it was 6 per cent. in Ireland, 4 per cent. in Portugal, 2 per cent. in Italy and 1.7 per cent. in Germany. That is not a satisfactory record for the UK and must be improved if the British economy is to achieve steady and secure growth and lower unemployment and enable us to pay our way in the world.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has introduced a number of useful measures to help manufacturing industry, but most of them will have a marginal effect. If it is to prosper, manufacturing industry needs lower interest rates that fluctuate less, stable exchange rates, greater incentives for capital investment and the creation of a more favourable environment.
    Far too many of my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessors as Chancellors of the Exchequer have given the impression that interest rates are the only means of controlling the economy, which has had unfortunate consequences. High interest rates impinge especially severely on manufacturing and place a heavy burden on those who borrow money to invest in new plant and machinery, but reward those who put their money in banks, building societies and other similar forms of savings. That is hardly the way to encourage increased investment and greater efficiency in the manufacturing sector.
    948
    Consequently, I welcome the falls in interest rates that have taken place over the past three years, including the cut in the past week, and I hope that there will be more of the same to come. In future, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will depend less on interest rates as a tool of economic management and will use the other weapons at his disposal. Lower and more stable interest rates would provide a solid foundation on which manufacturing industry could expand and prosper.
    Stable exchange rates will also help the manufacturing sector. It is no coincidence that manufacturing output rose by so much more in the 20 years up to 1972, when we had reasonably stable exchange rates under the Bretton Woods agreement, than in the years since 1972, when we mainly had floating exchange rates. Floating exchange rates can cause trouble in the manufacturing sector because sudden, adverse movements can undermine years of hard work in building up confidence among customers.
    To strengthen manufacturing, more generous capital allowances should be introduced on a permanent basis. The temporary changes that have been in force in the past year have been helpful—at least they should have been maintained. However, if we are serious about investment, as we must be, we should revert to the arrangements of the years up to the middle 1980s, when capital allowances were more generous. In addition, we need to create a better climate for manufacturing industry, but that goes far beyond the subject of the Budget and the management of the economy—a line that I do not wish to pursue tonight.
    Let me emphasise again the importance of the manufacturing sector. It is the basis of our national wealth. It accounts for 60 per cent. of our exports: its export potential is very much greater than that of the service sector. It must therefore be the most important means of dealing with the deficit that causes me most concern—the deficit on the balance of payments. This cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely, and a strong, competitive manufacturing sector is the surest way of eliminating it.
    In my view, my right hon. and learned Friend will be judged as Chancellor of the Exchequer on the improvement in manufacturing industry during his tenure of office. As a fellow midlands Member, I know that this is a cause that is very near to his heart to which he will devote great efforts in the years ahead.
    5.20 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) gave a more balanced view of the Chancellor's Budget than was evident from the Back-Bench cheering behind him. I never thought to hear so many Tory Back Benchers cheering so many tax rises so loudly; but then I reflected that every year in the Budget debate those behind the Chancellor rise and wave their Order Papers with enthusiasm—only to find that enthusiasm waning as each day goes by in the succeeding debate and as, each month, the implications are absorbed. This year will be no exception.
    The Budget will do nothing to aid recovery. It will hold recovery back, through lack of investment and through the huge pile of new taxes and tax increases that it imposes. Ordinary people will be taxed to the hilt, with none of the investment in education or improvement in public services that might have provided some justification for fair and well chosen tax increases.

    949
    The reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement that the Chancellor has forecast depends entirely on spending cuts to be achieved in future years. He has not yet managed to convince the Cabinet that actual spending cuts should be made; he has merely told his right hon. Friends that the global figure will assume that they will be made in future years. As for sorting out public borrowing once and for all, that simply is not a realistic statement: the Chancellor has not sorted out the Cabinet yet, and experience suggests that he will have some difficulty doing so. This is a soft-shoe shuffle with the figures, which will convince no one that the PSBR is on a clear, substantial downward trend.
    What about unemployment benefit? The sickening message to those who lose their jobs in the future is that they will be denied six months of the unemployment benefit to which they believe that they have contributed, and the Government have told them time and again that they have contributed, under a contributory national insurance system. That contributory system has been blown apart by today's decision. Indeed, it is impossible to justify a 1p national insurance increase—which every national insurance payer, every taxpayer, will have to pay in April—when the contributory system is being destroyed. The Government say that they have to increase national insurance contributions to meet the demands on the fund, but what fund? The Government have made off with it—it is not there. Meanwhile, six months of unemployment benefit is being snatched from people who have worked and contributed on the assumption that they are entitled to it.
    As for the taxes which now come on top of the previous Chancellor's Budget, this is "Son of Norman" with a vengeance. A whole new series has been added to the tax increases in the last Budget: the freezing of personal allowances, for instance, and the fixing of the married person's allowance at 15 per cent. That 15 per cent. is a new, mythical tax rate; it does not exist, but it is assumed that that is the level at which someone is granted a particular credit. The theory behind the 20p restriction was that there was a 20p tax band, into which we are told that increasingly large proportions of our income will eventually go. However, there is no 15p tax band, so there is no particular logic in attaching allowances to it.
    Mortgage interest relief is to be restricted to 15 per cent. How many times did I hear Conservative speeches and read Conservative election literature telling the public, "Don't trust the Liberal Democrats: they might affect your mortgage interest tax relief at some future date"? The Government are cutting everyone's mortgage interest relief next April anyway, by restricting it to 20 per cent., and they intend to restrict it further, to 15 per cent., at a later date.
    We proposed that the Government should make some use of the opportunity that had been provided and announce that they would remove mortgage interest tax relief from new mortgages at a date in the future—thereby exercising a good influence on the housing market when it needs it. These measures will not do that. People who were assured that they were voting for a Government who believed in mortgage tax relief, and who would go on providing it, have been duped.
    Logically, mortgage interest tax relief is difficult to defend. It transfers money from not terribly well-off taxpayers to large mortgages held by better-off taxpayers. The difficulty lies in how that system can be changed. The logical way, surely, is to try to drive the system out without
    950
    causing hardship to those who made their mortgage commitments on the assumption that they would continue to receive tax relief. Those are the very people whom the Government are targeting: the people who bought their houses and made their mortgage decisions taking mortgage interest relief into account—not those who have no reason to take it into account because they know in advance that it will not be available in the future.
    The Government have raised taxes on petrol and diesel by approximately 13.5p per gallon—more than twice the rate by which petrol prices would be raised by the European carbon tax as currently proposed. There will be no compensation, and none of the relief for rural areas for which my party has argued. How many Conservatives said in their election speeches, "Don't vote for the Liberal Democrats: they might put up the cost of your petrol"? The Government are putting up petrol taxes by more than we ever dreamed of doing, and certainly by more than the European carbon tax would do. The Government really cannot accuse others of "bordering on hypocrisy" when they have increasingly implemented measures against which they have set their own face time and again.
    There is also to be an airport tax, and a tax on insurance premiums. The Chancellor seems to have taken to heart the rather unkind description of him in Alan Clark's book as "that walking life insurance risk" as he has exempted life insurance premiums, but just about every other kind of insurance is to be the subject of a new tax.
    There is no back door to the tax system that the last two Chancellors between them have not entered. Every possible back-door new tax, or way of freezing a tax allowance, has been found. They have found ways of making significant tax increases without achieving the purpose of increasing investment or increasing the overall fairness of the tax system.
    Talking of fairness, let us consider what the Government are doing about VAT. They have been driven to work out a compensation package—driven by the indignation of people throughout the country about what they will have to pay. The package, however, certainly would not have won the Conservatives the Christchurch and Newbury by-elections, which were won so handsomely by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), and it would certainly not have appeased those who took part in the many pensioners' rallies and other events in which ordinary people have expressed their concern.
    The compensation will be 50 per cent., not the 90 per cent. that the average family is expected to experience by way of extra bills in the first year. Of course, average families and families with incomes well below the average will not receive any compensation. The Government have got the message that they must help not just pensioners on income support, but those above the income support level, because they are the new poor. So many Government measures have helped to turn pensioners with small savings into a new kind of poor. I am glad that the Government have started to get that message; but the people to whom I have referred will not be adequately compensated, and many more people will not be compensated at all.
    We have had two Chancellors who have not made the tax system fairer, but have simply sought to extend it. The motto seems to be, "If it moves, tax it". What a battery—what an array—of taxes we have seen.

    951
    On the provisions involving small business, I want to make an offer to the Government; I wish to be generous to them. In an interesting passage in his speech, the Chancellor said that businesses were troubled, as indeed they are—sorely troubled—by late payment of debt. Some of that late payment, incidentally, is made by Government Departments and other Government bodies. Much improvement could be achieved in that respect. The campaign waged by many small business organisations for statutory interest for late payment of debt has been recognised by the Government, who have issued a statement that Ministers will look at the matter again. I am very pleased to hear that, but looking at it is not enough.
    Let me make my offer: I have gained second place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and if the Government will assure me within the next few days—it must be done within that time because I shall have to announce the subject of my Bill—that they will not oppose a Bill to enforce payment of debts, I shall be prepared to introduce such a Bill. The Government will then have no problem fitting it into their legislative programme and no difficulty with having to push other Bills out of the programme. Their consultations will be speeded up, and their minds will be concentrated wonderfully. Not many Opposition Members have ever made so generous an offer, and I can see the warmth with which it has already been received by the Economic Secretary. I hope that he will be able to intervene in my speech, or consult during the afternoon and report later in the debate—perhaps tomorrow—that the Government will accept that offer, which is quite genuine.
    If the Government agree that they will not oppose a Bill to enforce statutory late payment of debt, I will introduce that Bill and it can have the time allocated to me under the private Member's Bill procedure. I will, of course, consult the Government on the detailed terms of the Bill.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson)rose—
    Mr. Beith: Say yes.
    Mr. Nelson: I was always advised to beware of Liberals bearing gifts. Unfortunately, I am unable to accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer this afternoon.
    It is right and proper that the Government should consult on the various options that are open, and there are a number of options open, as the press release following the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon made clear. It is far better that industry generally should be consulted rather than that we should hasten to private Members' legislation on the matter.
    Mr. Beith: I am sorry that the Minister chose to intervene, because I think that he could have given the Government a little bit more of an opportunity. I hope that that is not the last word in the course of the next few days' debate. Clearly, that offer cannot remain open indefinitely. I am not prepared to introduce so valuable a Bill and simply see it blocked and defeated by the Government. That would be a waste of private Members' time, when there are many other issues contending for it.
    I want to see such a Bill through. It would be very harsh on small businesses to have to wait another year for
    952
    anything to happen, because small businesses are facing the difficulties now. I therefore urge the Minister to have expeditious consultations so that he or his colleagues can come back to me in the next two or three days to give a clear answer, bearing in mind that there will be time—between the day when private Members' Bills have to be announced and the proceedings on the Bill-for quite a lot of further consultations. I do not intend to press him further now, but I ask him to take it away and perhaps come back to me over the next few days.
    I want to look briefly at some of the spending aspects of the Budget. I shall start with housing. There is nothing new in the way of housing investment. We could have used housing investment to tackle the housing crisis, the homelessness problem and get the building industry moving. The construction industry is showing none of the signs of recovery that are fleetingly apparent in some other parts of industry. It needs to be set to work and we need the homes. With its social housing problem, the Housing Corporation would have been an urgent priority for greater investment, not restricted investment.
    Let me give another example of where the Government could have helped. It was announced this afternoon that the Ministry of Defence can sell housing stock to deal with its budget problems. In other words, it can use the receipts of asset sales—sales of houses—for new investment, or even current spending for all I know. Why cannot local authorities use exactly the same form of income—capital receipts in the public sector—to build more houses and renovate existing houses? Surely the doctrinal admission today that it is all right for the Ministry of Defence must mean that it is all right for the Department of the Environment and local authorities. I suspect that it does not mean that, but we should be told why. Local authorities could be adding to essential social housing.
    As to transport, there is still not enough new investment. We were pleased to hear the announcement about the west coast main line, but that is a private sector investment project. I welcome the bringing in of more private sector investment, and I hope that there will be a great deal more of it, but we need more public sector investment in London Underground. People have had to be led out of tunnels in the dark because the system cannot keep going, so old and decrepit is its cabling. We need significant new public investment in London Underground if that job is to be dealt with.
    The same applies in other parts of the public transport system. I noticed the press release in which the Secretary of State for the Environment—I do not know why it was him—referred to the fact that there were transport projects among the creation of public assets amounting to many billions of pounds over the next three years. When I looked at it more carefully, I discovered that, sure enough, the Minister had counted the Jubilee line yet again. The Jubilee line has been counted in every one of the past three ministerial statements about public expenditure. Every time it comes up, we have the Jubilee line. We have only just got the announcement that we can go ahead, so sure enough it is counted all over again. It is amazing what one can do with figures, but what one cannot do with figures is regenerate a public transport system that is desperate for real, new investment.
    As for health, I do not believe that even the figures that we have address the colossal waste in the national health service which has arisen from the huge expansion of managers, management and administration in the health

    953
    service. The Government knew from the start that they were devising a system riddled with contracts, purchasers, providers, buyers and a lot of people shuffling paper about. The whole NHS system depends on people shuffling paper about, so it employs people at the highest possible salaries to shuffle it about. There are huge increases in costs in the NHS. They have been generated not by new patient care, better equipment or new highly qualified staff carrying out medical procedures, but by more and more managers and administrators.
    Let us look briefly at education. Hidden away in the education proposals are provisions which raid the capital budgets of local authority schools to give money to opted-out schools. Not satisfied with the situation in which so many schools—the vast majority—have decided that they do not want to opt out, the Government intend to raid their budgets to give more capital to opted-out schools. That is a disgraceful piece of bribery at the expense of the people who refused the bribe, and it is outrageous at a time when education investment is so badly needed.
    The Chancellor made a comment about student grants and asked why the bus drivers of today should pay through their taxes to finance the lawyers of tomorrow. I have another question for him about student grants. Why should not the lawyers of today be paying through their taxes for the sons and daughters of today's bus drivers to get into higher education? That is the real question. Why should more and more people be disbarred from higher education through fear of high debts and the inadequacy of the grants system and the combined grant and loan system to provide a reasonable basis on which they can go through higher education?
    Another departmental area with which I shall deal is the Home Office. The great element in the Home Office budget is building more prisons, not preventing more crimes. The more prisons are built, and the more people are put into them, the more crime one assumes has been committed. We are supposed to be stopping crime in the first place so that people are not mugged or injured and do not have grievous bodily harm inflicted on them. Simply having more people in prison does not solve that problem. It shows that the Home Office has not got its priorities right. The building of prisons is very good for my constituency as it is the biggest expanding industry that we have had in my constituency in modem times, and it plays a role in the local economy, but it is not a good crime prevention policy: it is a way of dealing with the consequences of not having prevented crimes and not an objective of policy in itself.
    Various measures in the Budget are welcome, or appear to be at first sight—measures such as the enterprise investment scheme, if it works. Unfortunately, there is a trail littered with disappointment of schemes designed to encourage venture investment. I hope that the venture capital trust will not prove to be another of those. It is well worth the Government's effort to try to find new ways of matching available venture capital to businesses that could use it.
    Other welcome measures are the pensioners bond—although we do not know enough about the terms to be sure—and the limited child care provision. Many more working women could benefit from other forms of help with child care—for example, tax relief. Many youngsters would benefit if they had access to nursery education. Those are useful measures and we shall consider them in more detail as the debate proceeds.
    954
    We have not seen in the Budget a solution to the really big deficits that we face. The public sector deficit is certainly not sorted out once and for all. It will not be sorted out until we get more people back to work and recovery is at a level that ensures that many people are paying taxes instead of receiving benefits. That would require measures that the Budget does not contain.
    We have an investment deficit. We are living on the capital that was invested and built up by previous generations, and are not renewing it. The record of decline in our public sector net worth is appalling. The Budget does not solve that problem.
    We have a terrible trade deficit, and I was alarmed to hear the Chancellor set such store by the growth in consumer spending. We cannot get out of our economic difficulties in the long term by relying on growth in consumer spending, because it invariably results in a worse trade deficit for this country. Even in the depths of recession we had a bad trade deficit, and we are still not addressing that issue.
    We also have a fairness deficit. It has been built up over the years of the Conservative Government, with the benefits to top rate taxpayers and the pressure on lower income people, much augmented by the Budget that 'we had earlier in the year, and not offset sufficiently by the measures in this Budget. It is a fairness deficit which leads people to believe that taxation must be bad and wrong in principle because they are not taxed fairly.
    There are justifiable reasons for taxation: there are things that Governments have to do. But taxation has to be fair and people have to see that it is doing the job which justifies levying it in the first place. The Government have added hugely to the tax burden and vastly to the tax system without doing the things which justify taxation in the first place. That is a mark of the Budget's failure.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The difficulty in following the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), or, indeed, any member of the Liberal party, is that one is faced with a lot of bits and pieces but no philosophy. So it is extremely difficult even to debate with the right hon. Gentleman. That contrasts sharply with the manner and content of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget.
    The objectives of the Budget were extremely well placed and well set out. They were to achieve sustained economic growth with low inflation and to do so by providing for a flourishing and growing private sector. One of the exciting things that he said was that the Government intended that public expenditure as a percentage of gross national product should be reduced over three years from the current level of 45 per cent. to 42.5 per cent.
    Two particular points in my right hon. and learned Friend's speech are important in terms of the objectives that he stated. I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that economic growth must be central to achieving the Government's objectives. It lies at the very root of the ability to balance greater buoyancy in revenue with the focuses within expenditure which my right hon. and learned Friend identified. That must be particularly true of the objective of reducing ultimately to zero the public sector borrowing requirement and the present £50 billion deficit.

    955
    The Budget must be measured and judged essentially by what it says about growth. Two particular points about growth have to be considered. The first is the extent to which focusing public expenditure and holding down direct tax rates is plausible and sustainable. Both as a matter of basic philosophy and as a matter of economic efficiency, low taxation is absolutely essential.
    I was excited to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor say that the Budget involved a long-term tax-cutting agenda. That must be right. In terms of basic philosophy such an agenda means a large private sector, which is the best insurance that we are likely to devise against overwhelming state control and even dictatorship. However, low taxation and a thriving private sector involve something much more immediate than that. Low taxation has to be the best way that Governments can devise of maximising economic endeavour and bringing out the most in the human spirit.
    Without a good net wage there will not be incentives to work. Without a good net rate of return there will not be investment. It is as simple as that. Every society that has tried something different has failed. I suppose that the most clear and wonderful example of the failure of an economy while it was heavily taxed and allowed people virtually no net wage was China during the cultural revolution. Anyone who has read Madam Chang's book "Wild Swans" will remember the graphic descriptions of the effect on the economy of wiping out net take-home wages. The policy was reversed in the agricultural sector and more recently in the industrial sector. The spirit of people was lifted by giving them incentives. Net take-home pay rose as a result of work and productivity. As a result, the Chinese economy is being transformed.
    It is not simply that high taxes are detrimental to human endeavour. High taxes have their own cumulative effect and create distortions which subsequently have to be put right. In passing, I hope that the new tax on airlines will not result one day in the Government having to compensate local authority airports which are screaming because the traffic is decreasing. My point is that any form of taxation creates distortions.
    The question whether we can sustain a policy of low taxation is critical in determining one's approach to the Budget. I hope that the programme of focusing state assistance on those who really need it is firmly established and maintained. There is one area in which we can do more. When I was Minister for Housing I increasingly felt that we were not supporting people who really needed support as against those who did not need it so badly.
    In the case of state housing, despite a good move towards privatisation by involvement of housing associations and private capital, £4 billion to £5 billion still goes into bricks and mortar rather than into direct assistance for people who need it. There is still scope for a greater switch in that policy so that rents are raised to a private sector level. The whole housing sector should effectively be privatised. Those who cannot afford to pay the market rents should be supported directly by housing benefit to a greater extent than now. In my ideal world, that would certainly include not only people on current state benefits but those on low incomes. There should be a much smoother tapering of the tax curve in that respect.
    956
    The second crucial determinant of the economic growth objectives that are central to the Budget and the question whether the Budget will succeed is the way in which the Government proceed with monetary policy. I was encouraged when I heard my right hon. and learned Friend say that monetary policy would be that which was appropriate to sustaining the objectives that he had set himself. That was a crucial statement. In recent memory it was not always the case that monetary policy was fixed by the need to sustain the domestic objectives of the British Government.
    When we were in the European exchange rate mechanism—indeed before we entered it—exchange rate policy was more important than monetary policy appropriate to the domestic needs of the economy. Therefore, in the late 1980s, when it was appropriate for our economy to introduce policies that brought down inflation, we had the reverse. The Germans had low interest rates and it was thought appropriate to shadow the deutschmark. Therefore, we had low interest rates when we should have raised interest rates to contain inflation. By the early 1990s the reverse was the case. When we should have had low interest rates, we maintained high interest rates.
    In this context I was somewhat more concerned about one of the Chancellor's asides, when he said that the economic recovery occurred well before we left the exchange rate mechanism. That argument is put about by people who think that it is quite proper for us to re-enter the ERM, as is the argument that the downturn problems of the British economy occurred before we went into the ERM. The latter argument is easily dealt with because we were then shadowing the deutschmark. The problems that emerged in the second half of the 1980s were related not specifically to our entry to the ERM but to the general policy of putting exchange rate management above interest rate management.
    The Chancellor referred to the fact that things started to get better before we came out of the ERM. That is clearly the case because, at the beginning of 1992, we began to adopt interest rate and monetary policies—belatedly, by about 18 months, in my view—which started to bring down interest rates. That policy started to have its effect in the summer of 1992—before we came out of the ERM—but it finally clashed and conflicted with the policy of being in the ERM. The whole thing blew up and the first reaction was to put up interest rates to 20 or 25 per cent.—which was not sustainable for very long—and then we came out of the ERM.
    The recent pronouncement by the CBI that it would like to get back into the ERM worries me. Sometimes the Government look as if they wish to get back into the ERM as part of their policy of moving towards a single European currency, which is a permanent ERM. If it were thought that that might be the policy, it would call into question the statement that the Chancellor made today that our monetary policy would be fixed according and appropriate to the needs of our own economy. I take great comfort from his saying that monetary policy is to be appropriate to sustainable economic growth without inflation; it all adds up to a single package—together with cutting taxes and focusing expenditure on those who really need it and on the functions that should properly be performed by the state.
    Sustainable economic growth is central to that policy. If that is attainable, the Budget will be a magnificent Budget.

    957
    It sets out its objectives of containing the Budget deficit, of controlling expenditure to what it should properly be and of progressively reducing taxation as a percentage of GDP.
    With this caveat, if that is to be the policy—and it is certainly the policy on which we went to the country—I welcome the Budget. I hope that during the course of the debate the Government will remove, once and for all, any further conflict or doubt about the priorities of monetary policy.
    5.53 pm
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) touched on the nub of the problem, that the Budget will be judged by whether it leads to major economic growth. I assume that the hon. Gentleman really meant that that in turn would help reduce unemployment, which is the basic problem. The premise is that a stringent monetary policy will eventually lead to economic growth, and that that will take care of our ills.
    The weakness of that argument is that the Chancellor said today that one of the big difficulties—whatever the reasons—is that European economies are currently not doing very well. Approximately 68 per cent. of our trade is with Europe; the remainder is negotiated with the rest of the world. The reality is that we have to trade with Europe. If the European economic situation improves, ours will start to improve.
    Unfortunately, that other 32 per cent. of trade centres around the nub of another problem, which is that the United States and its friends in the Pacific region are forming an economic unit. We must bear that in mind and ask the Chancellor and the Government what discussions they have had with the Americans, the Japanese and the Australians about developing markets in those areas. If we are not careful, the expansion that some hon. Members have been talking about could be threatened by the Pacific rim countries on the one hand and Europe on the other. We must be careful about what we say about our allies and partners in Europe and about our trading partners in the Pacific rim countries.
    We should also look at who will bear the burden of the tax increases announced in the Budget. No one should shy away from the fact that they are tax increases, despite what the Government say. The people who will bear the burden are at the lower end of the earnings scale. No doubt Conservative Members will argue that they are trying to help pensioners with their problems with value added tax. That help will not be enough, however, and many pensioners will reduce the amount of heating that they use this winter in order to save on fuel bills.
    One-parent families will also pay a heavy premium for the problems that the Government have created. There is nothing in the Budget to deal with the homeless.
    Those who will be hardest hit account for 12 million people, and they have paid a terrible price for the policies of the Government over the past few years.
    Conservative Members heard the Chancellor say that his long-term strategy was tax cuts. Some people would say that it is about time, because for the past 14 years the long-term strategy has been one of tax increases. What we have here is tax increases by stealth.
    958
    There is nothing being done about the industrial base of the country. There were no measures or initiatives in the Budget to help companies carry out research and development.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Most commentators agree that one of the problems for the industrial base is that we need to have the best trained young people for technical jobs. Does the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) agree that the initiative on apprenticeships that has been announced will provide a credit system through youth training to produce a new raft of apprenticeships? That will be a big contribution to that area, and is something that the trade unions will welcome.
    Mr. Cunningham: I do not think that the Chancellor spelt out the details of the apprentice training scheme. A wise man would ask to see the details, but it will still not produce the numbers of highly trained young people that the country needs to protect its industrial base. I am sure that the trade unions would agree with me because they have argued for many years about the need to provide the necessary number of quality apprenticeships. The Opposition will consider the scheme once we know about its exact details and the number of people involved.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the social security budget will be reduced by £2.5 billion. That cut reveals the true nature of the Government's promise to assist old-age pensioners, who will be hurt by VAT increases and cuts in benefits in the next two years, the homeless and one-parent families.
    I notice that the Government have not introduced any new initiative to pump more money into the ailing national health service. The Chancellor merely said that he hoped that the NHS would be more efficient. Depending on what definition of efficiency one chooses to take, however, that could mean that more jobs will be at risk and that redundancies will occur. It does not necessarily follow that that efficiency will increase in relation to patient care.
    We also learnt that public sector workers will be subject to a wage freeze, except when there is improvement in efficiency, but once again, that depends on what is meant by the Government's use of the word "efficiency". It may mean that they will receive a small wage increase if they are prepared to sacrifice some jobs. I am certain, however, that their wages will not be increased this year or next year.
    The standard spending assessment for local authorities will increase by a marginal 2.3 per cent. We are aware, however, that many local authorities are already wrestling with the problem of providing care in the community out of their limited resources. Those authorities also need extra resources to provide new housing.
    The Chancellor also announced that the tax relief for home owners and first-time buyers will be frozen. I have no doubt that the relief offered will be reduced prior to the implementation of that announcement.
    When one attempts to judge a Budget, one considers whether the sacrifices have been distributed fairly. Today's Budget has failed to do that. The onus has been placed, once again, on those who are caught in the poverty trap. The Government may say that they will assist one-parent families with childcare. They have failed to recognise that two-parent families also need assistance sometimes, because in our modern society those parents must, reluctantly, both work to make ends meet.

    959
    This Budget should not be welcomed but greeted with great trepidation. It is difficult to analyse its full implications a mere one and a half hours after the Chancellor has delivered his speech, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right when he said that, in the coming months, the British people will become aware of the increased tax burden that has been placed on them. They will realise that it is due to the Government's mismanagement of the economy.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Richard Page: I have always been told that, if one wants to take over a company, it should be one at the bottom rather than at the top, because it is a foil to show off one's abilities. If I were the Chancellor, however, I would not be too keen to take over a company with a public sector borrowing requirement deficit of £50 billion, a balance of trade deficit in excess of £12 billion, and 3 million people unemployed. My right hon. and learned Friend has also had to try to find some magic to keep the recovery rolling. The only bright spot on the horizon, as far as I can see, is low inflation.
    In the political and media debate before the Budget, I was disappointed to note that the problem that my right hon. and learned Friend faced was treated as a linear equation based on either increasing taxes or cutting expenditure. The commentators ignored one dimension that is known in the commercial world as "growing the business". I shall talk later about the need to produce more in the United Kingdom. I was obviously delighted, however, by the moves announced by my right hon. and learned Friend to promote smaller businesses, because they are the seed corn from which growth and expansion can come.
    In the past, in times of a little local difficulty in our economy, interest rates have gone up, unemployment has gone up, but, at a crucial moment—it normally coincided with an election—down came the interest rates. That meant that growth increased, orders went up and we then did rather well, thank you very much.
    That oftsen happened because we found that our major customers in the European Community or the United States had also enjoyed economic recovery. Their economic train began to chug uphill and we managed to hitch back on a few coaches further down. As a result, we were able to reduce our costs by between 10 and 15 per cent., and we did well. That gave a little boost to our economy and everything was all right until prices began to rise, inflation went up once again and we were forced, once again, on a down cycle.
    This time, it is different. The core financial position of our customers in the European Community is well known, and we no longer enjoy any advantage offered by a potential upturn in its economy. The United States, however, appears to be coming out of its economic depression or down cycle.
    The current circumstances have kept prices down and that gives us, for the first time in many years, the chance to build a stable rescovery. My right hon. and learned Friend has performed a superb balancing act between keeping the fragile recovery going—it is fragile because no one should
    960
    try to make out that things are booming in the marketplace—and making careful decisions to reduce the PSBR and our indebtedness.
    The balance of trade deficit is another matter, and I do not believe that it has been given sufficient attention in the Budget. It is extremely worrying that the recovery has begun with such a large trade deficit, because that could make the recovery short-lived. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has pointed out in its "Green Budget" that benign neglect of the current account deficit could sow the seeds of the next recession. If that deficit continues unchecked, either the United Kingdom's competitiveness—that means volume production—must be boosted or growth cut. That would mean an increase in interest rates. The first option is surely more preferable to the second.
    There must be a marked shift towards investment that will result in exports and import substitution. My concern—it is not the first time I have raised it in the House—is that the financial institutions are biased against manufacturing investment. Short-termism seems to rule supreme. That has led to a reduction in the investment we need. Investment against the gross domestic product is at its lowest level for some 30 years. That investment is considerably lower than that made by some of our industrial competitors in the world marketplace.
    Within Government, an element of schizophrenia seems to be apparent. We laud the car industry because, at last, we have become a net exporter of vehicles. We no longer import more cars than we export. At the same time, however, we seem to have missed out on some of the opportunities offered by the huge investments that have been made by Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Peugeot, which have helped to produce that beneficial change in our exports.
    In the short term rather than in the long term, we must focus our minds on providing more investment. I am talking not about blanket investment, but about specific focused investments. For example, we have fewer computerised machine tools per thousand head of population than any country in the industrialised world. In this country, the figure was around 0.9 per thousand. In western Germany—before it was combined with East Germany—the figure was 2.3. I learned a long time ago that I do not care how broad your back is or how big your shovel is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will never beat a man who is driving a JCB if you want to dig a trench. We must compete in the modern world.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: One needs a big garden as well.
    Mr. Page: I accept what my hon. Friend says.
    Nevertheless, we must have investment in computerisation if we are to compete. I welcomed the increase in capital allowances in the last autumn statement, but I felt that the state of British business at that time was that companies had turned their attention away from investment towards short-term survival. After the restoration of corporate viability, companies are more capable of coming forward with investment plans than for some time. I could produce figure after figure to support that point.
    I return to the announcements about small businesses, which are some of the more positive and welcome aspects of the Chancellor's speech. My right hon. and learned Friend correctly identified three areas of difficulty—the

    961
    burdens of regulation, external finance and cash flow. The measures which he announced went a long way to help in all three areas. Moving up the level for exemption against VAT to £45,000 will help many small businesses, and removing the cost of the audit has been asked for by small companies for years.
    The message I would send to small businesses is that that must not be used as an excuse not to have proper financial accounting. I have been talking to three of the major clearing banks in this country, and all three came up with the same figure. The banks said that, of small businesses with a turnover of between £250,000 and £1.5 million, only 8 to 10 per cent. carry out monthly profit and loss accounts. As someone with a little knowledge of business, I find it staggering that anybody can try to run a company without knowing every month how it is doing. That is absolutely beyond comprehension.
    The Chancellor has moved to allow people to reinvest and put moneys into other companies when they have decided to sell up or move away from their original activity. The raising of that level to £750,000 shows a realistic recognition of the amounts of money needed to be put into industries and businesses today to make them survive.
    I will now mention the replacement of the business expansion scheme. The scheme was introduced to give finance to businesses, and, with the benefits to investors, went some way to compensate for the risks in small firm investment. However, as with most fiscal measures during that time, the scheme has lost much of that original aim.
    The extension of the BES to rented housing accommodation in 1988 provided a vehicle for relatively low-risk, high-return investment. That was well away from the original aim of the BES. Therefore, I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has done with the enterprise investment scheme, and particularly with the block on property.
    We must put money into ideas which will produce things for this country, and not just into the bricks and mortar. We must have the basis for growth and development. While the building is a part of that, if we do not put money into machinery and ideas we will fail against our foreign competitors. The idea of the creation of a venture capital trust is bold and imaginative. I would love to see the details before I make any final judgment, but the idea behind it is superb, and if it will encourage investment in smaller businesses, it is to be welcomed.
    The payment of debt has been mentioned time and time again. Small companies are worried that their major customer is not paying them on time, and the major customer can use that situation cynically to its advantage. The small company can do nothing about it. If it criticises its main customer or takes action against it, the small company loses, possibly for ever. My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the charging of interest and other measures is to be welcomed.
    When Ministers assess how to bring that into law, they must ensure that there is as little possible activity as is required by the small business. Otherwise, the business would have to initiate the action, and could lose that customer—the very reason why small businesses do not take action under the existing legislation. The proposal is marvellous, but it must protect the small business man who may be ripped off by a larger company.
    With the exception that I have mentioned of the moves to tackle the balance of trade, I think that my right hon. and
    962
    learned Friend the Chancellor has succeeded magnificently in the difficult balancing act of reducing the PSBR and keeping the recovery rolling. On that, he is to be congratulated.
    6.17 pm
    Ms Diane Abbott: It is with some diffidence that I rise to speak so soon after the Chancellor has sat down. Clearly, I have not had an opportunity to read the lorry-loads of paper which go along with a Budget. I do not have the advantage, as did the Chancellor, of having a glass of amber-coloured liquid in front of me to refresh myself. No doubt the Chancellor was just enjoying a quiet celebration of St. Andrew's day.
    After the media flurry about the cost of cigarettes and wine has subsided, the question which people in Scotland, in Wales, in London and particularly in my constituency will ask is, "What will this Budget do about mass unemployment?"
    After one has stripped away the gimmicks and the flourishes, we have been presented with yet another Conservative Budget which fails to make bringing down unemployment a priority. Instead of making that the centrepiece of their strategy, we have boasts. One of the Treasury handouts which I have had time to read claims—immodestly, I believe—that the Budget completes the job of sorting out public finances.
    The Chancellor himself said—again immodestly, with echoes of Mr. Toad—that the Budget would "sort out" the public sector borrowing requirement "once and for all". I put it to those on the Treasury Bench that those boasts will come back to haunt them. It is not clear from the Chancellor's speech that there are enough concrete measures in the Budget which will deal with the burden of the PSBR.
    Unemployment is an issue which haunts every family in the land. Every estimate suggests that this country will still have 2.5 million people unemployed at the end of the century. Who could forget those posters at the time of the 1979 general election featuring the long queues of unemployed people? The posters said that Labour was not working. Who could forget the Tories wringing their hands about unemployment figures of 1 million at the end of the 1970s? Yet we will see out the century with levels of unemployment more than double those which the Government inherited, thanks to more than 14 years of Tory economic mismanagement.
    Sadly, my constituency has the sixth highest level of unemployment in the country, with the present rate being 23.2 per cent. More sadly, that is an under-estimate. I know for a fact that women workers and young workers have opted out of the job market altogether, and that they do not register.
    The figures for Hackney, North, in common with the figures from all over the country, have undoubtedly been presentationally massaged by more than 30 changes over the lifetime of the Government in the statistical methods of collecting the unemployment figures. If I were a Minister, I should not be so quick to rush on to television to talk about unemployment figures coming down. Any set of figures can come down if they are tinkered with 30 times in 10 years. Hackney, like many other parts of the country, is not following the overall trend and, sadly, unemployment continues to rise.

    963
    Even when, by jiggery-pokery, the Government fiddle the figures to bring the overall number down, the national picture shows that more than one third of the unemployed people whom even the Government are prepared to admit exist—that is, more than a million people—are long-term unemployed. It also shows that there are 750,000 unemployed young people.
    It is worth reminding the Government of the real cost of unemployment, because they seem to forget it. There is a financial cost, in that we spend £350 million on benefits. When the Government talk about public spending, and about taking money away from the disabled to deal with the public sector borrowing requirement, do they understand what the real basis of our spiralling PSBR is? It is the cost of maintaining the unemployed.
    The Government sometimes seem to get the argument back to front. They seem to think that the way to cut the PSBR is to cut the money we give the unemployed, whereas the only long-term decent method of cutting the PSBR is to cut the number of people who are unemployed. For as long as I have been in Parliament, the Government have refused to face that issue.
    There is also a social cost to unemployment. Nobody believes that one can entirely dissociate the issue of rising crime from that of mass unemployment. No one suggests for a second that, simply because someone has no job, he will go out and commit a crime, but the correlation between areas of high unemployment and areas of rising crime are too obvious to miss.
    It is odious—to use one of the Prime Minister's new words—to see the Home Secretary strutting around talking about how he will build more prisons, put more young people in jail for longer and make prison conditions tougher. It is odious to see him playing the law and order card ruthlessly, when he knows that, if one group of people bears the responsibility for rising crime and the mass unemployment that underpins it, it is the Government.
    Unemployment also has a cost in terms of the quality of people's lives. Fear of unemployment affects every community in the country. Perhaps during the 1980s people in London and the south-east said, "Unemployment may be affecting coal mining areas, Scotland, Wales and the north-east, but at least we are experiencing a boom." But in the past 18 months, the chickens of Tory policy have come home to roost in the Tory heartland of the commuter belt, of London and of the south-east.
    In the London borough elections next spring, the Government will pay a price for the extent to which unemployment has affected London, the south-east and the rest of the commuter belt, as it did not in the roaring Thatcher years during the 1980s.
    I believe that no single factor acts to depress the housing market and growth more than the fear of unemployment, yet in the Budget, as in a whole series of Budgets, the Government refuse to make fighting unemployment a priority. Instead, we get gimcrack, gimmicky schemes that take up much time and space in press releases and give the Government something to say, but which do little about unemployment.
    Let those of us who were in the Chamber in March cast our minds back to the schemes announced by the dear departed right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames
    964
    (Mr. Lamont), which were supposed to reduce unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman was so desperate to have something in his Budget that seemed as if it referred to the unemployed that he dragged in schemes that were really matters for the Department of Employment.
    The educational allowance scheme was trumpeted in March. What has happened to the 60,000 places that were promised? Ministers tell me that, so far, only 5,000 people are participating. In the March Budget, we also heard about the new community action programme, and were told that 20,000 places would be handed out. What has happened so far? Only 1,200 people are participating. What has happened to the pilot schemes for the long-term unemployed, about which we heard so much in March? They are only just up and running.
    The presentation of those schemes and their value was limited. Shoehorning them into the Budget statement was extremely cynical. The seriousness of the Government's commitment to the unemployed is restricted entirely to window dressing schemes which, six months after the dear departed former Chancellor announced them, are hardly up and running.
    This year we have been told about more schemes and more window dressing. There is to be a two-week restart course, and even "extended" community action—although even the places promised in March have not been filled. There are to be higher levels of skills training, career development loans, the job finders grant, and job finders workshops. There is to be caseloading—whatever that means.
    Those schemes, like the schemes announced in March, like last year's schemes and the schemes before that, are mere window dressing. They achieve little in terms of affecting long-term unemployment; they are simply a public relations device so that the Government can be seen to be doing something for the unemployed, whereas the reality is that the long-term trend, especially for people who have been unemployed for more than a year, and in relation to the structural unemployment in communities such as mine, the long-term trend continues to rise.
    Let us not waste any more time on the schemes that have been exposed as the merest cynical window dressing. What is the Government's real answer to unemployment? They must have given it some thought; I do not want to suggest that they have given the matter no thought. To find the Government's real answer to the problem of unemployment that is haunting every family in the country, we must pluck out a phrase from the Chancellor's speech. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the importance of a flexible and deregulated labour market.
    What does that phrase mean? The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Government Whip are laughing; they know what it means, and they are fortunate indeed that it does not apply to them. It means a low-skill, low-wage labour market with no security and no job protection. In recent weeks, we have seen the Secretary of State for Employment, that well-known Christian Democrat, fighting off the other 11 European states' modest efforts to offer a level of protection to low-paid workers.
    As we approach the year 2000, the Government present the British people with the notion of the British economy competing with Japan, Germany and the economies of the Pacific rim on the basis not of training or skill but of a low-skill, low-wage, insecure, unprotected labour market.

    965
    That is how they want to get people—or, at least, some people—back to work, at the very bottom of the employment pyramid.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If what the hon. Lady says is true, why does 40 per cent. of the inward investment in the EC arrive in this country?
    Ms Abbott: Precisely for the reason that I have explained. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; it is precisely because what I am saying is true that we get the inward investment.
    Labour costs in Britain are lower. Car workers in Britain cost 40 per cent. of what car workers in west Germany cost. I have never spoken to the hon. Gentleman before, and I do not know his background, but does he really believe that this country has any long-term prospect of competing with Germany, Japan and the Pacific rim on the basis of low wages and low skills? That idea does not present any long-term prospects for this country. The hon. Gentleman should go back to his constituents and tell them, "I have seen the future, and it is a future of low wages, short contracts and unprotected employment." They will thank the hon. Gentleman for that by lowering his majority.
    I do not want to be entirely unfair to the Chancellor. There is one thing in the Budget for which I would like to give one cheer—the announcement of the child care allowance—although I have yet to see the details of it. I am a cynic. I dare say that, when those who will benefit from the allowance cut it up, they will have lost money in all sorts of other ways in terms of the value added tax on fuel and so on.
    However, the principle of the allowance—it is an important one, and I welcome it—is that the way to get single parents off benefits and into the job market is to offer them some help with child care. But the way in which the allowance is worked out in practice is an entirely different matter.
    The Chancellor began his statement by boasting about how he had solved the public sector borrowing requirement once and for all. That cannot be true. That claim places far too much weight on spending cuts which have yet to be specified. The proof of the pudding of the Budget statement will be in the eating. The balance of getting public spending under control relies too heavily on public spending cuts. We will have to see those spending cuts, and we will have to see whether the Government can get them through the House.
    High unemployment is a tragedy not simply for those who are unemployed but for the young people leaving school with no prospect of ever getting a job, and skilled men in their 40s and 50s who are being made redundant and know that they will never work again.
    Unemployment is not simply a tragedy for those who are enduring it. It is also a tragedy and a serious matter for the economy of this country, because growth and a sustained upturn will never be achieved unless the human capital of this country is maximised. However, that human capital is not maximised by condemning millions of people to long-term unemployment. For many years to come, we will pay the price economically and socially for the mass unemployment of the Thatcher years.
    I listened with great interest to the Chancellor's presentation. He must be congratulated on the bravura and flourish with which he made his speech. Nonetheless, when all the fanfares have died down, I am waiting, the
    966
    people of Hackney are waiting and the people of Britain are waiting for a Government who will finally, after 14 long years, put a return to full employment on the top of the political agenda.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. William Powell: One of the problems that Tory Members always face in dealing with Labour Members' speeches is that, when we ask them how on earth they would get from here to Edinburgh, they always say, "If I were going to Edinburgh, I would not start from here". The difficulty is that Labour Members are genuinely reluctant to face the main strategic problems of the Chancellor and his predecessors. Indeed, if Labour Members had been lucky enough to win the general election, they would have faced the same problems.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor presented a Budget which is not the Budget that he would have chosen to present in a perfect world. However, he has to deal with the real world and real circumstances and, as one would expect, he has done so with characteristic courage and integrity. We are fortunate that the Chancellor and, indeed, the Cabinet—I am proud to include Cabinet members and their collective responsibility—faced up to many of the problems which they immediately faced and introduced a package which is creative and is genuinely designed to address many of the short-term difficulties. But it also lays the basis for the longer term and for much more sustainable achievements in our economic fortunes.
    I look forward to the day one year hence when my right hon. and learned Friend, as a result of what he has been able to do this afternoon, will be able to present a second Budget which builds on today's Budget and which is smore in keeping with the sort of Budget that it would have been his ambition to deliver in a more perfect world. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) laid down the yardstick by which she would judge the Budget—what it does for unemployment in this country. I respect the impulses that led her to argue and analyse exactly as she has done.
    When I came to the House more than a decade ago, I had the highest level of constituency unemployment. That is no longer the case, or anything like the case. At that time, we had structural unemployment in Corby and east Northamptonshire which meant that, whatever the national unemployment level, unemployment in that area was always significantly higher than the national average. Today, we have reached the point at which unemployment in the area is fairly consistent at 1 per cent. to 1.5 per cent. below the national average. Of course, it is still too high, but I draw comfort from the fact that unemployment has fallen by 6 per cent. in the past year. The way in which I judge the Budget is that more of my constituents are likely to find work next year than has been the case in the past year.
    I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr Spicer) when he emphasised the question whether the Budget would assist in delivering higher sustainable growth in the future than has been the case recently. I think that it will do so. More of my constituents will get jobs as a result of that sustainable growth, and they will benefit correspondingly from it.
    Matters that are important to my constituents and those of all hon. Members lie substantially beyond my right hon. and learned Friend's power. Above all else, it is absolutely

    967
    essential for the sustained revival of economic activity in this country that we have sustained growth in world trade. In the past 250 years of British economic history, there has been no period when the British economy has prospered against a background of decline in world trade. If we are to prosper, it is absolutely essential that there is a robust recovery in world trade because so much of our economic activity is involved in international trade. However, one cannot be too sanguine that that is about to happen.
    Resolution of the problem of the general agreement on tariffs and trade is of considerable importance to this country and should never be overlooked. I welcome the measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend which will encourage trade with countries in the Pacific rim and with Asia. Of course, European markets are likely to remain the most important markets in the foreseeable future, but there is no doubt whatever that the expanding markets in the world which offer opportunities for our business men, merchants and entrepreneurs are in Asia as well as in Europe. The message needs to go out loudly and clearly that, if businesses wish to prosper, they must prosper not only here but abroad. By "abroad", I mean not only western Europe but the burgeoning dynamic markets in the east.
    I welcome many of the measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend. I strongly support his announcements on local authority expenditure for next year. Even a 2.3 per cent. increase in the money that local authorities can spend next year on this year's planned target—not their actual expenditure—is still on the generous side. Since May last year, a number of large spending authorities have been on a financial binge, and wish to continue that binge. That has been happening in Northamptonshire, and it simply must stop.
    I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend underlined the Government's willingness to use their capping powers to ensure that spending targets for local authorities are not undermined by local authorities that feel that they are entitled to go on a spending binge, spending not only council taxpayers' money but Government taxpayers' money.
    The controls exercised by the House of Commons over how centrally collected taxes are spent by local authorities are hopelessly inadequate. A much closer interest needs to be taken in how local authorities spend their money, 50 per cent. of which often comes not from what they raise locally but from what the Treasury gives them. That Cinderella area of public expenditure has been overlooked for far too long.
    A scandalous report has been issued in Birmingham saying that taxpayers' money allocated for education through Treasury payments to the city of Birmingham has not been spent on education as most parents, governors and teachers in Birmingham schools would have wished, but has been used to develop exhibition facilities and goodness knows what else. As a result, we now learn that Birmingham has some of the worst academic results of any education authority in the country.
    It is wrong that a large authority like Birmingham can receive money from my constituents who believe that it will be spent on education and then discover that it is being spent on something else. That is happening in countless local authorities, including some in Northamptonshire. I
    968
    hope that the Government will be firm in making it plain to all local authorities that the 2.3 per cent. allowance on this year's planned spending rise is the limit and that capping powers will be used to ensure that it is held.
    I welcome the increased contribution to the national health service. All our constituents not only want that but need it. The increased expenditure on education will also be important. I was astonished at what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about grant-maintained schools. It is right and appropriate that the Government should seek to make available more and more money to the grant-maintained sector, knowing that it is usually better spent than any money given to local education authorities.
    I have many grant-maintained schools in my constituency, most of which have become grant maintained not least because of decades of neglect by the local education authority in Northamptonshire, whether it has been under Labour or Conservative control. They welcome their increased freedom to manage their schools and assets in a much more sensible and practical way. I hope that when the allocation of money to the grant-maintained sector is broken up, the Secretary of State will not overlook the important claims of many junior and infant schools that are now becoming grant maintained for capital allocations over and above those given to the secondary school sector. I hope that successive Budgets will ensure a progressive flow of funds into that sector and that the Opposition will get the message that grant-maintained schools are popular. Not a single grant-maintained school has had reason to regret going grant maintained. I have considerable experience of that sector and know that most of them richly welcome the opportunities given to them.
    I very much welcome the schemes for expanding the unquoted companies sector. It is an important measure. Small businesses have taken a serious beating during the past four or five years and everything that can be done to encourage the revival of small businesses should be welcomed, and I welcome the raft of measures put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend. What he said about the late payment of debt is also important, but I wish to underline a good point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Some of the worst payers in this country are Government Departments. Some of my constituents who work for Government Departments complain week after week about every imaginable excuse made by Government Departments about why they should not pay their bills. The matter will not be taken seriously unless and until the Government are prepared greatly to improve the financial discipline that they exercise and ensure that small businesses in particular receive priority payment rather than endless excuses about why money cannot be paid.
    I welcome the schemes to give people an incentive to get back to work. What is needed is a much greater emphasis to encourage people to work. This afternoon some useful steps were taken, most of which have been called for by the Opposition, although the specific detail may not have been what the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), wanted.
    The House knows that I am among those who are totally opposed to the extension of the VAT base. I am as angry today as I have been at any stage in the past six or seven months that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) should have made such a

    969
    proposal. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has decided not to go further in extending the VAT base. Any idea that the VAT base can now be extended at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. is utterly impossible. During the past few months there has been much agitation in the country and the House among my right. hon. and hon. Friends—
    Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Powell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to persist in what I have to say before he intervenes?
    There has been much agitation about the amount of compensation that will be allowed. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for introducing a package of proposals for compensation which is much more generous than anybody in the House expected and certainly more generous than I expected. At no stage during the past few months have I advocated a compensatory package because I should have preferred VAT not to be levied on heating and cooking. However, I pay tribute to all my right. hon. and hon. Friends who have persistently and vigilantly brought home to my right hon. and learned Friend and other members of the Government the fact that the proposal was not sustainable without handsome and generous compensation.
    It is usually estimated that VAT at 8 per cent. would cost an average household 85p a week and, at 17.5 per cent., approximately £2. Although it must be said that, on those figures for an average household—many households are not average—there is not total compensation, there is all but total compensation for those who receive it.
    I welcome the fact that compensation has been extended to all pensioners. One of the matters that made me so angry about what was done in the Budget in March was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames did not seem to appreciate that those just above the benefit level, many of whom had seen a decline in the income from their investments because of the decline in interest rates, would be the worst affected by the introduction of VAT in that way.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has gone almost as far as anybody could ask to compensate pensioners, including those above the social security thresholds, for the introduction of the tax. That is not to say that all those who deserve it will receive compensation. Of course, there will be individuals who will fall outside the package—that is one reason why I have never regarded a compensation package as the best answer to the problem.
    There will also be deserving organisations, frequently charities, that will be hard hit by the introduction of the tax. As the House has heard me say on many occasions, organisationswhich raise money in modest circumstances will find the extra tax a heavy burden to bear on top of the many other fiscal burdens of recent years.
    It would be wrong of me, in again registering my hostility and anger at the extension of VAT to heating and cooking, not to recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has introduced a remarkable package that will go a long way towards dealing with immediate difficulties. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will ensure that the extra energy conservation measures that have been announced will be directed to houses inhabited by local authority tenants and old houses in the private sector, in which heating costs are above average.
    970
    We have talked throughout about average heating costs. We should recognise that, although there may be one or two that meet the average, homes will digress substantially from the average. I have seen Graham Gooch score many runs as a batsman at the crease, and he has an average of 44.61, but I have never seen him score that number of runs and I doubt whether anybody else has.
    The announcement will go a long way towards meeting the legitimate complaints about the matter of so many people. Although I am unable to award my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor the highest accolade, as I would have wished, I am prepared to pay handsome tribute to his Budget. It will be recognised throughout the country as a great help.
    The Budget is one of the meatiest that has been presented to the House. It may turn out to be one of the most important Budgets that has been introduced at this stage in our national and economic history. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor deserves the congratulations of the House for his courage and integrity in introducing the proposals. I look forward to supporting him and his Budget proposals in the Division Lobby.
    6.55 pm
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: When the Government drew up the slogan "back to basics", they gave us a couple of opportunities. The Opposition can use it to judge the Government's lack of aspiration for the country. It also gives us a good handle and measure by which to judge the policies that they introduce in the House, including the Budget. When we use the slogan "back to basics" to judge the Budget and the tax system that is to be introduced, we should ask two questions. First, are they fair and is the overall system in which they will operate fair? Secondly, do they tackle the real issues that face the country?
    I was astonished that Conservative Members cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he sat down. There will be a £6 billion increase in the tax burden, to be slid in over a three-year period. If one takes out the concessions to business in the personal sector, there will be a £7 billion increase in the tax burden. It will be slid in over a three-year period, but nonetheless there will be a £7 billion tax hike. That increase follows the increases in VAT and in national insurance contributions that were announced in the spring Budget. Those are the policies of a Government who at the last election promised decreases in tax year on year.
    A lot has been said about the compensation that will be applied to the introduction of VAT on fuel. I was confused by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the matter, and I am not still clear about it. He announced some figures that would apply to individuals, and I did not think that those figures were generous or would cover the total cost—
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Oh.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is a clever chap—he can read the bundle of papers before other hon. Members make a speech. I have not read the whole bundle. The figures are hidden somewhere in the papers, but I have not read them yet, because I have been listening to the debate.
    The Chancellor gave us some figures that I did not think amounted to full compensation. He then gave an overall

    971
    figure for the cost of the measure—£1.25 billion. If that figure is correct, he has almost fully compensated some groups of people for the VAT.
    I am still confused about that, and perhaps when he sums up the Minister will clear up the issue. If the second figure is correct, it sends a clear message: that, having heard about the threatened imposition of VAT on fuel, pensioners organised themselves and "frit" the daylights out of some Conservative Members. If they are to be almost fully compensated, as the second figure would suggest, that is the reason. If that is so, perhaps the pensioners have something to teach other people who will suffer as a result of VAT. Families will be on the receiving end of that appalling increase, even if the pensioners will not.
    Mr. Sweeney: Is it not right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) stated as long ago as the spring Budget that help would be given to those in need? Has not the Labour party used its fertile imagination to whip up fears among pensioners, the poor and the weak in society over the past six months?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I seem to recall that, week on week, Conservative Members were reluctant to respond to questions asked, particularly by the Labour Front-Bench team, about whether or not people would be fully compensated. Conservative Members were not prepared to answer that question during the two by-elections at which the subject was an important issue.
    If the Government have now decided to give compensation, and the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) wants to suggest that they made that decision a long time ago and the fears were all a figment of people's imagination, one wonders why the Conservatives suffered such pains during the two by-elections, and have continued to do so during the past few months.
    People should recognise that, if the Government have been obliged fully to compensate one group of people, they have done so as a result of the pressure brought to bear. Even if that is so, the compensation will not solve the problems for many other people. As the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said, there is no such thing as the average household. There will be no such thing as the average fuel bill.
    People with decent houses and decent insulation, with double glazing and good heating systems—in short, the better heeled—will do all right. But people living in poorer accommodation, with less efficient heating systems, in no fines council houses and the like, will find, even if in general there has been full compensation, that they are pounds out of pocket.
    Another worrying issue is that the fuel bill money has now been included in pensions, so it will be steadily eroded as time goes by. The Government have been adept at cutting by stealth. Since they came to power, the basic state pension has become worth less compared with average earnings. I have no doubt that the Government will try to claw back the compensation package as soon as they can.
    Mr. Heald: Is not the hon. Gentleman's point about energy efficiency dealt with by the expansion of the home energy efficiency scheme, which already helps 200,000 poorer households and which in future will be doubled? I
    972
    do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw a recent announcement in answer to a question that I tabled to the effect that in future householders will not have to make any contribution to the scheme. That is a genuine help for all pensioners and poorer families.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Given the number of deaths in the winter from hypothermia, the scheme will need a tremendous expansion. Let us hope that that takes place—
    Mr. Heald: It is doubling.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Talk of percentage figures in these terms will not be much help. Let us hope that people get the assistance they need.
    I come back to the £6 billion tax increases—£7 billion when we discount the reductions offered to the business sector. On whom will the burden fall? I have no doubt that the measures chosen will fall on the middle-earning and lower-earning people of this country, just as they have done time and again before under the Conservative Government. In the 1987 and 1988 Budgets, billions of pounds were dished out to top earners, £2 billion in a single Budget—that of 1988. The balance of tax paid has shifted away from the better-off and towards those on average and below average earnings.
    The Government try to tell us that they are a Government of low taxation, but between 1979 and 1991–92, the burden of taxation on an average family rose from 35.2 per cent. to 36.7 per cent. Meanwhile, the burden on the top tenth of the population decreased considerably, while for the bottom tenth it rose considerably. If we— discount the Chancellor's sleights of hand in this Budget, we will find that it means yet another shift away from the top, down to the middle and bottom end of the scale.
    I was told that last year's Budget was neutral, as it impinged across the social scale. I said that it was not; I was assured repeatedly that it was. Now research has shown clearly that that Budget was not neutral at all. It imposed a 3 per cent. increase in taxes on bottom earners, a 1.5 per cent. increase on top earners, and a 2 per cent. increase on the average person. So the Government's claims were patently untrue. Those on lower and average earnings paid for those on higher earnings.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the contents of a leading article in The Sunday Times of 7 November, which clearly stated in great detail that the percentage of income tax revenue paid by top earners has risen in almost every year in the past 15 years, and that top income earners are paying a far larger proportion of income tax revenue than they did before rates were cut?
    Mr. Ainsworth: People can do wonderful things with statistics, if they choose their words carefully. I note that the hon. Gentleman talked about income tax, not tax. We are talking about a period when these top earners lined their pockets to such a tremendous extent that it is only to be expected that they paid a couple of pounds more in income tax.
    But the burden of taxation has irrefutably moved down from top earners to the middle and bottom earners, if we take into account the whole basket of taxation. I can take the hon. Gentleman through the figures afterwards if he wants to challenge that. I am astonished that he should

    973
    attempt to deny it. Surely he knows deep down that what I say is true—indeed, his reaction to what I am saying seems to show that.
    The other problem is whether, in view of the fundamental economic problems that face our country, the Chancellor has done anything to put the economy right. Despite £110 billion of North sea oil revenues during the Government's period in office, in this last recession, 900,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. The manufacturing sector now provides only one fifth of our income—it was one third when the Government came to power. We have the lowest growth rate of GDP and output of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country apart from Canada.
    This problem needs solving. The Government have implemented some of the measures asked for by the CBI and by business. There are some small forms of encouragement for business in the Budget, but the Government have refused to give the necessary capital allowances on first year investments asked for by the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation. If there is to be proper investment in manufacturing industry, it is essential to provide such incentives, yet the Government have failed to do so.
    There have been announcements of cuts in housing and in infrastructure investment. The west coast main line work has been announced. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said that Opposition Members always say, "If you want to go to Edinburgh, don't start from here." It is a good job that we do not travel to Edinburgh by the west coast main line, because we would never get there.
    I make a prediction: this is the last day of November 1993, and I have watched the Government announce infrastructure proposals again and again, but they actually take place after the 10th or 12th time they have been announced. There is thus half a chance, given the Government's record, of getting some investment for the line in about a decade.
    What about the fast rail link? The privatisation proposals will deprive the rail system of investment. The Government are effectively ensuring that no one else will invest until we have sorted out the mess. We are also cutting the roads programme. Our manufacturers have to exist on the edge of Europe, and they have to have access to its markets. To solve our economic problems, we must have a good infrastructure and transport links, but the Budget does little to bring those things about.
    Cuts in housing will be inevitable. Every evening when we leave this place, people shout at us and try to sell us copies of The Big Issue. Housing is a big issue for those who are affected by the lack of it, but it is not one of the Government's political priorities, because they have effectively announced further housing cuts. That will ensure the continuation of homelessness, which, if anything, will be exacerbated.
    There are 7,000 unemployed people in my constituency, and 20,000 people are out of work in Coventry. In the Foleshill ward in my constituency, unemployment is 37.7 per cent. Nothing in the Budget will significantly reduce that complete and absolute waste of human resources or cure the social problems that inevitably flow from it. That is a tragedy.
    When we ignore the sleight of hand and look at the figures, we see that, over three years, the Chancellor will slide in a huge tax increase. He proposes real and
    974
    significant cuts in public expenditure which he has not yet detailed. He spoke about having settled the public sector deficit, but he has not detailed or sorted out those cuts.
    The Budget will not tackle our problems. It builds on the sins of the spring Budget. The betrayal of election promises has been furthered by thisBudget, and the failure to settle our underlying economic needs is a betrayal of our national interests.
    7.11 pm
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor performed not only the difficult task of delivering the Budget while surrounded by many people advising him on what or what not to say, but coped with the extra burden of the public expenditure round. I congratulate him on doing that with such style and elegance. It must have seemed a fearsome hill to climb but I understand the Government's desire to move the two areas together. I am slightly concerned that we may not have given ourselves enough time before setting the Budget to see some of the implications of our spending round. However, I am sure that our skilled Front-Bench Treasury team will have considered that.
    The Budget must be examined in the context of consistent Conservative policy, the aims of which are security, self-reliance, enterprise, personal responsibility, securing sound public finances, low inflation and sustained economic growth. I was glad to hear the Chancellor stress again low inflation and sustained economic growth. Those themes were clear throughout his speech.
    The Chancellor has inherited lower inflation, lower interest rates and falling unemployment, but he has also inherited a PSBR of £50 billion. He has had to perform a delicate balancing act because he must nurture economic growth, which is still delicate, while bearing down on the excessive PSBR. As Conservatives know, failure to control the PSBR will ultimately lead to higher taxation of the wealth-creating sector and, of course, that will lead to the problems that existed under the Labour Government in the 1970s.
    The backdrop to all the arguments about taxation and expenditure is that the Chancellor has already been passed from the March Budget some £10.3 billion of tax increases, of which £6.7 billion are due to come into play in April. My right hon. and learned Friend deserves great credit for bearing that in mind throughout his speech. He knows that any great increase in taxation would damage the rather delicate economic growth.
    The fact that the economy is becoming stronger has much to do with the fact that we have left the ERM. I do not wish to enter into discussion about whether growth occurred before or after we departed from the ERM, but my view is that growth was greatly assisted by departure. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that I am against exchange rate mechanisms. Events from the time of the gold standard through Bretton Woods into the ERM have demonstrated that such mechanisms end in tears. Government policy post our departure from the ERM has been carefully monitored and gauged, and the Government are to be congratulated on sticking to their original aim of retaining domestic monetary figures as the main focus
    This morning's issue of The Financial Times said that we did not really need to worry too much about money in circulation because M0 was showing a growth of some .5.3 per cent. M0 is a bad gauge of money in circulation. A

    975
    better one is M4, and we should be worried that M4 is still not at the level at which it should be at this stage in the cycle. It could be higher, and in that context it is worth bearing in mind the potential for further cuts in interest rates.
    I unreservedly welcome the Chancellor's announcement of the reduction in the PSBR of £5.5 billion in 1994-95, rising to £7 billion in 1995-96 and £10.5 billion in 1996-97. Those are significant reductions on which I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend. I welcome the fact that income tax allowances are unchanged. Many people were worried about that. I understand the reason for imposing duty on air passengers, which will be £5 within the European Community and £10 for journeys to other areas. Most hon. Members will welcome that because it brings us into line with many other countries, as those who travel will know.
    I am slightly concerned about the 3 per cent. levy on insurance premiums because it sends the wrong message to the insurance industry. We are trying to get that private sector industry more involved in providing schemes for people. Perhaps the Government will think further on that in the coming year.
    I am also a little concerned about our approach to the married couple's allowance. I know that it is in line with previous changes to the tax policy, but in view of our concern about single parents we should remember that such an allowance could have been retained at a slightly higher level.
    I welcome all the business aspects of the Budget. The change in the VAT threshold to £45,000 is an excellent move. I welcome the 1 per cent. reduction in national insurance for those earning under £200 a week and a commitment to extending the 20p band of income tax. I was pleased to see a reform of the requirement for the audit of small businesses. That will remove a great burden from many small businesses in my area which say that the requirement has been excessive. I unreservedly welcome the increased export credits. Those will be well received by some larger companies which rely greatly on exports.
    The most important part of the Budget speech was the part that dealt with VAT on fuel. All hon. Members should welcome that announcement.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has put together a generous package, more generous than I expected and probably more generous than many Opposition Members anticipated. It may seem like a small gesture but £2.5 billion over three years starting in 1994 before VAT comes in will mean a lot. Income-related benefits will be up by 3.9 per cent. in 1994 and will mean about £4.3 per week for a couple with two children on income support. I am surprised that I have not heard more of a welcome for that from the Opposition today.
    Looking through the great tome of information that is available, I am interested to see the areas that my right hon. and learned Friend has covered for people not on income-related benefit. For example, a single pensioner not on income-related benefits in April 1994 will see his benefit increase from £56.10 to £57.60—£1.50 per week. In April 1995 that will rise by a further 50p a week and in April 1996 by 30p a week.
    I was particularly interested to see that a pensioner couple, again not on income-related benefit, will see their
    976
    benefits increased from £89.80 to £92.10. In April 1995 that will rise by 70p per week and in April 1996 by 45p per week.
    Given the circumstances, that is generous, and my right hon. and learned Friend is to be applauded for that. I was somewhat concerned about where he would get the money for all that, but the fact that he has allowed himself to go beyond income support is a significant move.
    I come now to the spending side of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcements. I am particularly interested to see that the original targets set for public spending are to be reduced. That will send just the right message to the financial markets—that the Government are determined to reduce the PSBR and will do something about it.
    The public at large are quite within their rights to ask why, when those running businesses have had to cut their staff and seek to save money in a number of areas, the public sector has continued throughout the recession to take on an ever-growing number of new employees.
    I recently made some quick calculations to discover the difference in the number of public sector employees in 1979 compared with 1993. After removing all the companies that have been privatised and the agencies that have left the public sector, there was a significant increase in the public sector of more than 500,000 employees, and that at a time when the private sector has had to reduce its number of employees. Therefore, more needs to be done in this area. It is significant that market testing has been extended, but can it not be applied and extended even further?
    I note today that under the spending pledges there are real increases for the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office. But that should not stop them examining carefully again and again whether they need quite so many people to administer their funds. It is important for them to ensure that the public understand that they too will be examining their budgets in the way that any private company would.
    I have one small concern with regard to the defence budget. We did not hear much about that today, but the defence budget has been significantly reduced, due largely to changing international circumstances, and it continues to be reduced. I am anxious that the Government should not treat the defence budget as a milch cow, just because it appears to be the easiest to reduce. We must take into account our international commitments and the way in which we structure our forces. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reassess carefully the pressure under which they put the defence budget and to ensure that the cuts do not affect our ability to carry out our duties.
    I was interested to hear what the Opposition had to say on the tax changes in the Budget, particularly with regard to loopholes. My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about the need to continue to close loopholes and there is nothing new about that. Every responsible Government of any persuasion talks about closing loopholes. There is no such thing as a taxation system that is free from loopholes and there never will be because as soon as one set of loopholes is closed another is found. The biggest question is whether the cost of the exercise outweighs the saving.
    The Opposition talk of taxing businesses by increasing corporation tax by some £20 billion. That is not a loophole; it is an increased tax. They talk of a tax on foreign companies. That is not a loophole, but those companies will be driven out of the country by such a tax. Then they

    977
    talk about a wonderful windfall tax on utilities, telling us that that was some sort of loophole, but forgetting that some £30 billion is being invested by the water companies to clean up the system. The Opposition intend to close that down as a loophole. What kind of a loophole is that? That is not responsible opposition. That is essentially trying to find money that the Government have not touched, but there is none. Those are not loopholes.
    Watching the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) during the past few weeks I have been reminded of that wonderful character Zaphod Beeblebrox in "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy", the strange two-headed figure who wanders around carrying on a perpetual argument with himself, each head putting forward another angle of the argument. On BBC Radio 4 on 17 January, on borrowing, one of the heads of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said:
    "I am not talking about increasing current borrowing."
    Meanwhile, when asked whether he would seek an increase in the PSBR, the hon. Gentleman's other head said:
    "I would be prepared to contemplate that."
    On 18 August, on spending, one head said:
    "Mr. Major and Mr. Clarke are spending much of their energy saying that Labour has massive spending debts£there are none."
    However, the other head then said:
    "The public sector must now become the engine of growth."
    Both heads say something different, facing different directions. One head was also busy talking about a pledge to full employment—a wonderful open-ended commitment.
    The two heads went on to argue withach other over taxation. One head said:
    "If you cut taxation—and I hope that we will be able to do so".
    But with his other head, when asked whether he believed in a 50 per cent. tax rate, the hon. Gentleman replied:
    "if the Chancellor, to raise money to do things, raised the top level from 40 to 50 per cent. we would not oppose it."
    It really is a case of both heads talking in different directions. This socialist Beeblebrox, at one and the same time, on the right and the left of the Labour party, seems to design his speeches to suit his audience.
    The Government are now a natural partner for the reforming Government of the 1980s. The great reforms were then to the supply side, now we are looking carefully at the welfare state and a variety of other issues. It is not surprising that unemployment has started to turn down so early in the cycle. That has much to do with the reforms of the 1980s.
    However, I was particularly pleased to see that the Government have turned their attention to reforming the concept of the welfare state, something which is long overdue. My right hon. and learned Friend, in line with other of my right hon. Friends, clearly recognises that failure to do that will hamper our desire to reduce the burden on the wealth-creating sector.
    Now is the time to look at the Government's role and the division of the two areas—on one side, raising revenue and expenditure and on the other, the delivery of service. It is time to transfer as many services as possible to the private sector which can provide many of them, such as insurance, far better.
    I am glad that some of today's changes bear a great similarity to suggestions made recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Some of the announcements fall well within the areas about which he spoke two or three days ago. The social security budget has increased by some 75 per cent. in real terms since 1979
    978
    and now accounts for one third of spending. When my right hon. and learned Friend talked about a real increase of 3 per cent., there were guffaws as some hon. Members said that it was something to do with unemployment. It has nothing to do with unemployment. That 3 per cent. takes into account unemployment and is a real year-on-year increase.
    The new medical test to attack the abuse of benefit from 1995 should reduce some of the costs. I also note that many doctors have asked for such a measure because they feel under great stress, with their individual knowledge of the patient, having to decide whether or not somebody is eligible. That reform will save money and be well received by the medical profession.
    The new job seeker's allowance, which will be integrated with and replace unemployment benefit and income support in 1996, is much in line with the single, means-tested proposal put forward by myself and others in August in a pamphlet, "Who Benefits?". It would be much more simple to administer and a more simple system for those who need the money and need to understand how much money they would receive. I am glad to see that we have begun our journey along that road and welcome it unreservedly.
    The change in statutory sick pay is helpful because it is high time that large employers took more of the burden. If they do, there is every chance that they will take a greater interest and concern in the health of their employees and their infrastructure and general employment conditions so as not to end up with long-term sickness among their employees. It is an excellent move to force the larger employers, especially, into that area.
    The equalisation of the state pension age at 65—again a change that we proposed in August—is welcome, but the Government should look again at increasing it, in due course, to 67 because the average age is rising.
    I welcome the major structural changes that were announced in social security. They will open the door to much of the private sector. In providing services, we should certainly now encourage pension companies to be involved in the provision of pensions and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider it in the following year as an area that would help us to save money and increase the benefit to those who need to receive the money at that point.
    I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's speech was welcomed unreservedly on this side of the House. He has announced major changes in social security and taxation and his VAT package is generous, perhaps more than many would have expected, and he should be congratulated for finding room within the strictures of the PSBR. It is a good Budget, outlining a good spending programme and I look forward to the reduction in the PSBR and to Britain continuing with low inflation and growth over the next few years.
    7.33 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Chisolm: In some ways, it is difficult to speak some two hours after the Chancellor has sat down, but in others ways it is easy because both his diagnosis and prescription for the economy are utterly predictable and utterly wrong. In the diagnosis section at the beginning of his speech, the

    979
    Chancellor could have mentioned at least five facts, if he had any degree of honesty or humility£perhaps strange concepts in connection with a Conservative Chancellor.
    First, he could have pointed out that we have recently come out of the worst recession of any major, industrial country in the past 25 years, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Secondly, he could have said that, given that, it would have been utterly amazing if there had not been some slight improvement over the past few months. What has been surprising is that the recovery has been so slight, given the devaluation and consequent cuts in interest rates that the Government did everything they could to avoid.
    As the Chancellor said, we have growth this year of 1.75 per cent.—a level that Professor Wynne Godley called a growth recession. Thirdly, he should have pointed out our historically low levels of investment—14.4 per cent. of gross domestic product is 25 per cent. below the levels of our major European competitors and the lowest level of investment in Britain since the 1950s. Fourthly, the Chancellor should have pointed out that we also have historically low levels of public expenditure. Even in the depths of public expenditure cuts in the early 1980s, the Government pitched public expenditure at 47.5 per cent. of GDP. Now it is 45.5 per cent. of GDP. If we consider elements of that spending, we find far worse figures. Public capital spending is now only 1.5 per cent. 9f GDP, whereas it was 9 per cent. under the Labour Government. Even the percentage spent on the welfare state—which the Tories keep telling us is too high—is lower than in any other European country apart from Portugal.
    The fifth and most crucial point that the Chancellor could have and should have cited in his opening statement is that the main reason for the PSBR problem is not the amount that we spend on the welfare state or public expenditure or capital expenditure, but because of the recession and because of the resulting unemployment that costs us so much money. That is the problem that he should have been addressing in his Budget, yet he failed.
    We should have had a Budget for jobs and for investment. Perhaps the Chancellor was too carried away by his own rhetoric to give us such a Budget. His rhetoric boasted of the way in which unemployment is coming down in Britain, while it is rising everywhere else, so he says, and boasting of the jobs created in the 1980s. He should remember that since the beginning of the decade, we have lost more than 2 million jobs, while the claimant count in the same period has risen by 1.4 million. That shows that the claimant unemployment figures are not the best test of how our economy is doing for jobs. There are lots of hidden unemployed—people who do not go straight on to the claimant count. While unemployment is improving marginally in terms of claimant figures, the reality on the ground is that people are not getting new jobs and today's Budget should have been targeted in that area. I would have liked the Chancellor to say that he and the Government had had a change of heart and that from now on they were to make the creation of jobs the first objective of economic policy. Of course, there is no hope of that from the Government.
    The section of the Chancellor's speech about jobs was almost unbelievable to Opposition Members. First, he mentioned a new job seeker's benefit as if that was
    980
    somehow to do with creating jobs. We know that it is rather about cutting unemployment benefit. People have paid for that benefit through national insurance contributions and to receive it for six months instead of 12 means that some claimants will move on to claim income support and some, if they have a partner in work, on no matter how low a wage, will go from unemployed benefit to no income at all. That was his first job creation measure.
    There was one announcement in the Budget that I thought was good news, although I want to make some detailed comments—a child care allowance for families on family credit. That is a tribute to the strength of the campaigns that were waged over the summer. I wrote to the Prime Minister about that matter in June and received the most dismissive reply imaginable, saying that such an allowance was a crazy, unnecessary idea and in no way was to be implemented. I am pleased that there has been a change of heart.
    However, there are certain problems with the allowance as announced. First, those who work fewer than 16 hours a week and therefore claim income support should also have child care support. Secondly, I feel that those whose income takes them just above family credit levels should receive some kind of child care support. Connected with all of that is the whole question of the supply of child care. Whatever help is given, if only private child care costing £70 a week is involved, it will still be too expensive for low-income parents to use. The Chancellor should have announced a national child care strategy to tackle the problem of supply as well as helping people with the cost. Opposition Members believe that that is crucial to the welfare of millions of women who want to work, and also to the good of the economy as a whole. Although I welcome that measure on child care, I think that it should be the beginning of something far more.
    Child care does not, in itself, create jobs for people eligible for family credit, who may now be more willing to look for jobs because they are receiving help with child care. Its expansion must be accompanied by an economic policy that creates jobs—which is precisely what we hoped for, but were not given, in today's Budget statement. Certain obvious steps could have been taken to create jobs.
    First, a boost for house building would have been an obvious way of increasing jobs and meeting a clear need. Last week, in a Scottish survey, Shelter stated that 45,000 Scottish households had reported themselves homeless to their local authorities last year. That, of course, does not reveal the total extent of homelessness last year. There is a crying need for a house-building programme; instead, the Budget statement announced a cut of £300 million for the English Housing Corporation. I have not yet seen the Scottish figures, and I do not know whether they are available, but I suspect that a similar cut is planned. The policy is going in exactly the wrong direction: we need to put money into house building, both to solve a social problem and to get the construction industry moving again, returning building workers to employment.
    The Budget made some gestures to infrastructure, but they consisted of far too little, far too late. Infrastructure investment by the public sector is a very effective way of returning demand to the economy and returning people to work; it is also a very effective way of improving the efficiency of the economy. The provisions in the Budget are derisory and inadequate.
    Most fundamental of all is the need for help for manufacturing industry. One of the most significant

    981
    omissions from the Chancellor's statement was his failure to refer to the balance of payments deficit, which now stands at a level which is unprecedented in the current stage of an economic cycle—£17.5 billion. We need manufacturing for jobs; we also need it to deal with that problem. If that problem is not dealt with, any growth that we achieve as a result of the Budget—or, rather, not because of but in spite of the Budget—will soon run into the constraints of the balance of payments deficit. Unfortunately, it seems that the Government will never address the problems of manufacturing investment. Simple measures involving capital allowances could he introduced, but I also believe that the Government should take a more direct role to get the sector moving.
    Instead of using the opportunity presented by the Budget to create jobs, the Conservatives have used that opportunity to carry out an agenda that they want to carry out in any event, irrespective of the state of public finances. I refer to the particularly right-wing agenda that involves reducing public expenditure, attacking the welfare state and putting up taxes on low-income families. I have not had time to examine all the details of the public expenditure proposals, but I remember the Chancellor saying that the total would fall by £15 billion over the next three years, and that within the next four or five years it would fall from its present 45.5 per cent. proportion of gross domestic product—which, as I have said, is historically low—to 42.5 per cent. That is bad news for jobs, because public investment is necessary to create them; it is bad news for the welfare state; and it is bad news for our public services.
    Let us consider certain specific groups. First, the Chancellor highlighted pensioners, who he said were given a good deal by the Budget. Let us remember what kind of increase is in store for them. Before the Budget, it was to be barely £1 a week for a single pensioner next year: that appalling amount was announced a few weeks ago. The reason was the official rate of inflation at the time—which, of course, bore no relation to the actual cost of items that pensioners must pay for.
    Today, we heard that those pensioners would receive a measure of compensation for the imposition of VAT on fuel—not full compensation; it is probably about half what they will have to pay. I have not had time to examine the details. We should have heard an announcement that no VAT would be imposed on fuel: instead, we were told of an inadequate compensation package. Beyond the pensioners' immediate problem lies the distant objective of pension equalisation at the age of 65. Although that does not concern today's pensioners, it will concern younger people. The Government missed the opportunity to equalise pension ages at 60, which should and could be the policy of any Government who believe that they can deliver economic growth. The present Government, of course, have no confidence in their ability to do that, which is why they must resort to public expenditure cuts and unfair tax increases.
    The second group I want to mention are those currently receiving invalidity benefit. One of the most shameful aspects of the Budget is the fact that they are being targeted to pay for the mistakes and the economic incompetence of the present Government. We are told that thousands who should not receive invalidity benefit are receiving it. I can tell the House that constituents of mine have recently been taken off it. I am not a doctor, but I can see that those people are not well, and are not fit for work. The Budget
    982
    proposal is a disgraceful attack on them. Once again, the Government seemed to think that the Government can get away with their actions, as long as they change the name of the benefit involved. They imagine that, if they call it "incapacity benefit", no one will notice. Opposition Members notice, however, and thousands of people in my constituency and throughout the country will notice as well.
    The largest group, however, is composed of the millions of ordinary taxpayers who will suffer as a result of the Budget. The Government would like us to forget that many taxes—amounting to £8.50 a week—are already in the pipeline. In that sense, the Chancellor is indebted to his predecessor. Not satisfied with that, however, the present Chancellor has announced the freezing of tax allowances, and various other tax changes that will take the weekly tax increase for an ordinary family to beyond £10 a week after next April—and that from a party that claims to be a party of low taxation, and boasted about it at the last general election. The British people will never trust the Tory party again on taxation, and today's Budget will remind them of that fundamental fact.
    We should also remember all the other people who will suffer as a result of the imposition of VAT on fuel, apart from pensioners. Those people did not get much mention in the Chancellor's statement. Some slight help will be provided for those on income support, but it will be in no way adequate to deal with the costs that they will face. Let us remember the state of the houses in which some of the people who will have to pay VAT on fuel will have to live. I remember someone on low pay who came to my surgery recently. She said that, because of the dampness of her house, she had to spend £25 a week on heating. Yet we are told by the Government that she will have to pay more. Because she is on low pay, she will not get one penny to help her with her increased heating bills.
    For a moment, I shall give some respite to the Conservative party, although, obviously, my main fire is directed at it. I shall refer to another party with which we must contend in Scotland—the Scottish National party. I must point out this disgraceful leaflet that I was handed in Leith last Saturday. In opposing VAT on fuel, the nationalists contrasted Scotland's chill with southern comfort. It is a highly offensive leaflet, and it gives some idea of the nationalist poison of the SNP that we in Scotland have to put up with.
    The concern of the SNP for the poor and the low paid does not seem to extend beyond the Scottish border. It forgets the millions of people who live in poverty in England in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) who are by no means living in southern comfort.
    In expressing our opposition to VAT on fuel, let us make it clear that the Opposition do not want VAT on fuel for anybody in the United Kingdom and that we still demand that it is scrapped. We shall continue to campaign for the scrapping of VAT on fuel in the expectation that we shall be successful.
    If the worst comes to the worst and VAT is imposed next April, some Opposition Members will continue to campaign to ensure that the EC is challenged and that VAT is taken off fuel when a Labour Government return.
    The main thrust of the Budget should have been to create jobs. If jobs are created, the problems of the deficit will go away. But I have to agree that, to create jobs in the short term, we must have public investment, and therefore

    983
    public expenditure. As the Conservative party always wants to know how the Opposition will raise the money, I shall conclude by saying something about that.
    I emphasise that the key to dealing with the budget deficit is to deal with the problem of unemployment. The taxation measures to which I shall refer are not the heart of our budget argument. Jobs will create more income tax and will mean less expenditure on unemployment benefit. That will solve the deficit problem, but in the short term we need expenditure on public investment.
    I fully support, as would all Opposition Members, the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on tax loopholes. I shall refer in particular to the way corporation tax is being evaded, because the previous Chancellor referred to the problem of corporation tax evasion the day before he got the sack. It is not just an idea from the Opposition. There is a problem of corporation tax evasion.
    I suggest also that there is a problem with the level of corporation tax, because we are way below the EC average. If corporation tax were increased to 40 per cent., that would bring in £4.5 billion. That has to be combined with a generous system of capital allowances, which the Conservative party will not accept. At the moment, the system of corporation tax encourages high dividend payments and discourages investment. We could put up corporation tax if we had generous capital allowances. That would be in line with the policy of creating jobs through investment.
    A second way in which money could be raised, and which would be infinitely preferable to the offensive attacks on the poor through VAT on fuel and invalidity benefit cuts, would be to raise the top rate of taxation. If the top rate for those earning more than £50,000—I shall put it no lower than that—were increased to 60 per cent., that would bring in £4 billion a year, which is more than would be brought in from VAT on fuel.
    Who with any conscience can possibly say that it is better to impose VAT on home heating than to impose a top-rate tax increase for those earning more than £50,000? There are not only arguments for that in terms of social justice. There are also strong economic arguments for that, because one of the problems that we have in this country is the extremes in income between poor and rich, which makes the balance of payments problem worse because rich people tend to buy more imported items. Secondly, it tends to make the boom-bust cycle far more extreme than in other countries. There are strong economic arguments as well as strong moral arguments for increasing the top rate of taxation.
    I am not totally against VAT increases. The problem that the Government have is that they impose it on the wrong thing. I suggest that, before the next Budget, they look at other ways in which they can raise VAT. I suggest, for example, VAT on private school fees—I suggest a rate of 30 per cent. I suggest a VAT rate of 30 per cent. on people who take out private health insurance. Why do we not have VAT on luxury items, which can be paid by people who can afford them? Those thoughts are totally alien to the Government, who want to help people at that end of the income scale and penalise and punish those at the other end.
    984
    There are two other ways in which money can be raised. First, I am told that a long-term objective for defence cuts was accepted by no fewer than 72 per cent. in a recent survey of top Scottish directors of industry. It was not mentioned much in the Budget today, but there is a wide spectrum of opinion across right and left which recognises that military expenditure must be cut.
    That is an ongoing source of money that can be used to boost manufacturing investment in this country. The Labour party has policies for a defence diversification agency and cuts in military spending could finance the work of that agency in boosting investment and jobs, particularly in manufacturing, because the key thing about defence workers is that they are highly skilled and must be kept in manufacturing employment.
    Even to reduce our level of defence expenditure to the French level would release £8 billion. I do not suggest that it is done in one go. If it was reduced to German levels it would release £13 billion. That is a matter that, in the remaining years of the decade, must be addressed and accepted, because it is a very large source of revenue for investment in our economy.
    Finally, I shall mention borrowing. I believe that if the measures that I have suggested were introduced, we would not need to increase borrowing. However, if in the short term we had to increase borrowing for investment, that would not worry me, because we know that through public investment we can decrease borrowing in the long term.
    The problem with the Conservative party is that it has no strategy to deal with the underlying cause of the public sector borrowing problem, which is the low levels of investment and the high levels of unemployment. The Conservatives have no strategy for that. They are using the excuse of the deficit to whittle away at the welfare state and impose unfair taxes.
    At the end of the Chancellor's speech, I noticed that Tory Members behind him were very impressed. That gave the game away. What we had from the Chancellor today was not a Budget for jobs, quite clearly. It was not a Budget for the poor, quite obviously, and we do not expect that from the Conservative party. What we had from the Chancellor today was a Budget for winning the next election. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I hope that the House will not make so much noise that I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Chisholm: What we had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I will say it again because it is a long time since I got the first bit in—was a Budget to win the next election. But the election that the Chancellor had in mind was his own election to become leader of the Conservative party. The Budget today was designed to impress and please the right wing of the Conservative party. The Order Papers being waved at the end of the Budget speech made that clear.
    The Chancellor may win the election to be leader of the Conservative party, but it is crystal clear that he and his party have no hope of winning the real election. The Conservative party will never be trusted again, not only because of its broken promises on taxation but because after 14 years the people of this country know that the Conservative party is the party of economic incompetence.

    985
    Any people who want to deny that would need to be referred to a psychiatrist, although they would have great difficulty in finding one on the NHS.
    8.1 pm
    Mr. Walter Sweeney: In these days when we are used to listening to a pasteurised, shrink-wrapped Labour party, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) showing that the real Labour party still exists, although it is usually kept more carefully hidden.
    It was particularly interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman call for a Budget for jobs. We have a background of low inflation, low interest rates and—in case he has not noticed—steadily falling unemployment. The latest monthly fall in unemployment is the largest for four and a half years; almost half a million people left unemployment in October, which is the highest monthly total ever, and long-term unemployment fell by 10,000 between July and October this year. Against that background, I warmly welcome the Budget introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. He has recognised the main needs of the British economy.
    First, my right hon. and learned Friend has recognised that it is essential to keep inflation down. Secondly, he has recognised the need to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. If he had failed to grasp that nettle today, we would have won no plaudits from Conservative Members. The last thing we want is to go back to the days of the 1970s, when the fastest growing area of public expenditure was not health, education or social services but servicing the national debt.
    The third priority which my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly stressed is the need to reduce the percentage of the gross domestic product which is spent in the public sector. I am pleased that he has set a target for that. I hope that, when we have got public spending down to 42 per cent., we shall press on and get it down well below 40 per cent.
    Fourthly, my right hon. and learned Friend has recognised the need to encourage the private sector. It is from the wealth created by the private sector that all the things that we value in our society are financed—such as road building, housing, help for small businesses in general and small companies in particular. I was particularly pleased to hear reference to the possibility of introducing a statutory interest charge on overdue debts. I have been pressing for that for the past two years. It would be a valuable measure and would help small businesses, which are all too often made to wait for months for payment from large customers which enjoy an effective monopoly.
    I was also pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend took the opportunity to maintain low direct taxes and to reduce tax relief on mortgages. That would certainly not have been a popular measure if it had been introduced before we left the exchange rate mechanism, when interest rates were extremely high. However, now that interest rates have fallen, there is a good opportunity to reduce the discrimination in favour of house purchasing as a way of spending one's money.
    I was worried when my right hon. and learned Friend said that the recovery began before white Wednesday—the day on which Britain was forced to leave the ERM. I hope that that does not mean that my right hon. and learned Friend is contemplating a return to the ERM. It is clear that
    986
    the recovery got into gear after we left the ERM, when we saw a dramatic fall in interest rates and the simultaneous establishment of a system in which our exports were more competitive.
    I now turn to VAT on domestic fuel. I represent the Vale of Glamorgan, a highly marginal constituency, which the Labour party chose to target. It played on the fears of the poor and the old in my constituency by pretending that my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor did not mean what he said when he said that help would be given to those most in need. The generosity of the package that has been revealed today fully vindicates what has been Conservative policy for the past six months.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman believe—I am one of his constituents—that he would have won the seat if he had told the families in the Vale of Glamorgan that, in the first two Budgets after the Conservative Government were returned, they would increase taxes by £16 a week for the average family?
    Mr. Sweeney: I am pleased to have the hon. Gentleman as a constituent. I trust that he voted for me. I am sure that, at the time of the general election, he was no more aware than I of what would be in this Budget or the last Budget. The Government stated in the run-up to the election that there were no plans then to raise rates of VAT. I am sure that that was correct at the time. Certainly, VAT was not raised at that time.
    I have met many constituents who have responded to the Labour campaign of vilification in my constituency against the Conservative party in general and me in particular. They were naturally worried to read the press releases issued by the Labour party, which said that the wicked Conservative Government would not help them to meet their fuel bills.
    Like other Conservative Members, I have been pleasantly surprised by the generosity of the package which has been introduced. It provides help for all pensioners. That shows that the Government have gone further than they needed to. Obviously, there are pensioners who do not need help to pay their VAT on fuel. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be better without the running commentary, particularly if certain hon. Members wish to speak.
    Mr. Sweeney: It is difficult to target help to meet all those cases of need. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was aware of the needs of those people whose incomes are just above the level for income support, and wanted to make sure that he caught them in his safety net. It is because of that difficulty that I welcome the decision to help all pensioners, in addition to giving much-needed help to those people on income support and other income-related benefits.
    I am glad that the lies put out by Labour supporters in my constituency have been laid to rest. I look forward to meeting constituents in my forthcoming surgeries and reporting to them on the excellent package that has been introduced today.
    8.10 pm
    Mr. Peter Hain: Today the Chancellor has snubbed Wales. A typical family in Wales will be £10 a week worse off—paying higher income tax, higher value

    987
    added tax, higher national insurance and higher mortgages as tax relief is cut—in addition to paying higher charges for home and car insurance, and even for holidays.
    The VAT compensation measures announced by the Chancellor are a sham. The Budget is a vindictive assault on the disabled, the poor, the unemployed and pensioners, particularly women pensioners, who will have to wait an extra five years to receive their retirement pension in future.
    The Budget will do nothing to reverse the long-term industrial and structural decline of the Welsh economy. We have had 14 years of Thatcherite and Majorite miracles, during which living standards have declined, and will decline for the coming generation. That decline will reverse the trend of hundreds of years in which, with a few peaks and troughs, people have been progressively better off. Under the Government, Wales has become a poor relation. It has the lowest GDP per head, the lowest earnings and the highest economically inactive totals.
    The south Wales valleys have suffered even more. As a valley community, Neath is virtually at the bottom of the pile of worldly goods and associated wealth, as a survey for HTV's "Wales this Week" recently showed. Professors Wilkinson and Morris of the Cardiff business school have shown that, whether we measure car ownership or consumer white goods, central heating or cavity insulation, or sickness or social class:
    "The Valleys are getting poorer. There is no sign that the valleys initiative has had any real effect."
    That conclusion was endorsed by official Welsh Office figures released last week, much to the embarrassment of the Secretary of State for Wales.
    What has the Chancellor done for a community such as Neath that is already struggling and where regular well-paid and skilled jobs, especially for men, have disappeared, to be replaced by part-time skivvy work for poverty wages? He has kicked Neath in the teeth with his steel-capped Hush Puppies.
    The Chancellor is not reversing the long-term decline in training. In Wales, the Budget for training has been reduced by 16 per cent., £27.8 million. The Secretary of State for Unemployment—I am sorry, for Employment; it was a Freudian slip—in a manner redolent of his office when he was Secretary of State for Wales, has indulged in a typical public relations exercise this afternoon. He has produced a Mickey Mouse scheme, with no new money to address the massive skills gap in Wales and the United Kingdom.
    The Government should invest money in quality training, and in jobs for the 2,400 in Neath who are officially out of work. To that total must be added another 11,000 men and women, who are not on the official unemployment register but appear in the Department of Employment's economically inactive category, which I regard as the unofficial measure of unemployment.
    As to VAT on fuel, our "no-nonsense" Chancellor, as he has called himself, has bottled out. As a result, it will cost the poor, the old and the disabled among my constituents an extra £5 a week in the cold winter months. The 50p a week that is being offered to those people is an insult. It will go nowhere near addressing their plight and the problems of trying to make ends meet after such an extra imposition.
    The nearly poor that the Government have identified
    988
    will get absolutely nothing out of the Budget, unless they happen to be pensioners. What will happen to the others, and those who are just above the benefit level, perhaps with a small miner's or widow's pension that takes them just above the welfare net? The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr Sweeney) seems totally ignorant of the plight of those people, who will face this VAT increase with great fear.
    Mr. Sweeney: Far from being totally ignorant, I made it clear in my speech, had the hon. Gentleman been listening, that all pensioners will receive help with their fuel bills, and those who are just above the threshold for income support will be among those who will be helped.
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood his own speech. He has not understood my point. I spoke specifically about the nearly poor who are not pensioners. There are thousands of them in my constituency—and probably in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and millions across the country—who will not get any compensation at all when they too have to bear the VAT increases on fuel and heating, which could cost an extra £5 a week in the bitterly cold winter months.
    In place of the Chancellor's Budget, I would commend to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Wales my own Labour Budget for Neath, which would give the people of Neath and Wales prosperity and hope instead of the miserly offerings of this afternoon. It rests on fair taxation and recognises that public investment is the way to sustained growth and lasting employment. Most importantly, it is a Budget that would restore dignity to those in our community who were asked not only to make sacrifices 50 years or so ago in their youth but, quite unfairly, are being made to pay again for the Government's mistakes and the systematic way that the Government piles tax increases and cuts in public services on those least able to protect themselves.
    What we heard from the Chancellor this afternoon could be a matter of life or death for many of the 16,000 pensioners in Neath. Many of them are already living below the breadline; some 18 per cent. of them live in households without central heating; more than 7,000 of them suffer from long-term illnesses; and many cannot currently pay their bills, let alone when VAT is put on their coal, gas and electricity. The valley villages of Seven Sisters, Banwen, Crynant, Cwmllynfell and Rhifawr, for example, have no access to the cheapest fuel—gas. Those villages have a huge concentration of older people, all of whom are worried that the Chancellor will inflict further hardship on their lives. These fears will be proved right.
    Mr Lock and 23 other residents of Canolfan and Seven Sisters took the trouble to write to me, voicing their concerns about the consequences of VAT on fuel. Their fears have not been allayed this afternoon. Others, like Mr and Mrs Lewis, are living out their 80s in great hardship, with no mains gas and an enormous works project needed to bring their home up to present-day fitness standards. They live in a draughty place and, because they can ill afford expensive energy conservation measures, they resort to the most basic of energy conservation
    measures, doing without any heating or fuel. The Budget will do nothing to assist them.

    989
    The measures announced this afternoon are a drop in the ocean and will go nowhere near addressing the needs of pensioners such as Mr and Mrs Lewis, who are in desperate straits.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hain: No. I have given way already.
    Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Lewis is in great physical shape—30-odd years as a miner in Blaenant colliery made sure of that in Mr. Lewis's case. If they turn off their heat in windy and damp Seven Sisters, it will make them ill. This will have dramatic consequences on the already hard-pressed local health services.
    Last year in Wales there were 1,672 "excess winter deaths"—the official Government term for the worrying national trend of higher than average mortality rates in winter. Last year, there were twice as many deaths in the United Kingdom, 34,711, as in other cold countries such as Canada or those of Scandinavia.
    Those deaths are caused not just by the weather, but by a failure to invest in proper home insulation and proper protection for some of the most vulnerable in our society. A substantial body of opinion, which includes the Oxford academic Brenda Boardman, is convinced that the causes of those deaths is linked to fuel poverty.
    The Budget will do nothing to address that problem; in fact it makes it a great deal worse. It does nothing to help the 5,500 people in Neath who are on invalidity benefit; instead it will make their plight worse. The Budget will do nothing to help the 11,000 or more who are on income support. We have heard much in recent weeks from the Thatcherite right about benefit scroungers.
    While the official snoopers chase people on benefit who do what is known in the valleys as "a hobble"—a bit of gardening or labouring in a desperate effort to make ends meet—and recover £558 million, tax loopholes will lose the Inland Revenue ten times as much, a massive £10 billion in the next two years. The Chancellor has only nibbled at the edges of the massive problem posed by those loopholes.
    The Budget will do nothing to help those on poverty wages in my constituency. Figures just released in the 1993 new earnings survey reveal that Wales has the lowest pay rates of any region in Great Britain at £281.20 a week for full-time work. That represents a fall from 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom average in 1979 to just 89.2 per cent. in 1992. In Neath many adults work for £1.80 an hour or less. How can they possibly survive on such wages? The Chancellor seems to be totally indifferent to their plight.
    The Chancellor should have introduced three immediate steps to ease the unfair burden that has been placed on my constituents. First, he could have introduced an alternative VAT strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) has already referred to some of the detail of that strategy.
    Instead of dumping the load imposed by VAT on the likes of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, it would be possible to extend VAT to private education and private health schemes. That would raise as much as £600 million and £300 million respectively. There is also some scope or putting VAT on financial and insurance services which, if properly targeted on share issues and other company-related transactions, and not on homes and possessions, could raise between £1 billion and £3.3 billion.
    Secondly, there is an emerging consensus in Britain that
    990
    the well-off are undertaxed. They represent some of the beneficiaries of the £10 billion derived from the tax loopholes that were identified by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
    Following the personal tax cuts of the 1987 and 1988 Budgets, the very rich have benefited to the tune of £8 billion a year—nearly three times the amount that VAT on fuel and heating will bring to the Treasury in a full year. If one levelled out to the European average in the top irate band of 55 per cent., that would raise as much as £6 billion for the Exchequer. That is the sort of target at which the Government should aim.
    Thirdly, the Budget should have introduced phased relief of capital receipts for council housing. Neath and Lliw valley boroughs have £2.89 million of accumulated housing capital receipts which the Government have banned them from spending. If those receipts were released tomorrow, more than 50 local houses could be built. That would create not only badly needed new homes but even more badly needed jobs in my constituency.
    The official unemployment figures do not take into account the economically inactive population, which is a special concern to valley constituencies such as Neath. According to the official figures, unemployment in my constituency stands at just over 10 per cent. If one adds to that the economically inactive, people of working age, below pensionable age, who for one reason or another have been forced off the unemployment register—after the Chancellor's Budget announcement they will be forced off the register six months earlier—or those forced into early retirement following a pit closure, the unemployment figure jumps by a further 30 per cent.
    Neath is the 12th worst district of 459 districts in the United Kingdom in terms of its economically inactive total. When one looks at the plight of the south Wales valleys, it is not surprising to discover that, of those 459 districts, eight of the top 10 are valley constituencies. One in three adult men are now unemployed in Neath, if one takes into account the official unemployment figure and the official figure for the number of economically inactive. That makes a total of 6,000 adult men. The Chancellor has betrayed all of them.
    The economically inactive total will rise as a result of the Budget because the unemployed will be pushed off the unemployment register after six months, while those in work who are sick or long-term disabled will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their jobs as their employers seek to push them out of their work forces in order to be released from the extra obligations that the Chancellor has imposed on employers.
    The Budget does nothing for industry. Many of those who are unemployed in my constituency were previously in the local manufacturing sector—the hub of the local economy. That sector has been savaged by the Conservative Government. For example, between 1989 and 1991, manufacturing employment in Neath collapsed by a half. There is no sign that the Government are doing anything to provide an upturn for the people of Neath.
    The Budget is designed to ingratiate the Chancellor with his own Back Benchers. It is not a Budget for an area such as Neath, which has enormous economic potential, enterprising business men and women and a traditionally skilled work force. Neath is crying out for a Budget that

    991
    will invest in jobs, skills and infrastructure. We have not had that Budget today, and we will not get it tomorrow unless we have a Labour Government.
    8.26 pm
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: We have heard the same old tune from the Opposition. They cry that the Budget does nothing for industry. I am sure that it has set the climate for a further reduction in interest rates, which represents one of the best ways in which the Government can help industry.
    I do not believe that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) is a great contributor to the industrial scene. I am not sure what he did to help industry before he was elected, but, judging from his comments, I cannot see that he has any understanding of industry.
    Mr. Hain: Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his ignorant and arrogant remarks, let me invite him to visit local business men and women and industrialists in my constituency. He will then discover that not only am I a close friend of those people, but that they are crying out for a change of Government so that assistance can be given to them.
    Mr. Thurnham: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said because I do not hear anything like that from industrialists in my constituency.
    The hon. Member for Neath played the same old tune about taxing the rich more. He is obviously ignorant of what happened in the past. Under the Labour Government the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers contributed only 34 per cent. of the total amount of income tax paid. Under this Government, however, the latest figures reveal that the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers contribute 45 per cent. of the total amount of income tax paid. If one raises income tax, as the Labour party did, one collects less money from the richest taxpayers.
    Mr. Hain rose—
    Mr. Thurnham: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman because we have already heard enough of his distorted view of how industry works.
    One of the most enjoyable things about being a Conservative Member is being able to hear a Conservative Budget each year. I look forward to hearing many more Conservative Budgets because each one is designed to increase the nation's prosperity, as they have done in the past 14 years. I am sure that this Budget will achieve the same.
    The Budget is courageous and I am sure that it will achieve all its objectives. It is so wide-sweeping, however, that time hardly allows me to pass full judgment on all the measures in it. Its main aim is to put the budget deficit behind us, which tackles our greatest concern. It is encouraging to consider how that has been achieved. It has been done by raising a certain amount of extra money through taxation, but mainly by squeezing public spending. It is not clear what the full extent of that will be. I have looked at page 97 and other pages in the Red Book, and clearly there will be a strong squeeze on wasteful spending in the public sector. That is to be welcomed, but it will be interesting to see how that develops.
    992
    There will no doubt be squeals from various sources, scares put out and lobbies coming to raise issues. Those issues may not be as bad as will be thought if the scaremongers have their way. There is great deal of waste in Government. We have seen the figures which show that the unit costs in manufacturing are now falling, so let us now see unit costs in delivering public administration falling. We have before us a freeze on the running costs of the civil service and local authorities, and I am sure that we are all convinced that that can be achieved. It will be interesting to see how that works out in practice.
    The Budget contains numerous measures to encourage business, all of which are to be welcomed. Jobs can certainly be created in small businesses. Cash flow is the major problem for nearly everybody in business—that is certainly my experience—and has always been a main issue. Payment, of course, is a double-edged sword. Not only does one collect money; one also pays out money. However, the concept of a British standard for prompt payment is encouraging. It may be the best way forward if firms adopt that as a voluntary measure which could be coupled with whatever is proposed in the way of statutory legislation for interest on overdue debts. That has been called for by people such as Mr. Wanless, the chief executive of the National Westminster bank, and it will receive broad support throughout business.
    The proposal to reduce employers' national insurance contribution rates, which will cost nearly £1 billion, is a major measure to improve the supply side of the economy. It is clearly designed to help those with lower skills who are on lower rates of pay back into the job market. That measure, combined with the changes which are proposed to the family credit system for lone parents, will help more people get into the job market.
    Measures to raise revenue include the reduction of mortgage interest payments to 15 per cent. That has been clearly on the cards. Mortgage interest relief has always been popular, but it has only ended up in the pockets of landowners who can achieve higher prices by selling their land for building. The effect of reducing mortgage interest tax relief will be to reduce the value of land when that land gains planning permission. Perhaps it will reduce the pressure for planning permission.
    The Budget measures are aimed at raising revenue of £6 billion, or 0.75 per cent. of GDP, to help to bring down the fiscal deficit, but it is the squeeze on spending which is the most attractive aspect of bringing down that deficit.
    The City will pay considerable attention to a tight settlement which is aimed at delivering £10 million. That will build a climate of confidence, as will in particular the projected reduction in the share of GDP which goes on public spending from 45 per cent. to 42.5 per cent. by 1996-97. That was attacked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who said that it was "bad news". Again, that shows exactly what little understanding Labour Members have of how our economy works. The hon. Gentleman said that it was bad news for jobs, but I have to say that it is good news for jobs. The public sector can in no way create jobs which can help real economic growth. That growth must come from the country being more competitive in world markets which are themselves becoming more competitive.
    This country can compete effectively in world markets only by reducing the burden of public spending, and not by increasing that burden. I was amazed to hear the old and unreconstructed Labour party holding forth. Underlying

    993
    inflation is at its lowest for 25 years, and it is clear that the Budget will maintain the pressure on inflation, although it is bound to fluctuate month by month. I was certainly pleased to hear the Chancellor say that he was confident that inflation will come down over the forecast period of the next three years. That should provide the firmest possible foundation for interest rates to fall further.
    Unemployment has been falling for some months to the current figure of 2.86 million and, with unit labour costs in manufacturing coming down, I am confident that that fall in unemployment will continue. If we can combine that with a much lower current account deficit, which for this year has been reduced to £8.5 billion, that will confirm the strength of our economy. Hopefully we can continue to increase our share of world markets, in contrast to the declining share which we had for decades under the policies of the Labour party.
    The effect of the measures contained in the Budget is that the economy should grow by 1.75 per cent. this year, and 2.5 per cent. in the year to come. I think that the Chancellor has been conservative with those figures, but he was wise to be so. If I had been giving my right hon. and learned Friend advice as he prepared the Budget, I would have told him to trust his pessimism and doubt his optimism. He has given those figures in a conservative fashion, and I feel confident that there will be better growth in the economy on the strength of the excellent Budget.
    I was a little disappointed that the Chancellor did not go further with beer and spirits and introduced a cut in beer tax because of the bootlegging which occursby people who are going across the channel. I think that that would have been highly popular. The freezing of the duty is, in effect, a cut in real terms. I am sure that that will be welcomed by those people who may be taking advantage of that tonight, as will the fact that the extra tax on wine will not take effect until after Christmas.
    It is important that there should be increases in the tax on tobacco in the years to come so that cigarette consumption may be cut by the target of 40 per cent. by the year 2000. There is considerable evidence of the bad effect on health of cigarettes, particularly on young people who may not be aware of the risks.
    That is also the case with young expectant mothers. There has been an adverse deterioration in the statistics in Bolton, where an increasing number of children have been born with a low birth-weight. I believe that that is linked with the fact that their mothers have been smoking. A study is being carried out on that problem in Bolton. I was particularly concerned that Bolton was targeted by cigarette companies for their advertising on billboards. If a link is proved between that advertising and the adverse statistics of baby deaths, I trust that we will have legislation which will allow more control of cigarette advertising on billboards.
    The tax on air passengers had been forecast to some extent. I note that the tax is £5 on a single flight, or a return flight if it is booked as such, so that the effect will be less than would have been the case had the tax applied only to single flights. The profits which accrue to airports are also due to the free duty on drinks, and I would have thought that there might be a measure of recovery there. It seems wrong that airports should profit from their duty-free status to the extent that they do.
    In the case of Manchester, the sooner that that city's airport is privatised, the better rather than allowing it to benefit from the duty-free goods which are bought by
    994
    people from a large surrounding area. If the airport were to be privatised, a capital receipt would come to the local authorities, and they would not be denied the benefits of the increase in investment which has occurred.
    The underlying statistic that is one of the strongest features of the British economy now is our enormous increase in productivity. In effect, we are having a revolution, and the latest productivity growth is the fastest for five years. In the 1980s we had the highest productivity growth of any country apart from Japan, and it now looks as though we should be set on another decade of high growth in productivity.
    That is certainly needed, because our output per head, is lower than that of many of our competitors, so we need to grow faster in order to catch them up. Having the lowest rate of corporation tax of any of the G7 countries must be one of the most important factors in helping to achieve that higher rate of productivity growth. Again, that shows that the Government are more capable than any Government that could be formed by the Opposition parties of understanding the underlying factors involved in running our economy efficiently.
    I especially welcome the lower rate of corporation tax for smaller companies. Companies with profits of £300,000 or less will pay at 20 per cent., and those with profits of between £300,000 and £1.5 million will pay at between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. That is a way of rewarding—or perhaps we should say of penalising less—companies which are successful and which contribute to the growth of our economy. The measure is welcome.
    There has not yet been time to make full judgments about the other proposals to help investment in smaller companies, but the new venture capital trust sounds an interesting idea. Investors will have the liquidity to be able to move their investment in whatever way suits them best, while the unquoted companies will be able to benefit from the funds raised in that way. I look forward to learning more about the proposal, and to seeing the consultation paper when it is issued.
    I am somewhat unsure whether any of the proposals will help the private rented sector. I recently produced a pamphlet "Choose Your Landlord", calling for more help to the private rented sector, which is the lowest of any OECD country. It stands at half the average level of those in other OECD countries—at only a quarter of the level of that in west Germany, for instance, and at only about half the level of that in east Germany, after 50 years of communism. That shows how considerable are tine improvements that we need to make to our private rented sector, but the notes that I have read so far do not make clear the extent to which the Budget proposals to help small businesses will assist.
    As I understand it, the capital gains reinvestment relief will apply to the sale of any asset, and that would benefit someone selling a privately rented property because he could obtain roll-over relief when investing in another type of business. However, that could encourage people to leave the private rented sector, whereas I hope that we can develop measures to encourage people to move into that sector rather than out of it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will be able to make it clear later whether that measure is designed to help the private rented sector or, in some strange way, to encourage people to move out of it.

    995
    The changes in statutory sick pay have been cleverly constructed, because larger firms can generally get insurance policies to help them to deal with sick pay, and insurance companies have their own, requirements so that people qualify for invalidity payments only subject to satisfactory medical checks. The new arrangements have been well designed, and I hope that they will not hinder very small companies that cannot obtain insurance cover as large companies can. I know from experience of the insurance cover provided for sick pay for larger companies that there is a wide range of premiums quoted, depending on exactly how the benefits are to be assessed. I hope that everyone will be able to benefit from the new arrangements.
    As for capital spending, the new private finance initiative is excellent. It is what we have been wanting for many years, and I shall be fascinated to find out the full details of how the west coast main line proposals, for example, are to be funded. There was something in the Sunday press about that, and I understand that about£600 million will be available through a privately financed project to improve the line from London through Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool to Glasgow. I understand that there may be an announcement tomorrow, so we look forward to learning further details and, of course, to seeing the project in action.
    The social security proposals have been covered at some length, and it is clear to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has bent over backwards to help pensioners. Of the £2.8 billion being raised from VAT on fuel, £1.2 billion will be repaid in the package of measures that the Chancellor announced today, so that the net amount raised will be £1.6 billion. That £1.6 billion is welcome, but the repayment shows my right hon. and learned Friend's good faith in wishing to protect pensioners and others who may have felt unfairly penalised.
    I especially welcome the extension of energy efficiency grants to all pensioners and all people with disabilities. Those grants were previously means tested, and it should be fully understood exactly what is available. Half a million homes have already been improved, and the existing budget provided for another 250,000. Further provision has now been made to extend the benefit to all pensioners and all people with disabilities so that they will all be able to get insulation for their homes. That seems the best way for people to keep warm.
    Let us consider what happens in other countries. In Sweden, for instance, the rate of VAT on fuel is 25 per cent., yet there are fewer deaths from hypothermia there because people insulate their homes so well and are not caught out by a cold snap, as people can be here. I understand that the provision announced by the Chancellor will allow more than 200,000 extra pensioner households a year to benefit. That is a valuable way of showing how we can meet our Rio international commitment to reducing the amount of carbon burnt while ensuring that people keep warm. I hope that the scheme is fully taken up. It seems to me ridiculous that people should not take advantage of schemes to provide them with insulation in their homes, but should instead expect to be given more money only to pay for more fuel to be burnt.
    I welcome the Budget. It is the 11 th Conservative Budget that I have had the pleasure of hearing in the
    996
    House, and I am sure that it will lay the foundations for continued prosperity in this country, and for the continued return of Conservative Governments for many years to come. I look forward to hearing many more such excellent Budgets in the future.
    8.47 pm
    Ms Ann Coffey: I believe that the effects of the Budget will become clear over the year, because the cuts are contained in the fine print. That seems incredible, because no local authority in the land would be allowed to present a budget that simply said, "We shall cut expenditure next year by capping our budget, but we shall not tell you how we shall do it; we shall just achieve it," and then use that meaningless phrase, "efficiency savings". Those savings involve more than issuing fewer bits of paper; they will often have important consequences for services. As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said, there will probably be quite a lot of shouting and screaming as Departments implement those fairly savage public expenditure cuts, which have not yet been made plain to the House.
    I shall comment on some of the details that have been made known, starting with the child care allowance. Like many Opposition Members, I have campaigned strongly for child care allowances that would give parents access to jobs. When the Chancellor began to make the announcement I started to smile in anticipation that something positive would be announced. It means very little. I am not sure whether the Chancellor is aware of the cost of child care—it is mainly provided through the private sector and child minders—but it is in the region of £80 to £90 a week for a private nursery and perhaps £50 to £60 a week for a child minder. The cost is high because the children's legislation rightly demands a high level of skills and training for the staff who look after small children.
    Mr. Morgan: It is £150 in London.
    Ms Coffey: That is a lot of money to find.
    The Chancellor seems to be saying that he will provide an allowance of £28 a week for families that already receive family credit. I wonder what that means. I thought that the aim of the exercise was to take families off benefits by giving them access to the employment market and giving them an allowance for child care. Does that mean that people applying for jobs must ensure that the job must pay a low wage because that is how they qualify for family credit? Does it mean that they cannot look for jobs where the wages are higher than the family credit level because then they would not get the allowance? That is what it seems to mean. If that is so, we are looking at more extremely unfair legislation. It will be similar to what happened with the Child Support Agency—it sounds good but the implementation of it will create a great deal of unfairness. It shows a lack of vision on the part of the Chancellor.
    Surely the aim is to attract the maximum number of skilled people into the job market. It may be that many families will not be able to afford access to the employment market because the child care allowance will not be extended to them. I had hoped that the Chancellor would look at the whole problem of the provision of child care in a much more imaginative way. I do not believe that the child care allowance will make a lot of difference

    997
    except to a small number of people. That is a pity because the Budget provided an opportunity to do something about the matter.
    As the Chancellor knows, value added tax on fuel is a profoundly unpopular proposal. Basically, most people understand that it is a tax on the need for warmth, rather than the ability to pay for that warmth. The Chancellor has not been generous. Many Tory Members have discussed the Chancellor's generosity in compensating pensioners for the extra money that they will have to find. Fifty pence a week for a single pensioner and 70p a week for a couple is not generous compensation and is well below the amount of money that they will need to find to pay VAT on fuel.
    People cannot be compensated by a flat rate. The need for warmth varies enormously depending on a person's situation, age and medical disability. But that is not taken into account in the flat-rate compensation scheme. Whatever the Chancellor said about compensation, pensioners will still need to pay disproportionately for that tax.
    Another interesting point about VAT on fuel is that a vast number of people will be excluded. Families with young children, especially when children are at home during the day with the parent, will be excluded. Some time ago, I asked the Chancellor for his estimate of the cost to the average family of VAT on fuel. He replied that his estimate was £2.9 a week. However, such families will not be compensated for that. In effect, VAT on fuel is a tax of £2.9 on every working family in this country. In view of some of the campaigning that has takeplace, and the vulnerable position of hospices, I wonder whether the Chancellor will exclude hospices from VAT on fuel.
    I do not understand why the Chancellor feels that the housing difficulties that are being experienced will be alleviated by more private money going to housing associations. All that has happened as a result of the grants going down and private money going into housing associations is that rents have gone up. In the town that I represent, Stockport, the average rent for a three-bedroom council house is £30, compared to £60 for a housing association house. The figure is double.
    If grants continue to go down, and the Chancellor is relying on private investment to provide housing, rents will continue to increase. That is a serious problem because the only people who will be able to afford to live in housing association properties, whose rents will reach the market price of private accommodation, are those on full housing benefit. Those who are living in housing association properties on full housing benefit will never be able to afford to get a job because they will not be able to afford to lose that benefit. The local council in Stockport has £12 million in capital receipts from the sale of council houses. It could provide houses much more cheaply than housing associations. It is much cheaper to subsidise social housing through bricks and mortar than through rent allowances and housing benefit.
    I draw the Chancellor's attention to another housing difficulty that has been caused by deregulation. I am sure that it is not specific to my authority. Since rents were deregulated in 1989, private landlords have been allowed to charge rents above the rent assessment level set by the rent officer. That rent has been subsidised through rent allowances. A recent report to Stockport council showed that the council had to provide a contribution of £417 for unsubsidised rents in 1989-90. But the figure for this year is well over £90,000.
    998
    Effectively, the deregulation of private rents has resulted in a rigged market where private housing has been subsidised through rent allowances. That has resulted in private rents in Stockport rising to a level that most people cannot afford unless they get rent allowances. Nothing in the Budget will help that housing situation. It is a serious problem especially for young people who have no access to private ownership because housing is too expensive.
    I was interested in the reference to invalidity benefit in the Budget. There will be a new incapacity benefit. Obviously, the criteria for getting that benefit will be much more strict. I wonder whether that will also apply to the review of people who are presently on invalidity benefit to get that new incapacity benefit. Many people have taken early retirement because of long-term sickness at work on the understanding that they will have an income from invalidity benefit. If that incomes stops suddenly, it will cause direct hardship and poverty for those people, and a feeling that the Government have reneged on their promise about invalidity benefit.
    I am not convinced that the figures relating to extra funding for education are right. It is easy to present figures as though extra money is being put into services. The extra money to be spent on education will not be as real as it appears on the papers in which it is presented.
    Problems in education concern not only funding but the structure of the education system. A distortion within education has been caused by the better financial deal for grant-maintained schools in an effort to get schools to opt out of local authority control. That is causing great concern among professionals in education, who feel that the aim of education should be equality of opportunity for all children in the borough, irrespective of where they come from or the school to which they go. The Chancellor should deal with that problem as well as funding issues.
    More money was promised for health. Serious problems are being created by the market economy in health, particularly in terms of waiting time for aids, such as hearing aids. The money is going to the acute side, with consequences for people waiting for aids or treatment for chronic rather than acute illnesses. That is creating problems and distortions in the community.
    The Government have made much play about their support for law and order, yet as a result of their public spending cuts it will be more difficult to spend money on crime prevention. I remind the Chancellor that better security lighting and security locks on doors are among the most effective crime prevention measures, particularly for elderly people. Those measures are usually funded through local councils and if that ability is taken away from councils through public spending cuts, crime will not be prevented. Most people would rather prevent crime than deal with its consequences.
    We often hear the word "efficiency" mentioned in Budgets and I sometimes wonder what it means. We talk about efficiency in British industry and efficiency to be competitive. Efficiency has a long track record of leading to job losses. Employees always feel worried when people start talking about efficiency because they know that, ultimately, their jobs are on the line.
    The Government should remember that British industry should provide jobs. The fact that it has seriously failed to do so in the past 14 years has much to do with how managers in industry have managed their work force. They

    999
    have taken a confrontational approach, and disposing of the work force has been too easy a solution to financial difficulties.
    Together with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, I visited the Rover plant at Longbridge. Rover has reorganised the management of its work force and now consults its employees and involves them in what it does. Surprise, surprise, that has led to higher productivity, of which the company is very proud.
    The Chancellor should remember that helping British industry involves not only accounting and giving tax advantages but tackling the problem of managing people. The Government have been appalling at managing people and understanding their ordinary day-to-day lives. They have then blamed low productivity on the work force. It is the Government's job to lead and set objectives and to ensure that people achieve those objectives, but not in a confrontational way. Britain is not a company but a nation of people and the Government's responsibility goes beyond making a better business out of Britain—even when it can manage that. This country's recovery depends on the Government increasing people's morale and commitment, and on people's trust in the Government and willingness to work together. The Government have not managed to make that step and the Budget will not encourage people to feel that that is what they are about.
    If this country is to get anywhere in the future, the Government must be concerned not only with accounting and balancing the books but must be seen to be fair. They must be seen to be doing their job, which is to mediate between the strong and the weak to ensure that everybody has the opportunity that they deserve. Nothing that has been said today, particularly by the Government, gives me any hope that that is what is the intention of the Government's Budget. The Budget is another sleight of hand.
    9.4 pm
    Dr. John Marek: I have heard a dismal set of speeches from Conservative Members today. Some hon. Members went through the proposals introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, commenting on them while reading from printed papers. Other hon. Members obviously wanted a job in the Treasury Front Bench team because the words "excellent", "good" or "I support" appeared every second or third minute. The worst speech was made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) who, in his zeal for the Chancellor's proposals, went so far as to say that the compensation package for pensioners was too generous. I want to cut out that piece of his speech from Hansard tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Morgan: So will I.
    Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr Morgan) and I shall make sure every pensioner in the Vale of Glamorgan learns what the hon. Member who represents them thinks about the Government's proposal this afternoon.
    It was a depressing Budget. After 14 years of Tory rule, what is the economic position? The public sector borrowing requirement is £50 billion. That is not the fault of the Labour party when in office, of the Labour party when in opposition or of another country. It was not caused
    1000
    by the extra expenditure incurred through war. The fault lies fairly and squarely on the present Administration. They caused the public sector borrowing requirement to go up to the staggering figure of £50 billion—perhaps 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. They are entirely responsible for that.
    What else do we have? In the middle of a recession, the balance of payments deficit this year is about £17 billion. A deficit of that size was unheard of until the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. The Administration have managed to build up a deficit of that size during a recession. In addition, tax as a percentage of GDP is just under 40 per cent. Years ago, when the Labour party was in office, tax as a percentage of GDP was about 33 or 34 per cent. The deficit has been more than 40 per cent., although it might be a little less than that now. However, the Government tell us that it is the Government of low taxation.
    If I were honest and did not mince my words, I would use an unparliamentary expression to describe that record, but I cannot do so. Perhaps I can do so if I address my remarks to the Government rather than an individual hon. Member. The Conservatives blatantly lie when they say that they are the party of low taxation. That is clearly not true because taxation as a percentage of GDP in the 1980s and 1990s, if not every year then almost every year, has been higher under this Government than when the Labour party was in power in the late 1960s and 1970s. After 14 years of Conservative rule, average growth is less than that achieved by the Labour party when it was in office. Despite that dismal scenario, there were no explanations or apologies from the Chancellor. He did not explain why the economy is in such a mess after 14 years.
    The Opposition and the country wanted the Chancellor to show some leadership on how to get out of the mess that we are in. Unfortunately, we did not get it. As a result of the Chancellor's measures and the Budget, would any householder say, "This the Budget that I have been waiting for. I know that the country's economy has been in a mess and my household's income has been strained, but as a result of the Budget, I am going to buy a new carpet or a new refrigerator or try to do some home improvements or work on the car?" No householder will do that as he will first realise that the married person's allowance will be frozen, not for one year, but for two years. He will also realise that it will attract relief not at 20 per cent. instead of 25 per cent. in 1995, but at a mere 15 per cent. No householder would go out and buy anything. He would realise that tax relief on his mortgage will be at 15 per cent. in 1995, instead of 20 per cent. Personal allowances for working people are being frozen not for one year but for two. People who are working will receive no relief for the imposition of VAT on fuel. To be sure, pensioners will get some relief—exactly how much we do not know. Working people, however, will bear the brunt of the price hike in domestic fuel, from April 1994 and then again in April 1995.
    There have been other duty increases. Vehicle excise duty and duties on tobacco and wine have risen. On top of that there will be increases in the form of VAT on insuring cars and homes.
    All these increases will amount to at least £10 a week for most households. It is clear, therefore, that householders will not welcome this Budget. It beggars belief to think that the governing party assumes that it can win an election as a result of its economic management.

    1001
    People know that they have been had. People in Wrexham tell me that they thought that there was something in it when the Prime Minister told them to vote Conservative on 9 April and the recovery would begin on 10 April. They believed him when he said that he had no intention of introducing VAT on domestic fuel. They remember all that; the Government will not be allowed to forget the lies when the next election comes.
    No small business man will find much pleasure in the Budget either. Whatever the Government may say, I predict that small businesses will not like it. True, there are one or two small measures in the Budget for them—some of them of doubtful value. For instance, small businesses will no longer be obliged to hire an independent accountant to verify the accounts once a year. That could lead to an increase in fraud. I should have thought that many small business men wanted accountants to check, just to make sure that everything was right.
    Most small business men will look at the Budget's effects on the average citizen. If the average citizen feels that he has to tighten his belt and cannot afford to spend, because large increases in taxation are coming, he will do small businesses no favours. I do not believe that the Budget will do anything for small businesses.
    The Budget should have been about industry, about jobs and about renewal. It would be nice to have an occasional apology from the Government, to the effect that they have got things wrong and will do their best to get them right in future. But no. Typically, the Secretaq of State for Education did not apologise for leaking part of the Budget statement several hours before it was delivered. An apology would have cost nothing. The Treasury would have sanctioned an apology, but the right hon. Gentleman lacked the guts, the integrity or the decency to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "I am sorry; there was an administrative error. I will do my best to ensure that it doesn't happen again." This was a typical example of the Government's way of proceeding. They have their dogma, and it must be right, regardless of what happens in the country.
    What should have been done in the Budget? My hon. Friends have listed most of the salient points, so I will not dwell on them. Obviously, local authority capital receipts could have been released, allowing them to provide low-cost housing for people who need it. If local authorities provided that housing, people would need to fit carpets and put in fridges. Curtains, beds and chairs would be bought, and such purchases would provide a little impetus towards restarting the economy. But not a hit of it. Because of dogma, prejudice and probably ignorance the Government are not the slightest bit interested in doing anything to help industry and create jobs.
    They could have announced an urgent programme of training and retraining. Interest rates could have been cut. It is all very well for the Chancellor to say that he is leaving that to the Bank of England, but at the end of the day he decides whether to cut and leaves the detail to the bank. Real interest rates are still high and could be brought down, and I am sure that industry would welcome that.
    Capital allowances could have been increased from the 25 per cent. of the past five or six years to 40 per cent. after 31 December. Conservative Members say that we have the lowest corporation tax in the G7 or in Europe, but there is little point in saying that when capital allowances are small
    1002
    and difficult to come by. Of course, there is a trade-off, because if capital allowances were increased it would be necessary to increase corporation tax.
    The companies that do not invest much in machinery are attracted to this country because of its low corporation tax. Companies that invest much of their income in new plant and machinery and capital formation are not attracted here because our capital allowances are so poor. As I have said, through dogma, ignorance or prejudice the Government will not take that on board.
    Those measures and others would have increased production and employment and would have helped industry, but the Government failed to announce them. Instead, there is to be VAT on fuel. That need not have been imposed. For example, if duty on share transactions had been kept, VAT on fuel would be unnecessary or could have been limited to the first tranche of 7.5 or 8 per cent. Other ways could have been used to raise money.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that income tax for people earning £1,000 a week or more could be 60 per cent. There is no reason why such a rate should not be levied because those who are earning £1,000 could and should pay a little more. Of course, such people will not be asked to pay more. Pensioners and people on low incomes will be asked to do that through VAT on fuel.
    Pensioners will be helped to some extent with their fuel bills. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that a little more than half the extra cost would be met. If the Government have information to the effect that that is not true and that they will pay more than half, I would like to hear it, but I suspect that I shall wait in vain. VAT on fuel will also affect lone people and those on income support who are not pensioners. There are many low-paid people in my constituency. In Clwyd, women's wages are among the lowest in Great Britain and male wages are below average.
    Low-paid families will bear the full brunt of the Government's action in slapping VAT on fuel. Nothing that I have heard in debate will help those people. If family credit is increased in line with the retail prices index, those who claim it will get a little help but, of course, family credit is not claimed by anything like 100 per cent. of those who are entitled to it. Perhaps about two thirds of such people claim it. The Government will not get away with such a tax and then at the next general election pretend that it never happened. One of the biggest mistakes that they have made is to put VAT on fuel. That will take effect in April 1994, just before the European elections, and that will remind the country, clearly and lucidly, that everyone will face an extra charge for VAT on electricity and gas, and presumably on paraffin as well.
    That will not be the end of it. There will be an equal and added charge in April 1995. It will go up again. On top of that, every three months when the gas and electricity bills arrive, there will be a little line saying VAT £32.58 or VAT £27.66. That will happen not just once every three months but, because most people have electricity and gas, twice every three months. That is the best advertisement for the Government's inadequacies and their complete disdain of the needs and aspirations of working people.
    We are now a country where one company director can be paid an £18 million bonus, not because he has invented some marvellous piece of machinery, or anything like that, which will produce for the country untold wealth in future, or because he has manufactured something. No, all he has

    1003
    done is take some business from someone else to a different company, and for that he gets £18 million. That, according to the Government, is something that we are supposed to admire.
    At the same time, a bankrupt crooked business man who lost £32 million is told that he need not go to gaol. He is told, "Off you go and try to sell vacuum cleaners in future." The Government do not want to institute a system that will stop such an abuse and, once someone is caught, the case will be dropped or there will be some plea bargaining behind the scenes and no prison sentence will be imposed.
    It is a disgrace that the Government have done nothing to bring about integrity in the City. Such integrity is lacking, not, I have to say, in many quarters, but in some quarters in the City. I have yet to hear of any Government proposals to tidy that up. I suspect that I shall not because many City friends of Ministers and the Government are the very people who are coining it in, not paying the taxes that they should be paying, and the Government do not want to hurt them.
    We have had 14 years of Tory failure but the party is now over. The Government cannot blame the Labour party, only themselves, for the awful state that the economy is in. The pity of it is that they have no social conscience. It will not be the wealthy or those who can afford to pay who will have to make up for it it will be the pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the majority of low-paid people in my constituency. The sooner the Government get out of office the better.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to consider some aspects of the Budget that have been treated less intensely than others and to pick up the theme of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) when he said to the Chancellor, "Trust your pessimism and doubt your optimism".
    I want to explore that theme a little by looking at the Government's claims for the Budget. After all, it is an historic Budget. It is the first unified Budget this century, I believe, or for half a century at least. Therefore, not only is it unified, but it is four months earlier than most other Budgets have been.
    What are the consequences of producing a unified and early Budget? In the opening statement of the Treasury's press release on the Budget, the Government say:
    "This budget completes the job of sorting out the public finances. Sound public finances are essential for sustained recovery and higher living standards. This has been achieved by a combination of tight public spending control—with planned spending reduced by £3.6 billion in 1994-95 and £1.5 billion in 1995-96".
    The Budget claims that planned spending is reduced by £3.6 billion for next year. Where are those planned spending reductions? I cannot find them. The planned spending reductions are made entirely by wiping out the contingency reserves. According to page 97 of the Red Book, the departmental spending totals roughly balance—I am not sure whether to believe that—but the planned spending reserves are wiped out. According to page 97, there is a £3.5 billion reduction in planning reserves for
    1004
    1994–95 and the new controlled total is £3.6 billion. Of the total reduction of £3.6 billion, £3.5 billion appears to come from the wiping out of the contingency reserves.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): I want to spare the hon. Gentleman any further embarrassment as he is barking up the wrong tree. The amounts provided for the reserves are £3.5 billion in the first year, £7 billion in the second year and £10.5 million in the third year. In the past year, the sums were £4 billion, £7 billion and £10 billion. There is no difference in the amounts of the reserves over the three years—it is £500 million less in year one and £500 million more in year three.
    Mr. Morgan: Far from sparing me any embarrassment, the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed the figures in the Red Book. There was an original figure of £3.5 billion for next year that has now disappeared. To remove the contingency reserves from the present year is understandable, as we are approaching the final quarter of the year. That always happens, unless there has been unplanned overspending. But to remove the reserves for next year and claim that public spending has been reduced is completely fictitious. But that is what it says on page 97 of the Red Book.
    For 1995-96, what the right hon. Gentleman says may be perfectly true, but next year is the key year. That is where he has not been able to demonstrate anything correct; otherwise, he would be saying that his Red Book is incorrect. The contingency reserve and a £1.3 billion transfer of finances from this country's Treasury to the Treasury of the European Community is the total planned spending reduction. The £1.3 billion change from the past year is the only other change.
    If one adds up all the departmental spending changes, they are roughly balanced—less for defence, more for education, less for transport, more for one aspect of environmental expenditure. Public spending has not been reduced, but the figures presenting public spending have been reduced, if we believe them.
    The Budget has taken place four months earlier than usual. What does the Red Book say about that? Page 137 says that the impact is to increase the margin of error of forecasts. The average margin of error for PSBR forecasts in a March Budget is £8 billion. By announcing the Budget in November and by using the previous November public expenditure estimates, there is an average margin of error of £10¼ billion. The margin of error has increased by £2¼ billion and the contingency reserve has been decreased by £3.35 billion. So is a unified Budget fictitious? In fact, we shall find that there will be hidden expenditure increases or supplementary borrowing next year. The Budget is intended to massage the market and hide from the public the Departments that will really carry the expenditure cuts next year. All that we have been presented with so far is a netting-out Budget, but the claim will be made that planned public spending is down when it is nothing of the kind so far. If the wiping out of the contingency reserves is eventually found to be a mistake—if North sea oil receipts fall well below expectations next year, for instance—the Government will have to increase the public sector borrowing requirement to cover it.
    The Government cannot have it both ways. They must either cut public expenditure in the individual

    1005
    Departments, as shown on page 97 of the Red Book, or not. If departmental expenditure is not cut, how will the Government close the £50 billion gap and how will it be reduced to £38 billion next year entirely on the tax side? The Government are clearly not doing it entirely on the tax side; the problem is that they are pretending to have achieved a public expenditure cut that they are not willing to attribute to any individual Department. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr Marek)—it is Government dishonesty on a massive scale. It is no wonder that Roger Levitt was let off with just 180 hours of community service; he could have been a member of the present Government—we have seen a triumph of creative accountancy and market massaging of which he would have been proud.
    Normally, when we use the phrase "Clark the conman, who was economical with the actualite", we are taken to be referring to Alan Clark, the former Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton. I fear, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken considerable risks with his own reputation today by saying things like "Planned public spending has been reduced", given that it is impossible to find the aggregate of the Departments in which it has been reduced; it can only be seen being switched from one Department to another. That strikes me as being dishonest with the British people—or, alternatively, with the financial markets. I am very much afraid that, by tomorrow morning, they will have woken up to the truth, and will not buy the message that planned public spending has been reduced.
    If the Government want to have it both ways, they will be caught out by the reaction of the public to an increased margin of error accompanied by a reduced contingency reserve. Would hon. Members like to run a business in that way? I do not think that they would. To present a unified Budget in November rather than March is to take a risk with sound public finances—despite the Government's claim to be the master of sound public finance, and their claim that they will have eliminated public sector borrowing by the end of the millennium. They do not specify the millennium concerned, but they say that they are now back on the strait and narrow; the £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement is there this year, but give them another seven years and they will have sorted it all out. That is not just Red Book—it is red flannel, and it will give unified Budgets a bad name right from the start.
    The reason is, of course, that the Government are in trouble with their reputation as a tax-cutting party. They love that reputation, but today it has been blown to smithereens. It has always been fair to say that the Conservative party is not a tax-cutting but a tax-switching party—a party that prefers to introduce fees, duties, imposts, indirect taxes and any other measures rather than increase the rate of income tax. This year, no one is likely to claim that the Conservative party is a tax-cutting party; people will say that it is a party that freezes allowances, thus increasing taxes indirectly, and puts VAT on goods such as fuel.
    People have no choice about spending on fuel, unless they want to go out on their bikes to chop their own wood. VAT has become a compulsory tax on compulsory expenditure, rather than on discretionary expenditure which involves a choice. That is a new principle—imposing VAT on unavoidable expenditure. No one, except perhaps a Yogi monk who might last the winter wearing
    1006
    only a loin cloth, could manage without fuel expenditure. This is a compulsory tax in exactly the same way as income tax is a compulsory tax.
    The Government want to keep headline taxes low, and to try to flannel the British public into believing that the non-headline ways of increasing taxation—freezing or reducing allowances, imposing excise duties and putting new tolls on roads; all those ways of imposing fees, charges, duties and imposts—somehow do not have the same impact as income tax increases. In the end, it is all about headline impact. I know that we are not allowed to read newspapers in the Chamber, but it is fascinating to examine the headlines in the different editions of today's Evening Standard. The early edition—obviously produced with a good deal of heavy briefing from the Chancellor—said:
    "Income Tax: It's A Let-Off'.
    Wonderful; the British public are really pleased and will be going out to celebrate. A couple of hours later it becomes, "Clarke turns screw on tax and spending". That is getting a bit closer to reality, but who was doing the briefing earlier in the day to say that it was a let-off on the income tax? It is all about headline taxes and headline grabbing by the Chancellor to ensure that he is a popular man.
    We are looking, therefore, at what will really happen next year. Has the Chancellor hidden cuts in departmental budgets in today's Budget statement in the hope that something will turn up? If something does not turn up, the Government will bring in real cuts next year, even though they have given a commitment today that a departmental budget will be such and such. They have said that health spending will increase by a certain amount, although not by as much as the increase in health inputs. So it will be a real cut in health spending.
    We fear that the position will get worse unless something turns up. We believe that there are hidden departmental cuts and that the Government have not had the guts to put them in the Budget.
    The Chancellor claimed that one does not need a contingency allowance because the Treasury has discovered a new method of public expenditure control. The Treasury always says that. I remember that, 15 years ago, the Treasury said that it had discovered a new method of public expenditure control, and that therefore one could manage with a lower level of expenditure controls and contingency reserves than before. We have heard that for 15 years and we are bored with it. It does not work. It is always the same message from a new clever bunch of people at the Treasury who say that they are cleverer than the previous bunch, even if the previous bunch were all in the same party as them, and that includes the Prime Minister himself.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said that today's Budget was intended to increase the popularity of the Chancellor. He is absolutely correct. The Chancellor has not had the guts to say what he is really doing. He has not had the guts to say which departmental budgets are going to carry the knock, nor has he said what the total expenditure will be next year.
    One cannot simply wipe out the contingency reserve without having some allowance in it in case some of the tax projections do not come through, if the winter weather is far worse, or if North sea oil receipts fall, or whatever. The Chancellor is like the famous American congressman in the 1920s who said that what he believed in was sound money and plenty of it. The Chancellor will have to learn

    1007
    that if he does the Budget on the basis that he wants to be popular, he will find that he cannot have it both ways and he will go down as a Chancellor who is irresponsible and too imprudent to believe that he needed a contingency reserve. He will not produce a Budget that is for the good long-term government of the country.
    9.37 pm
    Dr. Lynne Jones: I should like to ask some questions of the Budget. What will it do to increase investment in manufacturing research and development to the level of that in our competitor countries? What will it do to reverse the growing inequality in our society?
    What will the Budget do to help those people who will not be affected by the increase in insurance premiums on cars and home contents insurance; first, because they do not have cars; and secondly, because they cannot afford to insure their homes, vulnerable as they are—in many cases more vulnerable than the average—to burglaries? What will the Budget do to reduce substantially unemployment levels over those predicted, even if the Government succeed in sustaining the pathetic levels of growth that are starting to come through?
    I shall talk first about manufacturing. There has been some help in the Budget to encourage retention rather than distribution of profits. Let us look at the scale of the problem in our industry. For example, the figures that were recently released by Kleinwort Benson show that the real cost of capital for research and development projects over a long-term 10-year pay-off in the UK was 60 per cent. higher than in Germany, and three times higher than in Japan. That is the scale of the problem that the Government need to address. I am not convinced that the measures announced in the Budget will come anywhere near dealing with the deficit in manufacturing investment. Manufacturing investment is needed to deal with the deficit in our balance of trade.
    I listened to the radio today as I drove down to London from Birmingham, where I was attending a Boundary Commission review. I noticed that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) shared my doubt about whether the Budget would provide the boost that manufacturing required.
    My second question is about the inequality in our society. We all know that under the Conservative Government the rich have got richer and the poor poorer. In relative terms the poor pay more tax. The taxation policies of the Government have been regressive in the extreme, not least because of the increase and expansion of VAT.
    There has been some help for pensioners and those on income support, thank goodness. But what about the people who are just above the income support level such as families with children? A third of the children in Britain are being brought up in poverty. Most of them are from families on income support, but many more are on low incomes. There is nothing in the Budget to help them.
    The freezing of tax allowances, the attack on unemployment benefit and the attack on disability benefits are again regressive measures. It would have been far
    1008
    better to increase the rate of taxation for the better off than once again to freeze the tax allowances because to do so disproportionately affects the low earners.
    The Chancellor announced a small amount of extra money for insulation schemes. I should like to comment on those schemes in relation to my two questions about inequality and poverty and about jobs. I do not know whether it has been mentioned so far, but this week is Conserve Energy week. On Monday I helped to insulate the home of a pensioner in my constituency as part of one of the Government schemes which will be expanded. That is welcome, in so far as it goes, but all it does is to reverse the cuts which have taken place in recent years on such schemes.
    The elderly lady lived in a Victorian terraced house which she rented from a private landlord. She could not use the upstairs because of her disability, so she lived downstairs. The front room was heated only by a two-bar electric fire—a very inefficient source of heating. She used the middle room as a bedroom, in which she had a gas fire—a slightly more efficient source of heating. The kitchen was very cold and situated in a wing building in the Victorian villa-type house. The lady had to heat it by lighting one of the gas rings. The room was full of condensation as a result of that poor quality heating system.
    That lady will benefit from the couple of hundred pounds worth of insulation to draught-strip her doors and windows and insulate her loft. But what she really needs is a much more effective and efficient heating system that is cheap to run. She needs something doing about the fact that, due to the lack of investment in that type of property, she has to go outside every time that she needs to use the toilet. Such improvements would cost far more than the £200 or £300 per household which is provided for under the scheme. Welcome and job creating as such schemes are, just think how much more it would help the poor and the badly off massively to expand such schemes.
    Even with the increase in the programme, it will take 25 years to deal with the 6 million homes which have poor insulation. It will take far more than draught-stripping and loft insulation to bring our homes up to the level of those in Sweden, which does not have the level of excess deaths in winter that we have to suffer, even though it has a much colder climate.
    Programmes to invest in insulation will not only help people on low incomes; they will create jobs and conserve energy. Those are the very programmes that need to be expanded dramatically—not merely by £35 million. The Government are taking billions out of the economy by placing VAT on fuel. Surely they could put a substantial proportion of that back into energy conservation programmes and improvements in housing. Surely the money gained from the loss of mortgage interest relief could be reinvested in bricks and mortar. That would help not only the people living in unfit houses and the homeless, but create jobs.
    The pathetic level of child care provision, £28 a week—welcome as it is—illustrates the Government's attitude towards jobs for women, and the low level of remuneration that they are expected to receive for important jobs such as looking after children. It costs far more than £28 a week to pay somebody a proper rate to look after children. It is time that the Government learnt about the realities of life for ordinary. people.

    1009
    The Budget goes nowhere near addressing the real problems in our economy. It is designed to appeal to the right-wingers in the Tory party—and to boost the Chancellor's popularity when the time comes perhaps to replace the present Prime Minister—but it contains nothing that will give hope to the unemployed, to those living in poverty or to the 53 per cent. of workers who fear that they might lose their jobs.
    I predict that under the Government the recovery will be short-lived and that we will soon be back in a recession. The Government have failed to tackle one of the underlying problems in our economy—the lack of investment in manufacturing. They should help those people who would give a boost to the economy by consuming the type of goods that do not suck in imports. They should generally invest in public sector projects, because those projects will create the jobs that we need.
    The recovery will be short-lived. If there is any hope arising out of the Budget, it is that it will ensure that we have a Labour Government after the next general election.
    9.46 pm
    Mr. Alan Duncan: This Budget must have broken all records for the extent to which it has been discussed and fought about so much in advance. People have adopted postures about this Budget—some of them utterly simplistic, some rather more sweetly reasoned—almost since the day that the former Chancellor sat down after delivering his speech in Karch.
    I took the view then, and I have had little cause to change my mind, that the then Chancellor could have been more severe more quickly in tackling the deficit, and that the fear of undermining the so-called fragile recovery was misplaced. I prefer the approach in "Macbeth" that
    "'if it were done … then 'twere well
    It were done quickly:"
    Any suggestion that the recovery should be fuelled by the stoking up of consumer demand would be equally misplaced, because the last thing that we want is a return to the cycle of boom and bust. Anyone can create the illusion of recovery by fuelling inflationary consumer demand, and the test of the Budget is whether the Chancellor has resisted that temptation and looked instead to the long term and to the laying of foundations for sustainable prosperity, which involves a shift away from our obsession with property that is so damaging for investment in business.
    One way of looking at our economic predicament is by the immediate indicators that we use to measure our performance. To understand properly the decisions that we needed to take, we must look far beyond our domestic figures, not just across the English channel to our European partners, but far across the ocean to the Americas and to the tiger economies of the east.
    Any sensible assessment of our economic well-being is necessarily a study in comparative performance: it is about competitiveness. If all that we do is to perform as we have performed before, and no better, the rest of the world will overtake us. If we are to maintain or improve our international competitiveness, we need to proceed faster than the speed of the escalator moving against us in the opposite direction. Stand still and we would be drawn backwards. Had the Chancellor got the Budget wrong, we would have run the risk of coming perilously close to standing still.
    1010
    Britain has been traditionally blessed with the disposition to take a world view. That outlook has made us ambivalent about our association with the European Community, not just because we look to our close association with the United States but because we are rightly wary of becoming too closely tied to the habits and practices of the severely under-performing economic chub which is the EC.
    That clear picture of our comparative economic performance vindicates, as if it were necessary, the unique stand that Britain took at Maastricht in resisting the social chapter and the imposition of a single currency. It also vindicates the Government's efforts to secure a successful conclusion to the GATT round, which deserves everyone's full support, despite the siren calls of Sir James Goldsmith and Ross Perot to cocoon us in the illusory comfort of protection.
    That is the big picture; but what about the immediate indicators? First and foremost, after some roller-coaster years at the end of the 1980s we are back in reality and that is exactly where we must remain. Gone are the days of either boom or bust; gone is the absurd belief, which infected so many who should have known better, that the business cycle had been abolished for ever. Back has come the realisation that any progress that is real and sustainable will be gradual and unremarkable. That is how it should remain.
    Within the larger picture the immediate indicators are broadly encouraging. Inflation is at its lowest for 25 years; productivity has shown some remarkable improvement; interest rates, at 5.5 per cent., are the lowest for many years; the stock market is buoyant; and unemployment is falling faster than many predicted and faster than suits the Labour party.
    Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, just because claimant unemployment has come down, that does not necessarily present an accurate measure of actual unemployment. Reference has been made to the fact that the number of long-term unemployed has fallen, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that people are disqualified from appearing on the register if they are no longer able to claim. If their wives take a job and those men lose their unemployment benefit after 12 months, they are still unemployed, but they are not claimant unemployed, so they disappear from the figures.
    Mr. Duncan: What matters most is the genuine opportunity to acquire a real job. I am confident, and all the more so as a result of what has been announced today, that our policies will deliver those jobs, while those of the hon. Gentleman will destroy them.
    My only caveat amidst the good news—and it is a large one—is that the PSBR has been far too large and that, even in the midst of a severe recession, our trade balance has continued, stubbornly, to run at a deficit. Here lies the key because absolutely everything points to the need for a significant shift, sizeable and permanent, away from consumption to investment. We have been living on tick and now is the time to stop.
    Today's Budget has taken some important steps towards rebalancing the economy to prepare for long-term prosperity. Some themes behind that must not be ignored. For instance, I endorse the discipline of European convergence criteria, because it is a good orthodox discipline, not because it would take us along the road to

    1011
    monetary union. If a common orthodoxy helps other EC economies to behave similarly, steady exchange rates will follow. If balanced parities are established, the call for a formal mechanism to govern exchange rates simply becomes redundant and should be resisted.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: How will honouring the convergence criteria get unemployment down?
    Mr. Duncan: That kind of orthodox fiscal discipline will lay the right foundations for the prosperity that will deliver jobs.
    As this is the first Budget to consider simultaneously revenue and spending, it highlights certain elementary problems. The main one is unmatched expectations. I have devised my own first law of public spending. It is that anyone's expectation of what the Government should deliver always exceeds the sum total of everyone's contribution to that cause. The Budget needs to be seen as commencing the task of rebalancing people's expectations with the real cost of what they are asking for.
    This has been a masterly Budget, and in my view it passes the tests which I have just described. The Budget has introduced discipline in spending, fairness in raising revenue and imagination in encouraging the wealth-creating energies of the economy. In addressing spending, the Chancellor has tackled head on the deficit which has bedevilled us for the past few years.
    My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Budget was about sound finance. He deserves recognition for restoring fiscal rectitude on a scale which no one had predicted before he rose to speak this afternoon. Some had spoken of cutting the public sector borrowing requirement by a further £2 billion. Some, rashly, had predicted a cut of £3 billion. None had dared predict an overall reduction of £5.5 billion, followed by £7 billion and then £10.5 billion, as was delivered in the Chancellor's statement today.
    I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber. Great credit should be given to him for the strict discipline which has been put into public spending decisions. To have no borrowing at the end of the decade is a worthy discipline. I might add that to have surpluses after that is an even worthier discipline. I welcome the fact that spending is due to increase less than growth, and that Government spending as a percentage of national income will fall from 45 per cent. to 42.5 per cent. That is part of the rebalancing that we so desperately need.
    The major element of the Chancellor's spending announcement today has been the package of compensation for those poorer people who must pay VAT on fuel. Those who have waged a campaign against the extension of VAT have overplayed their hand. They adopted their stance and wrote their letters before the balancing side of the equation had been announced. Today, a generous and well-directed package has been announced.-It will benefit all those on benefit, and indeed will benefit many who are not on benefit. The compensation will go to all pensioners and thereby will benefit many who have a low income but who are on the cusp and do not qualify for benefits. Furthermore, an element of the package will be paid a year early. In some cases, the package will exceed the cost of VAT on fuel to certain individuals. The package should be welcomed, and the complaints should now stop.
    1012
    The social security measures also pass the tests which I described in my opening remarks. The Government today displayed the foresight that is properly required of a responsible Government. The equalisation of the pension age is a logical and compelling policy which, at last, has been addressed. In doing so, the Government have put to shame robustly those people who tried to scare people who are on the brink of retirement by saying that they would be adversely affected. The policy will not alter the plans of any woman who is now aged over 44. Indeed, the measure will be phased in over 10 years starting from 2010. The measure will, however, bring pensions expectations into line with what we are able to afford. That is in stark contrast to the deceitful promises of the Opposition.
    I welcome the amalgamation of income support and unemployment benefit into a single job seeker's allowance, and I welcome also the replacement of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit by an incapacity benefit. Nothing was more noticeable today than the Opposition's churlish reaction to the introduction of the £28 per week child care allowance for those who are on family credit. For many, that is a lot of money. If £3 a week for VAT on fuel is a lot of money—as all Opposition Members have charged relentlessly since March—then £28 a week for child care is a hell of a lot of money. Opposition Members should express their gratitude for the decision made today in the Budget.
    Capital spending has been maintained at £22 billion. Importantly, the measures for small business should be enthusiastically welcomed. Increasing the VAT threshold to £45,000, dropping statutory audit requirements, revising capital gains tax provisions and introducing the venture capital trust and the enterprise investment scheme will turn a lot of new investment towards small business. I welcome the Chancellor's decision to fill that gap in the financing of small business.
    Everything that the Chancellor has announced today is in stark contrast to what has been proposed by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is the creation of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but as he was being assembled at some secret dungeon in Walworth road a bolt of lightning must have hit the building and flashed across the lab. As a result—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Glenlight Shipping Company
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the future of the transport of bulk freight to the Scottish islands. As the Minister knows, that is carried out mainly and significantly by the Glenlight shipping company, which I believe is dedicated to supplying the islands. Of course, other shippers, such as Gardeners, Dennisons and the Easdale Island shipping company, are involved. One could say that they are the last link with the 150-year-old tradition of coastal puffers.
  Glenlight employs 50 people, and many more are involved in support services. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clyde shipping company, founded in 1815, which is a privately owned Scottish based and

  1013
  Scottish controlled company. Glenlight operates three coastal freighters and two barge systems—a far cry from the image conjured up by Para Handy and the Vital Spark. Nevertheless, the operation is still of significant importance to the highland economies.
  The shipping company provides bulk freight services to, from and within the highlands and islands, and to Northern Ireland. It transports such commodities as coal, salt, building materials, cement, steel fencing and roadstone. It serves islands as far afield as Barra, Canna, Tiree and Lismore, in my constituency. I have received representations from some of those islands in the past week, and I shall quote part of a letter from the community council on the island of Lismore:
  "I am writing to you on behalf of Lismore Community Council to express our concern over the plight of the Glenlight Shipping Company. We feel that the loss of the company would have very serious consequences for the island communities.
  At present our entire supply of coal along with lime and other bulk materials are supplied to Lismore by Glenlight Shipping Company. The loss of the service would rely in much greater reliance on road haulage and Caledonian MacBrayne Ferries. This would not only put an unacceptable strain on mainland roads and the…ferry service but would inevitably lead to a considerable rise in delivery charges."
  Mr. John McFall: As the hon. Lady knows, we have a shared constituency interest, and the issue of road transport brings me to my feet. As we know, in the year to 31 December 1992 the Glenlight shipping company recorded 500 transport movements, representing about 55,000 tonnes of bulk freight and 45,000 tonnes of round timber. To move an equivalent tonnage by road would take 5,000 20-tonne lorries, which would use the road that my constituency shares with the hon. Lady's—the Rest and Be Thankful. Can she envisage 1,000 lorries coming down that road every week of the year? Is there not a sound community case as well as an economic case for retaining this subsidy for Glenlight?
  Mrs. Michie: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope to say more later about the environmental effects. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The lorries would join the other trucks that cart up and down the roads the oil freight that the west highland railway line lost recently.
  Glenlight is a pioneering firm. Together with timber growers and processors, it developed the concept of special barges with roll-on/roll-off flaps to run on to beaches and take large loads of timber, shipping them to Irvine, Workington and Northern Ireland. In fact, two of those landing areas are at Ardcastle and near Carradale in my constituency. The potential for further development of this type of barge transport by sea down the west coast of Scotland is considerable.
  The Minister may remember writing to me on 23 February this year. In that letter, he said:
  "The Glenlight scheme is therefore supported by The Scottish Office, the Forestry Commission, private forestry interests, the timber processing industry, Strathclyde and, the Highland Regional Councils and Highlands and Islands Enterprise."
  The Minister agreed that what the company was doing was worth while.
  I understand that the effect of tariff rebate subsidy on the timber barge operation has resulted in land and standing timber values increasing. It has also provided the Forestry Commission's balance sheet with greater than expected timber stocks because remotely located supplies can now be brought to market at a competitive cost.
  1014
  Glenlight has told the Scottish Office that without increased financial help it can no longer provide private enterprise money to support this lifeline service to the islands. Last year, it suffered a loss of £287,000 with its coasters making some 500 journeys to and from ports in the highlands and islands carrying 100,000 tonnes of cargo, of which 45,000 tonnes were timber.
  The problem is that the present level of tariff rebate subsidy, whose purpose is to equalise the price of goods between the Scottish mainland and the islands, does not take proper account of the operating costs of providing that vital service. At this point, I must stress that Glenlight would be extremely reluctant to withdraw its service. Should that happen, we must look at the consequences.
  The alternative to the environmentally friendly sea transport is transport by road. That does not bear thinking about. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about huge 20-tonne lorries trucking the freight by ferry and road throughout the highlands and islands, increasing danger, congestion, noise and pollution. Not only would the cost to the island customer rise significantly, putting many such as coal merchants and building firms out of business. The cost of repairs to the damage done to the miles of narrow single-track roads would be much more significant than the cost of the tariff rebate subsidy. "Value for money" is the Government's watchword. That would cease to be so if everything had to be transported by road.
  As the Minister knows, the tariff rebate subsidy covers certain goods shipped within the highlands and islands area. The level of subsidy depends on the commodity carried, and ranges from 10 per cent. to 40 per cent.
  However, to bring commercial and financial viability to those lifeline freight services, Glenlight would like the Scottish Office to adopt an across-the-board TRS of 40 per cent. without arbitrary capping. It is essential to come to an agreement that includes a longer term programme and allows more certainty and stability for future planning.
  Although it is not helpful to carry out such sensitive negotiations under an ultimatum, it can nevertheless concentrate the mind, and Glenlight has been negotiating with the Scottish Office for the past three years.
  A report commissioned by the Shetland Islands council entitled "Sea Freight and Passenger Costs Study", produced in March this year by the Maritime Economic Research Centre, says:
  "UK Government support for the services is therefore limited to a tariff reduction scheme, whereby rebates are given to consumers of the transport services on tariffs set commercially by shipping operators, in order to reduce rates to more 'acceptable' levels. Support is therefore targeted at the users of the services, rather than at the operators themselves."
  The Minister will be aware of the apprehension and deep sense of unease felt by the islanders and those living at ports on the mainland about the future of Caledonian MacBrayne. I hope that he will not add to it by a lack of commitment to shipping freight services.
  Sea freight is just one of the strands—part of the mosaic—in the many efforts being made by Government, local authorities, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, local companies, voluntary organisations and communities to stem the tide of depopulation, to hold the line. On some islands the battle has already been lost. The indigenous people have gone, and with them the language, culture, traditions and the values of their way of life. But others are hanging in there, albeit on a fragile basis, and they are determined to succeed.

  1015
  That is where the Government come in as an enabler to create the infrastructure that will help them to survive—surely a good example of public and private enterprise working together. The Government owe it to those people on those highland islands to make reparation for what has gone before. The ultimate aim should be to make the islands less dependent on the mainland and more self-sufficient, trading between themselves. That is my vision for the future of the highland islands.
  I thank the Minister for listening and hope that he will give a positive answer.
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I welcome this debate, and I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on initiating it. I am glad that the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are also present.
  The debate gives me an opportunity to answer a number of points that have been made in the press recently about Glenlight Shipping Ltd and to clarify the Scottish Office's position in support of shipping services to the highland and islands area.
  Unfortunately, there have been a number of misleading statements about Glenlight's position as a shipping operator on the west coast, the adverse consequences of its possible withdrawal and the Government's commitment to supporting essential shipping services to the islands.
  I should first make it clear that the Scottish Office remains committed to providing the financial support for shipping services necessary to maintain and improve economic and social conditions in the islands. Shipping services necessarily play an essential part in maintaining the viability of island communities. In recognition of that, the Scottish Office has greatly increased subsidies for shipping services provided by Caledonian MacBrayne, P and 0 Scottish Ferries and bulk shipping operators from the level of £10.8 million in 1989–90 to £17 million this year. That represents an increase of 57 per cent. over the past five years. In that period, the level of support provided under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme for P and 0 Scottish Ferries and currently nine coastal bulk cargo carriers has risen from £5.3 million in 1989-90 to £9.8 million this year. That represents an increase of 85 per cent. in provision over the past five years.
  It might help the House if I were to explain how the tariff rebate subsidy scheme operates. It operates simply on the basis of providing for reductions in shipping operators' normal commercial tariffs. The bulk shipping operator decides on the tariff that will be set on a normal commercial basis for the carriage of a particular cargo. If the cargo and destination are eligible for subsidy under the scheme, he will then reduce the commercial tariff by a percentage decided by the Scottish Office: The Scottish Office then pays subsidy to the shipping operator to compensate for the revenue forgone by tariff reductions. Subsidy of that type directly benefits the islands by reducing the cost of importing essential commodities and of exporting economically important island produce.
  The subsidy is not a direct subsidy to shipping operators, although without such support the shipping services could not be provided at a cost affordable to
  1016
  customers in the highlands and islands. The main commodities covered by the scheme are coal, fertiliser, building materials, foodstuffs, animal feeds and, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute suggested, timber. Subvention rates on the west coast are 40 per cent. for shipments to the islands and 30 per cent. for island exports.
  At present under the scheme, we support P and 0 Scottish Ferries and nine coastal freight carriers, including Glenlight Shipping Ltd. Glenlight is one of five coastal freight shippers operating on the west coast of Scotland that receive support. It is necessary, in discussing the importance of Glenlight's shipping services, to recognise that Glenlight is only one of five coastal freight carriers operating off the west coast.
  It is also necessary to recognise that probably 10 times as much freight is carried by commercial vehicles travelling on Caledonian MacBrayne's ferries as is carried by the five bulk shippers operating on the west coast. In recent years there has been on the west coast, with the introduction of modern roll-on/roll-off ferries, a progressive transfer of freight from coastal bulk cargo carriers to roll-on/roll-off ferries. That is a pattern of change that has applied all over the world where roll-on/roll-off ferries capable of carrying commercial vehicles have been introduced.
  One of the misleading impressions currently held about Glenlight is that the company's freight services on the west coast are in some sense unique and essential. That is clearly incorrect in the circumstances when there are four other coastal freight carriers providing similar services in the same areas, as well as Caledonian MacBrayne's ferries already carrying approximately 90 per cent. of all freight carried by sea.
  Another misleading assumption that has been made is that the withdrawal of one particular company's freight services would necessarily cause a great increase in commercial vehicle traffic on roads in the islands. I have considerable difficulty with that argument. At the moment freight to the islands, such as coal, fertiliser, building materials and foodstuffs, is carried either by bulk shippers or by commercial vehicles on ferries. On the islands, those commodities have to be distributed by commercial vehicles, however they may have been carried to the islands. Therefore, the withdrawal by one company of bulk shipping services would be unlikely to affect substantially either the total volume of freight traffic to the islands or the pattern of distribution by commercial vehicles on the islands.
  A third misguided assumption that has been made about the possible withdrawal of Glenlight from operating in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area is that it would lead to the transport of commodities in smaller amounts by commercial vehicles, and hence to higher costs for carriers and residents of the islands. That in turn would lead to serious economic problems for the islands. As I have already said, four other bulk cargo carriers besides Glenlight operate, all of them receiving financial assistance through the scheme. There is also evidence of considerable excess carrying capacity in the coastal freight market.
  In the event of Glenlight's withdrawal, the likely outcome is that one or more of the other bulk shipping operators would carry the cargoes previously shipped by Glenlight, at similar cost.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I hope that the Minister will get more positive. Will he confirm that the

  1017
  gist of his remarks so far is to suggest that we do not need Glenlight, and that the Government are happy to watch the market operate and then see the company withdraw from providing a valuable service to the islands?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. I have made it absolutely clear that large subsidies have been and are being given through the tariff rebate subsidy, which has been greatly increased in recent years. Moreover, there must be a level playing field for all bulk carriers in the islands.
  I come now to the heart of the case presented by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. Since 1991, Glenlight Shipping Ltd. has made a number of representations to the Scottish Office seeking additional assistance under the scheme. The Department took a number of steps within the scope of the scheme to provide the company with additional assistance. First, the tariff rebate subsidy was restored in 1992 for shipments of timber from remote mainland locations, and the TRS rate for carriage of timber was increased to 40 per cent.
  Secondly, Glenlight's entitlement to TRS assistance was increased from £245,000 in 1992-93 to £350,000 in 1993-94 in the light of higher traffic levels forecast by the company.
  Thirdly, Glenlight was paid a revenue grant of £200,000 in 1992-93, in addition to TRS assistance totalling nearly £247,000, partly to meet the operating loss incurred that year. The additional assistance given as revenue grant in 1992-93 was made available, exceptionally in recognition of the company's development costs incurred in introducing a specialised tug and barge system for the transport of roundwood logs from remote locations.
  Fourthly, the Scottish Office agreed, pending consideration of the company's recent application for additional assistance this year, to meet all eligible TRS claims for November and December in excess of Glenlight's cap level of £350,000 for this year. Officials have had several meetings with the company's directors in 1992 and 1993 to discuss the company's financial difficulties. It has been made repeatedly clear to the company that no commitment can be given to any long-term change in the arrangements in advance of the conclusion of the review of shipping subsidies schemes which is now taking place. But we have already provided the additional assistance that I have described to help the company to continue providing services on the west coast this year.
  Although the review is unlikely to be concluded before March next year, Glenlight Shipping has demanded an answer early in December this year to its request for an increase in assistance this year,. from £350,000 to £500,000, and a revenue deficit grant of £625,000—taken together, a sum in excess of £1 million. This assistance is being sought in the present financial year alone. It represents a large amount of funding being demanded by just one bulk shipping operator in the scheme. Also, the demand for revenue deficit grant represents a sort of assistance, different from tariff rebate subsidy, which no other bulk shipping operator receives under the scheme.
  In considering Glenlight's case we have to take careful account of the effect on other operators in the scheme, and ensure a level playing field. It would be wrong of the Scottish Office to take any action that would distort competition among shipping operators. Nevertheless, in view of Glenlight's immediate concern about its financial position, the Scottish Office's accounting services unit
  1018
  carried out an investigation into the company's financial and trading position—an investigation recently concluded. It is now urgently considering Glenlight's request for assistance in the light of the accountancy services report, and we expect to decide on the matter in the very near future.
  I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that the Scottish Office remains absolutely committed to providing the funding support for shipping services that is necessary to maintain and improve economic and social conditions in the islands. This is evidenced by the wide-ranging review that we are undertaking. I also assure hon. Members that the most careful and urgent consideration is being given to the particular concerns of Glenlight Shipping. However, that consideration must take into account the need for equitable treatment of all shipping operators supported by the scheme. It cannot involve any major change to the present subsidy arrangements in advance of the outcome of the current shipping subsidies review.
  That review provides the context in which Glenlight must be considered, and is examining the present arrangements under which financial assistance is being provided for shipping services to Orkney, Shetland and the islands off the west coast of Scotland. We shall also review the options for the future organisation and structure of CalMac, including the scope for introducing private sector participation in the provision of CalMac's services.
  The review's main objective is to establish whether it is possible to improve the existing arrangements for providing financial support for shipping services in ways that are consistent with safeguarding the interests of island residents. Achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in the targeting of subsidies, and hence in the delivery of shipping services, would provide better services for existing users. The study is being carried out by KPMG Management Consultants, which will report to the Scottish Office in the first quarter of next year, and thereafter we shall carefully consider the consultants' findings and recommendations before deciding on action.
  I assure hon. Members that the tariff rebate subsidy scheme as it applies to Orkney and Shetland services and to bulk shipping services on the west coast of Scotland is a major element of the review.
  Before saying more about Glenlight's specific circumstances, I should like to mention the recent BBC "Focal Point" programme which dealt with Glenlight's present difficulties. I have seldom come across a more misleading and incomplete analysis of an important matter. The programme wholly ignored the fact that as well as Glenlight there are at least four other bulk shipping operators providing services on the west coast. It suggested, in my view erroneously, that the reduction in bulk freight services would lead to more traffic on island roads, and it made scaremongering references to the possibility of increased transport costs for bulk freight.
  We shall look at the case with the utmost care, come to a decision as soon as possible, and inform the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute as soon as we have formed a view. In the long term, the consultants' terms of reference are to review all aspects of the present tariff rebate subsidy scheme with respect to shipping services and bulk shipping services on the west coast; all operations of the present deficit grant subsidy system with respect to CalMac; to examine a range of options for the possible introduction of private sector participation, which I have mentioned; and to make recommendations about future shipping subsidies.

  1019
  The consultants are making steady progress with the study. They have had wide-ranging discussions with the shipping companies, local authorities, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, local enterprise companies, users of the services and other interested parties. They have gathered a wide range of material on the schemes and will shortly embark on their examination of options for improving the current arrangements.
  I assure the hon. Lady that the tariff rebate subsidy scheme for west coast operators will be carefully studied along with all other aspects of the terms of reference of this important study. We wish to be in the best possible position to take fully informed decisions about the best means of securing the future of the shipping services that are necessary to ensure the social and economic well-being of the islands. We intend the review to examine fully the
  1020
  causes of problems experienced by operators such as Glenlight and, in the light of that examination, to recommend any changes thought to be necessary.
  We shall study with the utmost care the remarks tonight of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute before final decisions on the matter are made.
  Mr. McLeish: We need the report.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have said that the report is due next year.
  Glenlight wants a decision on this matter as soon as possible. I shall consider with the greatest care what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has said. However, I hope that she will appreciate that one of the subsidies that Glenlight is asking for is not similar to any that has been offered hitherto. That is a point that I am bound to make in this debate, but we shall consider carefully all that the hon. Lady has said tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss the future of the Personal Investment Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Gross personal income

  The top decile point and top percentile point for persons aged 16 and over

  £ per year

  At current prices

  At constant 1992 prices

  Top 10 per cent.

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Top 1 per cent.

  1979

  6,200

  11,600

  15,100

  28,400

  1980

  7,400

  14,600

  15,400

  30,200

  1981

  8,500

  16,700

  15,700

  30,900

  1982

  9,100

  17,200

  15,500

  29,400

  1983

  9,900

  20,200

  16,700

  33,000

  1984

  10,400

  20,800

  16,200

  32,300

  1985

  11,400

  23,900

  16,700

  34,900

  1986

  12,500

  26,800

  17,700

  38,000

  1987

  13,700

  31,400

  18,700

  42,700

  1988

  15,100

  34,900

  19,600

  45,200

  1989

  16,200

  35,300

  19,700

  42,400

  1990

  18,400

  42,400

  20,200

  46,600

  1991

  19,700

  43,700

  20,400

  45,300

  1992

  20,300

  44,700

  20,300

  44,700

  The figures in the table are rounded to the nearest £100. The constant price figures are calculated using the retail prices index.

  Source: Central Statistical Office, based on family expenditure survey.

  The figures should be treated with considerable caution as they are subject to large sampling errors because of the small sample sizes, particularly for the top 1 per cent.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present positions of the European Commission and other member states of the EC in the Council of Ministers towards the means of funding the EC and of the possible increase in the resource base of the EC beyond the present own resources.

  Sir John Cope
  When it met in Edinburgh on 11 and 12 December 1992, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the European Council reached a rigorous agreement about the Community's finances for the period to 1999. My right hon. Friend reported the conclusions to the House on 14 December 1992,Official Report, columns 23–40. They remain the position of the member states and the Commission. Discussions are currently in progress in Brussels about the Commission's proposals for a new own resources decision to give effect to the changes agreed by the Edinburgh European Council to the own resources system.
  384
  Mr. Nelson
  I meet the chairman regularly to discuss SIB's responsibilities under the Financial Services Act 1986, which include the recognition of self-regulating organisations.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the minimum income(a) of the 1 per cent. with the highest incomes and (b) of the 10 per cent. with the highest incomes for each year since 1979 at current prices; and what were these figures at constant 1993 prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures are given below.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year since 1979 the total tax yield from individual gains tax and inheritance tax; and if he will give for each year since 1988–89 the number of individual taxpayers liable for capital gains tax by their highest marginal rate of tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information on net receipts each year since 1979–80 from capital gains tax, capital transfer tax and inheritance tax is given in the table. Separate figures on capital gains tax receipts for individuals and trusts are not available, but, in terms of tax liabilities, individuals account for between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the total.

  £ million

  Inheritance tax-capital transfer tax1

  Capital gains tax

  Total

  of which charge on individuals2

  Total

  1979–80

  401

  376

  431

  31980–81

  425

  401

  508

  31981–82

  480

  457

  526

  1982–83

  499

  580

  671

  1983–84

  599

  580

  671

  1984–85

  658

  621

  730

  1985–86

  881

  857

  908

  1986–87

  988

  963

  1,064

  1987–88

  1,073

  1,052

  1,379

  385

  Inheritance tax-capital transfer tax1

  Capital gains tax

  Total

  of which charge on individuals2

  Total

  1988–89

  1,067

  1,042

  2,323

  1989–90

  1,227

  1,207

  1,854

  1990–91

  1,259

  1,233

  1,852

  1991–92

  1,295

  1,261

  1,140

  1992–93

  1,201

  1,170

  982

  1 Excludes small residual receipts from estate duty which was replaced by capital transfer tax in 1975.

  2 Includes charges on settled property where the individual has an interest in possession.

  3The breakdown of receipts between 1980–81 and 1981–82 was estimated as they were affected by industrial action between March 1981 and July 1981.

  The breakdown of capital gains taxpayers given in the table includes a separate column for trusts in order to reconcile with published figures on taxpayer numbers.

  Number of capital gains taxpayers

  Highest rate of tax charged on individuals

  Lower rate

  Basic rate

  Higher rate

  Trusts

  All

  1988–89

  —

  52,000

  87,000

  16,000

  155,000

  1989–90

  —

  48,500

  88,000

  18,500

  155,000

  1990–91

  —

  44,000

  57,500

  13,500

  115,000

  1991–92

  —

  34,000

  45,000

  11,000

  90,000

  1992–931

  4,000

  29,000

  42,000

  10,000

  85,000

  1Provisional.

  Taxation
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year since 1979(a) the total income, both earned and unearned (b) the total national insurance contributions and (c) the total income tax paid by (i) the top 1 per cent., (ii) the top 5 per cent., (iii) the top 10 per cent., (iv) the bottom 50 per cent. amd (v) all taxpayers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Readily available estimates based on the survey of personal incomes are in the tables. For 1978–79 and 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. The estimates of total income relate to income subject to income tax and exclude non-taxable income such as certain social security benefits.

  1978–79

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 percent.

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  5,000

  2,300

  Top 5

  14,900

  4,900

  Top 10

  24,200

  7,000

  Bottom 50

  30,300

  3,900

  All taxpayers

  102,800

  20,300

  1Tax units for years prior to 1990–91

  386

  1989–90

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  Percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  24,200

  7,800

  300

  Top 5

  61,700

  16,600

  1,400

  Top 10

  93,400

  22,600

  2,700

  Bottom 50

  86,600

  8,500

  3,900

  All taxpayers

  323,400

  53,400

  14,400

  1 Tax units for years prior to 1990–91.

  1990–91

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  Percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  28,300

  9,200

  300

  Top 5

  68,700

  18,900

  1,300

  Top 10

  102,800

  25,400

  2,700

  Bottom 50

  95,500

  9,000

  4,300

  All taxpayers

  358,300

  60,400

  15,500

  1991–92

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Total income liability

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  Percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  31,200

  10,400

  300

  Top 5

  73,900

  20,700

  1,500

  Top 10

  109,600

  27,500

  3,000

  Bottom 50

  98,200

  9,300

  4,200

  All taxpayers

  373,800

  63,500

  16,200

  1992–93

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  Percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  31,600

  10,500

  300

  Top 5

  74,500

  21,000

  1,500

  Top 10

  110,300

  27,700

  3,100

  Bottom 50

  97,600

  8,300

  4,100

  All taxpayers

  375,300

  62,100

  16,400

  1993–94

  Quantile group of taxpayers1

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability

  Percent.

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Top 1

  32,000

  10,700

  300

  Top 5

  75,600

  21,400

  1,600

  Top 10

  112,200

  28,400

  3,300

  Bottom 50

  96,500

  8,300

  4,000

  All taxpayers

  378,000

  63,300

  16,900

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current average cost of preparing answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The current average cost of preparing an answer is assessed as £97 for a written question and £225 for an oral question.

  Lending Institutions
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to bring centralised lending institutions within the scope of the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Financial Services Act applies to firms carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom. The Banking Act applies to firms engaged in deposit taking in the United Kingdom. There are no plans to amend the scope of either Act.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Commission Report
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to bring forward legislation to enact the recommendations of the Law Commission contained in its report "Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate", No. 174; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legislation to give effect to the Government's decision to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report "Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate"—Law Corn. No. 174—for future leases, but not for existing leases, will be introduced as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he received on 23 November in regard to the risks to continuity and innovation in the arts of cuts in public funding.

  Mr. Brooke
  I received a number of representations on 23 November and I have since had a meeting with representatives of the National Campaign for the Arts, the group which organised the lobby of Parliament on that day.

  London Orchestras
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what meetings he has held with representatives of(a) the London Philharmonic orchestra, (b) the Philharmonic orchestra and (c) the Royal Philharmonic orchestra since the beginning of the Arts Council's review of the funding of the London orchestras; and if he will make a statement on the matters discussed during such meetings.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have held no such meetings.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to repeal the Broadcasting Authority Ordinance in Hong Kong before the handover of the colony in 1997.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Hong Kong Government intend to enact in 1994 an omnibus broadcasting Bill to consolidate and update the present legislation on television broadcasting. On enactment of the omnibus broadcasting Bill, the Broadcasting Authority Ordinance will be repealed. This proposal is not related to the transfer of sovereignty in 1997.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whose responsibility it will be to submit an annual report on adherence to the international covenant for civil and political rights within Hong Kong to the United Nations after 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  China is committed under international law in the joint declaration to ensure that the provisions of the international covenant for civil and political rights as applied to Hong Kong will remain in force after 1997. The responsibility for submitting reports on Hong Kong after 1997 will therefore pass to China. We are discussing with the Chinese in the Sino-British joint liaison group the mechanisms by which this might be achieved.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of Radio Television Hong Kong.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Hong Kong Government are continuing to consider the question of corporatisation of Radio Television Hong Kong. No final decisions have been taken.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the Emergency Regulations Ordinance applicable in Hong Kong is in conflict with the Bill of Rights Ordinance.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The question of whether the Emergency Regulations Ordinance applicable in Hong Kong is consistent with the Bill of Rights Ordinance is currently under review by the Attorney-General of the Hong Kong Government. This review is expected to be completed in December.

  Christians (Persecution)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take over the persecution of Christians for their faith in Pakistan.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have regularly raised with the Pakistani Government our concerns about the treatment of all minorities in Pakistan including Christians. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently raised this issue during his visit to Pakistan earlier this month. We shall continue to make known our concerns.

  United Nations Centre for Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many fax machines the United Nations Centre for Human Rights has.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Nations office in Geneva operates a central fax system, with hourly distributions. The Centre for Human Rights has one fax machine of its own.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what view he has formed about the adequacy of the resources available to the United Nations Centre for Human Rights.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We regard human rights as a priority of the United Nations. The resources now available to the Centre for Human Rights do not allow it to carry out all the tasks mandated to it. We support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to increase substantially the resources available to the centre from within existing and future regular budgets, through redeployment from. areas of lower priority.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision is made in the recent compensation claim made through his Department by MC Realisation—Matrix Churchill—to the United Nations to include money to compensate the ex-employees of Matrix Churchill.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Price Waterhouse acting as administrative receivers has submitted a claim to the United Nations Compensation Commission on behalf of MC Realisations (Birmingham) Ltd.—in receivership—formerly Matrix Churchill Ltd. However, we cannot divulge the content of this or any other of the claims submitted. Requests for information on the substance of the claim should be addressed to Price Waterhouse.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take over the persecution of Christians for their faith in Sudan.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made clear to the Sudanese Government, both bilaterally and with other member states of the European Union, our growing concern at their record on human rights and their lack of respect for fundamental freedoms, freedom of religion among them. We were active at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in highlighting the situation in Sudan, and in particular in securing the appointment of a public rapporteur. The rapporteur has now issued an interim report, and hopes to visit Sudan again shortly.

  Ascension Island
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to safeguard the numbers of sea birds on Ascension Island.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The programme of feral cat culling has been enhanced by the setting of more traps. The 390
  success rate has been good. Since January this year up to the end of October, 269 cats had been culled. The administrator has installed a barrier at the entrance to the breeding grounds to prevent access by vehicles. This has substantially reduced the risk of damage to eggs by people walking near to nesting sites. We shall keep the situation under review.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff the BBC World Service had(a) in 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93; and how many it has at present.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1991–92 the total staff complement of the BBC World Service, including BBC Monitoring, was 2,826. The equivalent figure for 1992–93 was 2,941. At the end of September 1993 there was a total of 2,920 staff.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many hours of programmes to(a) Africa and (b) Europe the BBC World Service broadcast in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93; and how many hours will be broadcast in 1993–94.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is as follows:

  1991–92 hours

  1992–93 hours

  1993–94 hours

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  13,500

  13,850

  14,310

  Europe

  21,550

  22,060

  23,240

  Each regional total includes broadcast figures for World Service in English.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase funding for the BBC World Service.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Plans for future funding of the BBC World Service will be disclosed in due course.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the transmission hours of the BBC World Service(a) in 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93; and what will be the transmission hours in 1993–94.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1991–92, World Service's total transmitted hours were 42,436, and in 1992–93, 43,797. The estimate for 1993–94 is 45,220. These figures do not include programme material not directly broadcast but sent via satellite, on disc or on cassette, to be available for local rebroadcasting.

  There is also a significant amount of local rebroadcasting from direct transmissions. Figures for these are: 1991–92, 2,895 hours; 1992–93, 15,527 hours; and the estimate for 1993–94 is 18,700 hours.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his most recent estimate of the number of people living outside the United Kingdom who listen to BBC World Service broadcasts.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Latest estimates by the BBC World Service, based on audience research, indicate that
  391
  the regular global audience for World Service broadcasts in all languages, outside the United Kingdom, is in the region of 130 million. This figure does not include any information on audiences in certain countries, such as China, Burma and Vietnam, where reliable data are not available.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding has been made available to the BBC World Service in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total grants-in-aid to the BBC World Service were £156·75 million in 1991–92 and £166·91 million in 1992–93. The total provision for 1993–94 is £175·87 million. These figures include the Ministry of Defence contribution to BBC Monitoring.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  London Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet governors of London prisons to outline his policy on prison matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend currently has no plans to meet governors of London prisons. On 3 November he made a speech about imprisonment to the prison service conference, to which senior governors were invited.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend privatisation and market testing in the prison service in London.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your recent Question about privatisation and market testing in the Prison Service in London.
  As the then Home Secretary announced on 16 February, the court escort and custody service in the Metropolitan Police District is to be contracted out in 1994. The contracted service will be phased in beginning in July 1994. The other identified candidates for market testing in the Prison Service in London are the work of the Parole Board Secretariat, some registry work and some information technology work. Consideration is being given to what further candidates might be added.
  You will also be aware of the Home Secretary's announcement on 2 September that about 10 per cent. of prisons, twelve in all, will be managed by the private sector. No decision has been made as to whether any of these establishments will be in London.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the time scale for the building of the proposed secure training centres; and where the centres are to be located.

  Mr. Maclean
  The creation of secure training centre places will start as soon as possible after the necessary 392
  legislation has been enacted. The Government have announced their intention to introduce such legislation in this Session of Parliament. No final decisions have been taken about where secure training centres will be located.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department intends to issue on the referral of juvenile offenders to the proposed secure training centres.

  Mr. Maclean
  The secure training order will be a sentence of the court. The statutory criteria for the order will be set out in the forthcoming criminal justice Bill.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department will monitor and run the proposed secure training centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Secure training centres are to be provided by agreements with organisations from the public, private or voluntary sectors following a process of competitive tendering. A draft specification issued on 30 July to potential providers indicated the likely requirements of the type of regime operating in the centres. Arrangements for monitoring regimes in these centres will be included in legislation which I will shortly be introducing.

  Murder (Life Sentences)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instigate a review to consider changing the law in respect of mandatory life sentences for murder; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to instigate such a review.

  Racial Offences
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred(a) in each year since 1965 under section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986 and (b) for each year since 1987 under sections 17 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986; how many of these prosecutions have been successful in each relevant year under each Act; and how many prosecutions under each Act in each relevant year have been against ethnic minority individuals or groups.

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

  Football Offences
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of prosecutions for each relevant year to date under section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991; and how many of these in each year have been successful.

  Mr. Maclean
  In England and Wales in 1991 there were six prosecutions under section 3 of the Football Offences Act 1991, five of which resulted in a conviction.

  For 1992—which is provisional—there were 31 prosecutions under section 3 of the aforesaid Act which resulted in 17 convictions.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles were(a) cautioned and (b) prosecuted by the police in (i) Barnsley, (ii) Doncaster, (iii) Rotherham, and (iv) Sheffield for each year since 1990 and this year to date; and how many of those prosecuted were committed by the courts;

  Table A1.—Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 cautioned and prosecuted and committed for trial at magistrates courts within the South Yorkshire area by type of offence 1990

  Committed for trail

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Barnsley Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  180

  5

  3

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  80

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  260

  5

  2

  Doncaster Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  394

  19

  5

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  104

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  498

  19

  4

  Rotherham Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  243

  17

  7

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1

  74

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  317

  17

  5

  Sheffield Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  463

  45

  10

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  169

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  632

  45

  7

  South Yorkshire

  Indictable offences

  2,578

  1,280

  86

  7

  Summary non-motoring offences

  931

  427

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  3,509

  1,707

  86

  5

  1Not applicable.

  Table A2.—Number of juveniles aged 10 to 17 cautioned and prosecuted and committed for trial at magistrates courts within the South Yorkshire area by type of offence 1991

  Committed for trail

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Barnsley Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  147

  8

  5

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  74

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  221

  8

  4

  Doncaster Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  410

  26

  6

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  109

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  519

  26

  5

  Rotherham Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  225

  7

  3

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  76

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  301

  7

  2

  Sheffield Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  507

  31

  6

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  151

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  658

  31

  5

  394
  (2) how many juveniles convicted of a crime in (a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster, (c) Rotherham, and (d) Sheffield had committed an offence which was drug related, in each year since 1985 and for this year to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the tables. It is possible to identify separately only those who have been cautioned or convicted for drug offences. It is not recorded, for other offences, whether they were drug related.
  395

  Committed for trail

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  South Yorkshire

  Indictable offences

  2,382

  1,289

  72

  6

  Summary non-motoring offences

  772

  410

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  3,154

  1,699

  72

  4

  1 Not applicable.

  Table A3.—Number of juveniles aged 10 to 17 cautioned and prosecuted and committed for trial at magistrates courts within the South Yorkshire area by type of offence 19922

  Committed for trail

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Prosecuted (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Barnsley Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  175

  18

  10

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  57

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  232

  18

  8

  Doncaster Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  282

  16

  6

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  75

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  357

  16

  4

  Rotherham Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  1—

  201

  2

  1

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1

  70

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  271

  2

  1

  Sheffield Petty Sessional Division

  Indictable offences

  12014;

  469

  30

  6

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1—

  126

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1—

  595

  30

  5

  South Yorkshire

  Indictable offences

  2,940

  1,127

  66

  6

  Summary non-motoring offences

  776

  328

  —

  —

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  3,716

  1,455

  66

  5

  1 Not applicable.

  2 Provisional data.

  Table B—Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 years convicted of drug offences in the South Yorkshire area 1985 to 19921

  Year

  Barnsley petty sessional division

  Doncaster petty sessional division

  Rotherham petty sessional division

  Sheffield petty sessional division

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  —

  1

  1

  4

  1991

  —

  2

  —

  2

  19921

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1Provisional data.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the most common crimes committed by persons aged under 16 years in the Lancashire constabulary's Pennine F division for each year since 1985; and of those juveniles convicted of an offence over this period, what was the average sentence served.
  396
  Mr. Maclean
  Information collected centrally shows only the police force area in which the crime was recorded. The tables show the number of juveniles aged 10 to under 16 years of age cautioned, convicted and the average sentence length given by type of court in the Lancashire constabulary for 1985 to 1992.
  397

  Table A Number of persons aged 10 to under 16 years cautioned in Lancashire police force area by type of indictable offences 1985–19921

  Offence

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19921

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  80

  55

  57

  126

  96

  75

  71

  99

  Sexual Offences

  12

  17

  27

  23

  26

  14

  31

  20

  Burglary

  446

  331

  293

  310

  301

  348

  317

  251

  Robbery

  1

  2

  10

  1

  6

  2

  10

  5

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  1,911

  1,399

  1,334

  1,648

  1,011

  1,248

  1,226

  1,151

  Fraud and forgery

  23

  9

  20

  18

  21

  12

  24

  15

  Criminal damage

  105

  145

  165

  224

  195

  180

  175

  134

  Drug offences

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  31

  43

  51

  Other (excluding motoring)

  2

  11

  7

  6

  8

  14

  22

  11

  TOTAL

  2,582

  1,969

  1,913

  2,358

  1,665

  1,924

  1,919

  1,737

  1 Provisional.

  Table B Number of persons aged 10 to under 16 years convicted and average sentence length (months) given at magistrates courts in the Lancashire police force area by type of indictable offences 1985–19921

  Offence/disposal

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19921

  CONVICTIONS

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  99

  68

  64

  67

  46

  51

  39

  41

  Sexual Offences

  14

  7

  9

  8

  8

  9

  4

  4

  Burglary

  419

  321

  311

  190

  146

  134

  89

  103

  Robbery

  7

  6

  3

  3

  7

  8

  2

  11

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  694

  549

  470

  294

  161

  221

  149

  156

  Fraud and forgery

  14

  9

  6

  5

  3

  6

  3

  5

  Criminal damage

  37

  26

  31

  26

  18

  13

  7

  10

  Drug offences

  —

  5

  1

  1

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Other (excluding motoring)

  8

  9

  11

  5

  10

  6

  10

  6

  Motoring offences

  22

  30

  37

  24

  1

  1

  1

  I

  TOTAL

  1,314

  1,030

  943

  623

  403

  452

  307

  339

  AVERAGE SENTENCE LENGTH (MONTHS)

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  1·7

  1·3

  2·9

  3·5

  3·0

  1·7

  —

  2·0

  Sexual Offences

  2·5

  —

  —

  —

  1·4

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  2·9

  2·5

  3·3

  2·8

  3·2

  2·6

  3·5

  3·8

  Robbery

  6·0

  —

  4·0

  —

  3·0

  —

  —

  4·0

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  2·3

  2·8

  2·2

  3·5

  2·3

  0·7

  2·2

  3·0

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  2·0

  4·0

  3·0

  1·6

  6·0

  —

  —

  6.0

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·9

  Motoring offences

  0·9

  1·0

  3·0

  2·0

  2·0

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  2·6

  2·5

  3·0

  2·9

  3·1

  2·3

  3·0

  3·6

  1 Provisional.

  Table C Number of persons aged 10 to under 16 years convicted and average sentence length (months) given at Crown courts in the Lancashire police force area by type of indictable offences 1985–19921

  Offence/disposal

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19921

  CONVICTIONS

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  1

  12

  7

  8

  6

  5

  —

  3

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  1

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  7

  16

  11

  14

  11

  12

  5

  10

  AVERAGE SENTENCE LENGTH (MONTHS)

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  7·5

  11·0

  8·0

  —

  4·0

  Sexual Offences

  —

  —

  —

  7·5

  11·0

  8·0

  —

  4·0

  Burglary

  —

  6·8

  6·0

  5·4

  5·7

  6·0

  —

  —

  398 399

  Offence/disposal

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19921

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12·0

  12·0

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·0

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12·0

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other (excluding motoring)

  —

  —

  —

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motoring offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  6·8

  6·0

  5·8

  8·5

  9·5

  —

  5·0

  1 Provisional.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police force, and by year for the last five years, the number of United Kingdom people arrested helping illegal immigrants into this country; how many were subsequently found guilty in the courts; and what sentence they received.

  Table A Defendants proceeded against at magistrates court for knowingly facilitating or assisting the entry of an illegal entrant1 by police force area and result 1988–19923

  Year and police force area

  Prosecutions

  Committed for trial

  Total found guilty

  Total sentenced

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  Fine

  Community sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  1988

  Essex

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  12

  11

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  7

  4

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  34

  23

  4

  4

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1989

  Derbyshire

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  6

  5

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  9

  3

  3

  3

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  28

  20

  4

  4

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  Essex

  5

  —

  4

  4

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  6

  3

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  21

  17

  3

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  5

  4

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  4

  2

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  46

  29

  11

  10

  —

  8

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  5

  1

  3

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  15

  9

  5

  5

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Metropolitan Police District2

  21

  12

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  6

  4

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on arrests is not collected centrally. Neither is the nationality of an offender recorded. The tables show the number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and tried at the Crown court for the offence of"knowingly facilitating or assisting the entry of an illegal entrant"
  under section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 by police force area and result for the years 1988 to 1992.
  401

  Year and police force area

  Prosecutions

  Committed for trial

  Total found guilty

  Total sentenced

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  Fine

  Community sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  5

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  73

  41

  15

  15

  1

  9

  —

  2

  2

  1

  19923

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Essex

  12

  4

  8

  8

  —

  5

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  18

  8

  9

  9

  —

  2

  —

  1

  6

  —

  Leicestershire

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  11

  6

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sussex

  9

  5

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  63

  33

  23

  23

  1

  9

  3

  2

  8

  —

  1Offences under section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2Includes the City of London

  3Provisional data.

  Table B Defendants proceeded against at Crown court for knowingly facilitating or assisting the entry of an illegal entrant1 by police force area and result 1988–19923

  Year and police force area

  Total for trial

  Total found guilty

  Total sentenced

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  Fine

  Community sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  1988

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Essex

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Kent

  21

  17

  17

  —

  —

  1

  13

  13

  —

  Suffolk

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  West Midlands

  7

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  —

  England and Wales

  33

  29

  29

  —

  —

  1

  7

  21

  —

  1989

  Derbyshire

  4

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  2

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Kent

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  7

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Sussex

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Wales

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  19

  14

  14

  5

  —

  —

  3

  6

  —

  1990

  Kent

  15

  15

  15

  —

  2

  1

  5

  7

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  9

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  25

  21

  21

  —

  4

  1

  7

  10

  —

  1991

  Essex

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  13

  10

  10

  —

  2

  1

  1

  6

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  13

  12

  12

  2

  —

  —

  1

  9

  —

  Suffolk

  3

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Sussex

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  West Yorkshire

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  38

  32

  32

  2

  2

  2

  6

  20

  —

  1992–3

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  —

  Essex

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  14

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10

  1

  Leicestershire

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Metropolitan Police District2

  11

  10

  10

  2

  1

  —

  5

  2

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed and Powys

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  402 403

  Year and police force area

  Total for trial

  Total found guilty

  Total sentenced

  Absolute or conditional dicharge

  Fine

  Community sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  align="right">Otherwise dealt with

  England and Wales

  38

  33

  33

  2

  2

  3

  10

  15

  1

  1Offences under section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2Includes the City of London.

  3Provisional data.

  Prison Overcrowding
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present level of prison overcrowding as a percentage for each prison in the United Kingdom.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about overcrowding in each prison in the United Kingdom.
  The table shows those prisons in England and Wales that were overcrowded on 24 November. The percentage overcrowding is calculated from the extent to which population exceeds the certified normal accommodation (CNA) available for use.

  Local prisons

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding

  Bedford

  170

  256

  151

  Birmingham

  618

  731

  118

  Bristol

  363

  408

  112

  Brixton

  518

  605

  117

  Canterbury

  128

  193

  151

  Cardiff

  243

  331

  136

  Chelmsford

  217

  342

  158

  Dorchester

  116

  179

  154

  Durham

  344

  525

  153

  Exeter

  265

  316

  119

  Gloucester

  207

  229

  111

  Hull

  269

  446

  166

  Leeds

  700

  1,124

  161

  Leicester

  194

  335

  173

  Lewes

  267

  351

  131

  Lincoln

  444

  603

  136

  Liverpool

  931

  1,335

  143

  Manchester

  291

  323

  111

  Norwich

  274

  308

  112

  Pentonville

  559

  631

  113

  Preston

  324

  514

  159

  Shrewsbury

  168

  296

  176

  Swansea

  156

  203

  130

  Winchester

  298

  327

  110

  Wormwood Scrubs

  472

  647

  137

  Remand centres

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding

  Cardiff

  85

  86

  101

  Exeter

  52

  56

  108

  Glen Parva

  320

  437

  136

  Low Newton

  163

  224

  137

  Moorland

  486

  508

  105

  Swansea

  57

  75

  132

  404

  Adult male training prisons

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding

  Hewell Grange

  136

  161

  118

  Lancaster

  186

  249

  134

  Ranby

  331

  339

  102

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  186

  118

  Wellingborough

  284

  304

  107

  Protection of Property
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to review the doctrine of minimum force in relation to the actions a home owner may take to protect himself and his property.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 16 November, the Law Commission published the report of its review of offences against the person—Law Com 218, a copy of which is in the Library. The commission's review of the law in this area covers the issues raised in this question. The Government are presently giving careful consideration to the commission's report.

  Girl Prisoners
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 1993,Official Report, column 29, on what grounds his Department considers that holding girls of 16 and 17 years with adult women prisoners is the best option for holding them, in their own interests.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Twenty girls under 18 years old are held with other female young offenders in establishments which also hold adult women. These arrangements allow them the freedom and choice of activities available in a larger community that would not otherwise be possible. Holding them separately would involve either a national unit for their detention, and consequent dislocation from their home area and a weakening of family ties, or keeping them in very small isolated units. Neither option would serve their best interests.

  Mr. Thomas Mason-Rushton
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific steps he will now take to ensure that Mr. Thomas Mason-Rushton, presently held in Her Majesty's prison Whitemoor, is guaranteed immediate access to the medical treatment for his known medical condition.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Robin Corbett, dated 30 November 1993:

  405
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the medical treatment for Mr. Thomas Mason-Rushton who is at Whitemoor prison.
  Mr. Mason-Rushton is at present suffering from a chronic infection. A specialist physician with considerable experience of the management of Mr. Mason-Rushton's condition visits the prison at regular intervals. Mr. Mason-Rushton refuses to see this specialist, however, or to become involved in any of the other locally available medical facilities relating to his illness. It would seem that this is because Mr. Mason-Rushton wishes to return to a London prison to visit a particular London hospital. This is despite there being adequate NHS facilities throughout the country for the treatment of his condition.
  There is 24 hour nursing cover at Whitemoor and a doctor on call around the clock. In the event of an emergency, Mr. Mason-Rushton would be transferred immediately to the appropriate local NHS hospital.

  Immigration Detention Centres
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he plans to cease holding asylum seekers in the Prison Service;

  (2) by how many places he intends to increase immigration detention centres.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The opening of Campsfield House detention centre on 29 November provided 200 additional detention spaces. In addition, we plan to increase the number of places available in immigration detention centres by another 135. However, there will be a continuing need for some detainees held under powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971—including some asylum applicants—to be accommodated in Prison Service establishments for the foreseeable future.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the capacity of Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst as specified by contracts; what is the current number of prisoners at the prison; how many have been transferred to other prisons in recent weeks; what current plans there are for transfer to other prisons; and to which prisons prisoners have been sent.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your recent Question about the numbers of prisoners at HMP Blakenhurst.
  The certified normal accommodation of Blakenhurst prison is 649 but the contract provides that the roll should grow at the rate of approximately 100 prisoners per month. The target under the contract is that the prison should reach capacity by the end of the year. In fact, the number of prisoners on 26 November was 625 and the population reached as many as 644 on 23 November. Between I and 26 November 98 prisoners were transferred to other prisons.
  It is, of course, a primary part of the function of a local prison to classify prisoners and to allocate them to trainers and the 98 movements were part of these normal arrangements. There are no special plans to transfer prisoners from Blakenhurst. Prisoners have been transferred from Blakenhurst to Ford, Bullingdon, Stafford, Ashwell, Sudbury, Featherstone, Newell Grange, Channings Wood and Brockhill.

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory provisions which authorise the use of prison ships.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Sections 33, 35 and 36 of the Prisons Act 1952—as amended by section 87(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—deal with the Secretary of State's powers to provide prisons.

  We are considering this legislation carefully to see whether it would cover the use of marine detention vessels. We would not attempt to hold prisoners in such vessels unless we were satisfied about the legality of such action.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage the market testing of operations undertaken by the Metropolitan police service has reached.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A market-testing programme for the Metropolitan police which covers the period up to August 1995 has been prepared. The estimated annual value of the areas of work involved is £85 million.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a letter to him from the chair of the Association of London Authorities about asylum seekers and refugees dated 9 November 1992 was not responded to until 14 October 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between October 1992 and November 1993, over 1,500 written representations were received from hon. Members, interested organisations and members of the public about general asylum issues. The small unit dealing with this correspondence was also responsible for supporting the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 which came into force in July this year. The priority which had to be given to the new legislation regrettably resulted in long delays in replying to general correspondence.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently detained in Britain and of those how many are being held with(a) people convicted on criminal charges and (b) people awaiting trial.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 29 November 1993, 472 people detained under the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 had claimed asylum. Information about those held with convicted prisoners and people awaiting trial is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners were being held in police cells in London on the last day for which figures are available.

  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.
  407
  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners in police cells in London.
  No remand prisoners are currently being held in police cells in London and it is many months since such action was necessary.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost per day of holding a remand prisoner in(a) a police cell and (b) prison.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the daily costs of holding a remand prisoner in (a) a police cell and (b) prison.
  In 1992–93 the average daily cost of holding prisoners was £254 in police cells and £75 in local prisons and remand centres. The costs of remand prisoners are not recorded separately from those of other inmates.

  Crime Prevention Board
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how the effectiveness of the National Board for Crime Prevention will be measured;

  (2) what quantifiable targets have been set for the National Board for Crime Prevention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The National Board for Crime Prevention was set up earlier this year as one element of the Government's crime prevention strategy. It is an ad hoc advisory body whose members serve voluntarily and without remuneration. As the board has no executive powers, it would not be appropriate to set performance targets for it.

  The board has identified its initial priorities as retail crime, car crime, and young people and crime. Only when its recommendations and advice are implemented can methods for measuring their effectiveness be devised.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are promoting in the current Session of Parliament to prevent racial harassment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government condemn racial harassment and fully support initiatives of the police and other agencies arising from recommendations of the racial attacks group.

  We will be looking closely at the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee following the investigation of racial attacks, and will be considering whether further Government action would be effective in helping prevent racial harassment.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the zero tolerance campaign against domestic violence being undertaken by the Association of London Authorities;
  408
  (2) what resources he will allocate to support the Association of London Authorities zero tolerance campaign against domestic violence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The response to domestic violence involves a number of Government Departments whose work needs to be co-ordinated at ministerial level. Although such central co-ordination is important, the Government believe that effective action against domestic violence requires the commitment and involvement of local agencies, both statutory and voluntary, working in concert to develop local preventive strategies. The zero tolerance publicity campaign against domestic violence being undertaken by the Association of London Authorities is one such example.

  Although the Home Office is unable to assist directly with the financing of the proposed publicity campaign, the issue of raising public awareness in this complex area is one which will be given early consideration by the ministerial group on domestic violence.

  Regional Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each standard region, with Greater London shown as a separate region, the total expenditure in 1992–93, and the budgeted expenditure in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 in respect of(a) safer cities, (b) section 11 grants, part to be included in single regeneration budget, (c) ethnic minority grant and (d) ethnic minority business initiative.

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

  Police Cells
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether remand prisoners will be held in police cells in London in the coming year;

  (2) what additional resources will be provided to the Metropolitan police service to ensure adequate facilities for and security of prisoners held in police cells in London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to give any assurance that remand prisoners will not be held in police cells in London in the future. A number of urgent measures are being taken to accommodate the ongoing rise in the prison population without resorting to the use of police cells.

  In the event that prisoners have to be held in police cells, the arrangements for reimbursement of expenditure incurred by police forces in providing adequate facilities and security are set out in Home Office circular 36/1993 to clerks to police authorities and chief officers of police, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category C prisoners escaped from custody in each year since 1979; and how many were subsequently recaptured.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. John Hutton, dated 30 November 1993:

  409
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many Category C prisoners escaped from custody in each year since 1979 and how many were subsequently recaptured.
  This information is not available in the form you request, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Incidents of escape from custody are recorded according to the security category of the prison from which the prisoner escapes and not by the security category of the prisoner.
  Information about escapes has only been recorded centrally since 20 June 1988. During the period 20 June 1988 to 31 October 1993 the number of prisoners who escaped from category C prisons is as follows:

  Period

  Number

  20 June to 31 October 1988

  45

  1 November 1988 to 31 October 1989

  98

  1 November 1989 to 31 October 1990

  124

  1 November 1990 to 31 October 1991

  185

  1 November 1991 to 31 October 1992

  138

  1 November 1992 to 31 October 1993

  102

  Destination

  Date

  Cost(£)

  Purpose

  Brussels

  9 January

  282

  Speaker at Aviation Conference

  Brussels

  25 January

  1,089

  Joint EC Transport and Environment Council

  Brussels

  14-15 March

  1,553

  EC Transport Council

  Oslo/Gothenburg

  9-11 May

  1,194

  Fact-finding tour on congestion charging technology

  Luxembourg

  7-8 June

  2,611

  EC Transport Council

  Paris

  14 June

  484

  Paris Air Show

  Luxembourg

  19 June

  2,523

  Additional EC Transport Council

  USA

  12-16 September

  7,450

  To negotiate aviation liberalisation with United States Transportation Secretary and fact-finding tour on highways issues

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Hambros study into possible joint public/private sector financing initiatives for the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect to be able to do so very shortly.

  MV Avon
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the report of the inquiry into the incident in which the MV Avon ran ashore off Browndown, Gosport, on 21 July.

  Mr. Norris
  In accordance with normal practice in circumstances such as this, the report will not be published but a copy of the summary report will be provided to anyone who can show a legitimate interest.

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

  Mr. Norris
  It remains the Government's practice not to comment on security matters.

  Trans-Pennine Study
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to the outcome of consultations on the Trans-Pennine study strategy report.
  410
  Information about the recapture of escaped prisoners by the prisoner's security category could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Of the total of 1,917 prisoners of all security categories who escaped from custody during the period 20 June 1988 to 31 October 1992, 1,750 have been recaptured, four died whilst unlawfully at large and 163 remain unlawfully at large.

TRANSPORT

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

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have made eight visits abroad so far during 1993. The cost of each visit, including some travel costs of accompanying officials, was as follows:

  Mr. Key
  I have now considered all the replies to the consultation on the Trans-Pennine study strategy report.

  The responses to that consultation were divided on the desirable way forward. While there were many who saw the need for improvements to the road network in the Pennine region for economic reasons, there were many who rejected any further major road improvements because of the likely impact on the natural environment.

  I have therefore decided to end public uncertainty and proceed with a limited package of measures focused on particular problems. No new schemes will be added to the national roads programme at this stage.

  Although the A69 was outside the study area it was identified as a significant strategic route in responses and I will consider the need and justification for its specific improvement in the programme review which is currently under way.

  We have already recognised the strategic importance of the A66 in our current programme of improvements and I do not intend to propose further schemes for the A66 at this stage. There will be no improvements to routes east of the M65 at Colne.

  The M62 will remain the main trans-Pennine route and we will be taking forward improvements to the motorway already in the national programme. Following the recent decision to take the Ml-M62 link out of the programme, we shall be investigating the need for increasing the capacity of the relevant lengths of the M1 and M62, to deal with increasing levels of traffic, to improve road safety and help economic growth in the area. Any proposals for further improvements which may emerge from these

  411
  investigations will be considered for entry to the trunk road programme at a later date, and would be subject to the usual consultations and statutory procedures.

  We remain committed to our policy that no major development should take place in national parks, save in exceptional circumstances. We stand by our decision at the start of the consultation period that we will not upgrade the A628-A616 to dual carriageway through the Peak district national park. No additional major schemes will be added to the national programme in this corridor, although some minor, limited, schemes may be necessary to relieve environmental problems and improve safety.

  Some respondents called for traffic restraint measures to be adopted in the Peak district national park. Whilst such measures would reduce traffic in the park they would also increase the pressure on the routes to the south of the park and so the Department will not be pursuing this option.

  A number of responses asked us to look at the scope for transferring passenger traffic from road to rail. A Trans-Pennine rail study, undertaken by a consortium of local authorities and passenger transport authorities, has indicated that any improvements to the rail network would have only a marginal effect on road traffic flows.

  London Transport
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set financial objectives for London Transport.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have today written to the chairman of London Transport in the following terms:"As of course you know, Section 16 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 gives me power to determine financial objectives which I consider it reasonable for London Regional Transport, or any of its subsidiaries, to achieve. This letter sets out the financial objectives which I have, with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with London Transport, determined for London Underground Limited and London Buses Limited for the period up to and including the 1995–96 financial year. A separate letter from Handley Stevens to Alan Watkins sets out the objectives determined with respect to LT's other subsidiaries and activities.

  London Underground Limited (LUL)
  I do not need to emphasise the view which you and I both share that safety remains LUL's—and indeed LT's—top priority. I have also set objectives, agreed with you and now incorporated in LUL's Customer Charter, for the quality of service on LUL. The financial objectives for LUL complement these measures by seeking to ensure that the costs of operating the Underground system represent value for money and are kept to the minimum consistent with the achievement of your safety and quality of service objectives. In this connection, I greatly welcome the LUL Company Plan and the good progress made so far in implementing the improvements in efficiency and cost reductions that the Plan entails. The objectives set out below are based on achievement of the reductions in operating costs promised in the Company Plan programme in the autumn of 1991, which prompted Government to invest public funds in implementation of the Plan.
  The objective, I have set for LUL unit costs (defined as operating costs, excluding depreciation and renewals, divided by loaded train miles) is that they should be reduced to no more than £16·20, in 1993–94 prices, for the financial year ending 31 March 1996.
  I wish to supplement this objective by one in the form of the percentage which revenue represents of operating costs for LUL (for this purpose operating costs include depreciation but exclude renewals). The objective is that this percentage should he at least 105·6 per cent. for the financial year ending 31 March 1996. This figure is consistent with my unit costs objective and with the provision for depreciation for 1995–96 shown in your 1993 Corporate Plan, and the revenue forecast shown in that Plan as amended by your subsequent forecasts.
  412
  I also attach importance, in the context of the pursuit of value for money and cost reduction, to an increasing proportion of LUL's expenditure being subject to market testing. As you know, my officials are consulting LUL on the basis for setting precise targets in this regard. My intention is that such targets should attract bonus of at least 5 per cent. of salary in the Board Performance Bonus schemes for 1994–95 and 1995–96. I would also wish you to include in LT Annual Reports, starting with that for 1993–94, a report on progress on the LUL market testing programme, including a measure or measures showing as a proportion of the appropriate base the amount of work which has been market tested during the year in question, compared with the equivalent amount for the previous year.
  Finally with respect to LUL, I would like to see the establishment of a measure, agreed with Government, showing the full economic costs to the public sector of the services provided by LUL. This should include a figure representing the opportunity cost of the asset base. This measure should be published in LT's Annual Report and Accounts for the year 1993–94 and for each subsequent year.

  London Buses Limited (LBL)
  The current objective is that LBL should achieve, for as long as this remains relevant, a 5 per cent. return on those of its tendered operations which are subject to "gross cost" contracts. We will set fresh financial objectives for bus services purchased by LT in the light of our recent announcement on the future of London's bus services. New targets for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be set by the end of March 1994.

  Public Accountability
  As in previous years, performance and progress against these objectives, and against your safety and quality of service objectives, should be published each year in LT's Annual Reports and Accounts."

  As my letter states, objectives with respect to LT's subsidiaries and activities, other than London Underground and London Buses, have been set in a separate letter from my Department to the LT's chief executive and deputy chairman, Dr. Alan Watkins. The following is a summary of these objectives:
  LT Central Services. Gross costs to be no more than £57 million in 1993–94; a fresh objective for the period up to 1995–96 to be set by 31 March 1994.
  Victoria Coach Station. Return on turnover to be at least 5·8 per cent. in 1995–96.
  LT PASS. Total costs in 1995–96 to be no more than 2·6 per cent. of gross ticket sales.
  LT Museum. Revenue in 1995–96 to be at least 56 per cent. of costs.
  Dial-a-ride. Operating costs per trip in 1995–96 to be no more than £9·30, at 1993–94 prices.
  LT Property. Net operating costs in 1995–96 to be no more than £1·6 million at 1993–94 prices. Rental income to increase by 1·1 per cent. in 1993–94. Targets for rental income in subsequent years, linked to an appropriate index of performance in the property market, to be set by 31 March 1994.
  LT Advertising. Sale of LTA to be completed by 30 June 1994.

  Coaches (Safety)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many coaches in England and Wales were tested for roadworthiness in each year since 1979; how many failed this test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Vehicle testing is conducted by the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency (VI). The annual statutory testing of public service vehicles began in 1982. The statistics are not produced on a regional basis and therefore relate to all first annual tests conducted in England, Scotland and Wales. Additional information on PSV testing and retests can be found in current and past editions of the VI annual report and accounts.
  413

  Year

  Number of tests

  Initial failures1

  Final failures2

  31982–83

  66,221

  —

  16,357

  31983–84

  65,292

  —

  13,972

  31984–85

  61,288

  —

  11,749

  1985–86

  69,334

  27,110

  13,250

  1986–87

  68,376

  26,462

  13,627

  1987–88

  67,282

  27,128

  14,986

  1988–89

  72,215

  27,998

  15,620

  1989–90

  72,391

  27,407

  14,963

  1990–91

  71,351

  24,994

  13,692

  1991–92

  71,789

  26,443

  13,647

  1992–93

  73,350

  27,059

  13,342

  1 Initial failures are those for vehicles as presented for the annual test.

  2 Final failures are those following rectification of minor defects.

  3 Statistical information on initial failures is unavailable.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal coach crashes there have been in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The number of fatal coach accidents and their resulting fatalities are shown for each year from 1979 to 1992 in the table.

  All accidents involving coach occupant fatalities

  Fatal coach accidents

  Occupant fatalities in coaches

  1979

  27

  34

  1980

  27

  29

  1981

  19

  20

  1982

  27

  33

  1983

  26

  38

  1984

  35

  37

  1985

  25

  32

  1986

  21

  24

  1987

  14

  15

  1988

  17

  17

  1989

  18

  20

  1990

  17

  19

  1991

  22

  25

  1992

  17

  19

  All fatal accidents involving coaches

  Fatal accidents

  All fatalities1

  1979

  299

  327

  1980

  253

  272

  1981

  219

  239

  1982

  248

  279

  1983

  234

  263

  1984

  224

  245

  1985

  181

  211

  1986

  195

  227

  1987

  187

  199

  1988

  174

  188

  1989

  195

  223

  1990

  209

  225

  1991

  177

  189

  1992

  160

  177

  1 Includes pedestrians and fatalies in other vehicles involved in a coach accident.

  Severn Bridge
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the annual average daily traffic flow figures for the Severn bridge, for each year since 1983 and the current year.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: The figures are shown in the table. Since the start of one-way
  414
  tolling on 26 April 1992 only westbound traffic flows were recorded, until 4 November 1993 when an additional automatic counting system was installed to monitor eastbound traffic.

  Two-way flows Year to 31 March

  Annual average daily traffic

  1982–83

  33,997

  1983–84

  34,004

  1984–85

  35,636

  1985–86

  36,764

  1986–87

  40,151

  1987–88

  44,384

  1988–89

  49,129

  1989–90

  51,789

  1990–91

  51,545

  1991–921

  51,128

  Westbound flow only

  1992–932

  25,882

  11 April 1991 to 25 April 1992.

  2 26 April 1992 to 31 March 1993.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Identity Card
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 107, which Departments are keeping the question of a national identity card under review.

  The Prime Minister
  The question of a national identity card scheme is a matter for the Home Office.

  Housing
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he expects to be able to meet the Government's commitment to provide 153,000 homes for those in housing need by the year 1995–96.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister how often the ministerial group on crime prevention meets; when it last met; and in what form its deliberations are published.

  The Prime Minister
  The ministerial group on crime prevention meets about three times per year. The last meeting was held on 16 November 1993. Its most recent report, entitled "Reducing the Costs of Crime: Measures Taken by Government Departments", was published in November 1992; a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The minutes of its meetings are not published.

  Fund-raising Events
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the fund-raising events for which(a) 10 Downing street and (b) Chequers have been used for events since he became Prime Minister; what events are planned for the future; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Since November 1990 there have been a total of 31 receptions, dinners or other functions at No. 10 Downing street for charities or voluntary bodies and three at Chequers. The organisations concerned were:
  415
  (a) 10 Downing street

  NSPCC

  Surrey County Cricket Club Youth Trust

  Lords Taverners

  MENCAP

  Age Concern

  EUREKA

  Wordsworth Trust

  Huntington's Disease Association

  Action Research

  Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust

  National Council of Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care

  Crossroads Care (two functions)

  Animal Health Trust

  ORT

  Youth Clubs (UK)

  ChildLine

  Silver Trust

  Marie Curie Cancer Care

  Excalibur Scheme

  Motability

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  London Community Cricket Association

  International Spinal Research Trust

  Cambridge Arts Theatre Trust

  YMCA

  Leeds International Piano Competition

  Westminster Medical School Research Trust

  The Shakespeare Globe Trust

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Consortium for Street Children

  (b) Chequers

  MENCAP

  ARC

  CORDA

  I am not prepared to give advance notice of functions at No. 10 or at Chequers, whether official or non-official.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to permit fund-raising events to be held at No. 10 Downing street; which organisations will be eligible to apply for such functions; and what charges will be levied for the use of the premises, attendance of staff and other costs which might otherwise fall on public funds.

  The Prime Minister
  When charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. Organisers may use the kitchens or other facilities at No. 10 Downing street.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many functions have been held at 10 Downing street since 5 July at which funds have been raised for political parties, or for which tickets have been sold for the benefit of political parties.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to allow 10 Downing Street to be made available to political parties other than the Conservative party for the purposes of fund raising.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: As under previous Administrations, the use of 10 Downing street for non-official or party functions is a matter for the Prime Minister.

  Security and Intelligence Agencies
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the expenditure of the security and intelligence agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  The aggregate provision for the security and intelligence agencies in 1994–95 will be around £900 million, including about £100 million for the attributed costs of Ministry of Defence personnel who mainly assist GCHQ in its functions. The provision for the agencies is planned to reduce by over 4 per cent. in the following two years.

  Precise figures for the 1994–95 aggregate budget will be given in the main estimate for the new single intelligence vote, to be presented to Parliament next March, after appropriate charging arrangements for departmental support for the agencies have been determined.

  The provision for 1993–94 is carried in part by the Cabinet Office—£197 million on class XIX, vote 2 "Cabinet Office: Secret Service"—and in part by the Ministry of Defenc, roughly 80 per cent. of the balance, and the Foreign Office, 20 per cent., which at present carry the whole of the cost of GCHQ.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Land Reclamation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department has taken to promote United Kingdom expertise in decontamination of soil and land reclamation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department works together with the Department of the Environment, and other bodies, on a number of activities to promote United Kingdom expertise in decontamination of soil and land reclamation. Some of these provide financial support for private sector projects in new technology—for example under the LINK, environmental technology innovation scheme and Euroenviron programmes.

  DTI also promotes export opportunities in this area as part of our general support for the United Kingdom environmental industry, by improving the access of overseas firms to United Kingdom technology.

  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist is active in promoting awareness of contaminated land and the need for investigation, as well as acting as a consultancy.

  Green Business Parks
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the development of green business parks.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I welcome any commercially sound development which helps business to improve its environmental performance or which furthers the growth of the United Kingdom's capability in the field of environmental technology and services.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress made in commissioning the Sizewell B nuclear plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nuclear Electric continues to make good progress on the Sizewell B project. The company is
  417
  confident that the project can be completed within the timetable committed at the Sizewell B public inquiry and within budget.

  Energy Advisory Panel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the first meeting of his energy advisory panel held on 22 November.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 26 November,Official Report, column 254.

  Industry (Costs)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that the principle of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost is not causing excessive costs to British industry where it is applicable.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 26 November,Official Report, columns 255-56.

  Trading Standards Departments
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effects of the local government review on the number of trading standards departments in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. The effects will depend on the future number of local authorities and the arrangements made for trading standards functions to be carried out. Some authorities may join together to set up a combined trading standards department as have the five authorities in west Yorkshire.

  Nirex Rock Characterisation Facility
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information has been presented to justify expenditure on the Nirex rock characterisation facility; and if he will publish it.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure proposals by UK Nirex Ltd. are a management matter for the company and its shareholders, who are represented on the board of the company.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest cost estimate of the Nirex rock characterisation facility; on what date the planning application will be submitted; and what is the proposed date of its opening.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are management matters for UK Nirex Ltd. However, I understand that the company currently estimates the cost of constructing the rock characterisation facility at around £120 million, and that the company hopes to be in a position to submit the relevant planning application early in 1994. The applications and documentation accompanying it will include information about time scales.

  EC Consumer Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Consumer Council of 19 November.
  418
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council discussed the draft timeshare directive, and agreed on a common position by a qualified majority vote.

  Industry Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Industry Council of 18 November.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her on 26 November,Official Report, columns 251-52.

  Gas and Electricity (Standing Charges)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to encourage gas and electricity companies to reduce or cancel standing charges, with particular reference to pensioner households; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The level of standing charges is a matter for the Directors General of Gas Supply and of Electricity Supply respectively.

  Combined Heat and Power, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the involvement of Warren Springs in the application by Leicester Combined Heat and Power to develop a CHP scheme in Leicester; what was the cost to public funds of this involvement; what are the position and salary scale of Dr. Rampling; on whose invitation Dr. Rampling attended the meeting in Leicester on 9 November; and what was the cost of attendance by Dr. Rampling at that meeting.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have asked the chief executive of Warren Spring Laboratory to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from D. Cormack to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 26 November 1993:
  Warren Spring Laboratory (WSL) has the remit to recover its costs through the execution of contract work for both government and non-government customers. In this case WSL was acting under contract to Leicester CHP Limited, to study the distillation of oil from waste tyre pyrolysis, to evaluate its possible use as a fuel for CHP application.
  It is normal WSL practice to provide high quality objective scientific and technical data and evaluations, on all its contract work. This is recognised by its customers, and understood by all parties who may have an interest in any particular issue.
  There was no cost to public funds of this involvement. All Dr. Rampling's activities, including meetings with interested parties at the invitation of Leicester CHP Ltd, are charged to Leicester CHP Ltd under the contract, at a rate which covers all his costs, including his salary, according to Treasury rules under which the Laboratory operates as a full economic cost recovery Agency.

  Chad
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trade with Chad.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  United Kingdom exports to Chad in the year to September 1993 were valued at £1·94 million up 55·02 per cent. on £1·25 million the previous year. In 1992 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development United Kingdom market share in Chad was 2·1 per cent.; in 1991 it was 2·5 per cent. United Kingdom
  419
  imports from Chad in the year to September 1993 were valued at £0·87 million down from £2·36 million for the year to September 1992.

  Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1992
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the commencement of the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 25 June 1993,Official Report, column 294. It is still our intention to bring the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993 into force by mid-1994.

  Smoking
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to enforce restrictions on smoking within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Smoking is permitted only in a few specified areas. A copy of my Department's current smoking policy will be lodged in the Library of the House.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many investigations the Insolvency Service agency has conducted into independent practitioners during each year since 1990 and so far in 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service undertakes routine monitoring visits to practitioners to test their compliance with the legislation. Detailed special inspections are carried out where the facts of the case suggest that this is merited. The following figures are on a financial year basis: detailed records were not maintained prior to 1991–92.

  Numbers

  Monitoring visits

  1991–92

  31

  1992–93

  147

  1993–94 (to date)

  135

  Special inspections

  1991–92

  2

  1992–93

  9

  1993–94 (to date)

  5

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Stoy Hayward review of the future of the Insolvency Service will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am currently considering what further work needs to be done following the Stoy Hayward review and shall announce to the House in due course what the next steps will be, including any plans for making public the contents of Stoy Hayward's report.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many independent practitioners have been struck off as a result of complaints made about their conduct to the Insolvency Service agency.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Since the introduction of the requirement to be authorised in the Insolvency Act 1986, 12 insolvency practitioners have had their authorisations 420
  withdrawn by their respective authorising bodies. In 11 of these cases, the initial complaint was made to the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints the Insolvency Service agency received about the conduct of independent practitioners during each year since 1990 and so far in 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service agency does not keep a record specifically relating to complaints about the conduct of insolvency practitioners, but receives a range of correspondence relating to the administration of insolvencies.

  Mr. Peter Joyce, the agency's chief executive, answered letters, some of which contained criticism of practitioners, totalling 26 in 1991, 85 in 1992 and 50 to 31 October 1993.

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

  No central record is kept of complaints about the conduct of insolvency practitioners made direct to official receivers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the Stoy Hayward review of the future of the Insolvency Service cost; and whether it came from the Insolvency Service agency budget.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The cost of the review, which is commercially confidential, was paid for from Insolvency Service resources.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what savings he estimates will result from the transfer of aspects of the Insolvency Service from his Department to the Association of Chartered Accountants and the Institute of Professional Accountants.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Each of the professional bodies recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to authorise insolvency practitioners has undertaken to commence routine monitoring of its own practitioners and is developing systems to take on this work which is presently carried out by my Department's Insolvency Service.

  We presently expect there to be savings of between two and three man years in the long term as a direct result, but this is dependent on the continuing progress of the professional bodies towards becoming fully operational in this area.

  British Coal
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what change has been made to British Coal's external financing limit for 1993–94.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal's external financing limit for 1993–94 has been changed from £1,880 million to £1,750 million. The revised financing requirement reflects reduced estimates of expenditure by the corporation.

  Utilities (Meter Reading)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding fuel and power companies reading meters annually only, estimating the intervening bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representations received by my Department on these matters are passed on to the independent regulators who each have a duty to protect the interests of consumers.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Consumer Affairs Division has carried out into the costs to consumers resulting from estimation of quarterly fuel and power bills by the companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representations received by my Department on these matters are passed on to the independent regulators who each have a duty to protect the interests of consumers.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of electricity generated in Wales is attributable to wind power; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As at 30 September 1993, the installed electrical capacity of wind projects in Wales commissioned under the first two orders of the non-fossil fuel obligation totalled approximately 86 MW, representing about 1·2 per cent. of the total electrical installed capacity of about 7 GW in the Principality. The proportion of electricity actually generated by wind in Wales will depend on a number of factors, including the performance of the non-wind plant.

  Regulations (Impact Assessment)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement setting out the detailed arrangements which will be adopted for the assessment of the impact on companies which will precede all future regulations, indicating what role businesses will play in that assessment and the way in which the results of the assessment will be published.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The detailed arrangements for assessing the impact on companies of proposed regulations are set out in "Checking the Cost to Business: A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment", a copy of which I am arranging to be deposited in the Library of the House. As indicated in paragraph 9, section 1 of this booklet, business should be encouraged to comment critically on the assessment so that the final assessment is as accurate as possible. The arrangements for publishing the results of the assessment for proposed domestic legislation were set out in my written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 19 October,Official Report, column 202. The arrangements for publishing the assessments for proposed EC legislation were set out in the written reply by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 19 July, Official Report, column 24.

  Regional Grants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a table showing for each standard region, with Greater London shown as a separate region, the total expenditure in 1992–93, and the budgeted expenditure in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 in respect of(a) regional enterprise grant and (b) English Estates.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details of expenditure on the regional enterprise grants scheme and by English Estates for 1992–93 are shown in the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  For 1992–93, the London city challenge and task force areas were eligible for regional innovation grants, the only part of the Greater London region eligible for either element of the regional enterprise grants scheme. Provision for regional enterprise grants in 1993–94 in England is £8·8 million. This is not allocated on a regional basis. The regional enterprise grants scheme in England is to become part of the single regeneration budget from 1 April 1994 as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 4 November 1993, Official Report, columns 515-25. Figures for forecast capital expenditure by English Estates in 1993–94 are as follows:

  Forecast expenditure (£ million)

  1993–94

  North East

  17·4

  North West

  19·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9·6

  West Midlands

  1·0

  East Midlands

  1·8

  South West

  1·8

  South East(former Chartham dockyard)

  20·2

  Greater London

  0

  English Estates will be incorporated into English Partnerships next spring. English Partnerships is currently in the process of drawing up its first corporate plan and regional budgets are not yet available.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the average figure for the last six months of cost per gigajoule for each British Coal pit;

  (2) what were the average figures for output per man shift for the last six months for each of the pits in British Coal;

  (3) what are the latest figures for output per man shift in each of the British coal pits;

  (4) what were the figures for the costs per gigajoule of coal produced for each pit in the Northern region of British Coal for each of the last 12 months;

  (5) if he will list the latest figures he has for costs per gigajoule of the coal being produced in each British Coal pit.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for British Coal.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the figures for output per man shift for each pit in British Coal northern region for the last 12 months.
  423
  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available in the detail requested. The figures for the whole of the northern region were:

  Average output per manshift worked

  Tonnes

  1992

  October

  4·12

  November

  4·30

  December

  4·23

  1993

  January

  45·8

  February

  4·99

  March

  5·48

  April

  4·26

  May

  4·03

  June

  4·43

  July

  6·61

  August

  6·13

  September

  6·17

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions Bentley colliery has been penalised in a contract for supply to electricity generators for(a) the chlorine content and (b) the sulphur content of its fuel.

  Mr. Eggar
  These detailed points relate to supply contracts and are matters for British Coal.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what figures he has, in terms of cost per gigajoule, on the prices being paid by electricity generators for British coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The prices paid by the electricity industry to individual coal supplies are confidential to the companies concerned. The average price of all coal purchased by the major United Kingdom electricity generating companies is however published in table 26 of "Energy Trends", the Department's monthly statistical bulletin. In the second quarter of 1993 the average price was £1.64 per gigajoule.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what were the profit and loss figures for each British Coal pit for(a) the last six months, (b) the first six months of this year and (c) each of the last three financial years;

  (2) if he will list British Coal pits in order of profitability in the last 12 months;

  (3) what was the total profit for each British Coal pit over the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The profitability of individual pits is a matter for British Coal.

  Redundant Steelworkers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the maintenance of ISERBS—iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme—arrangements for redundant steelworkers in the United Kingdom will be considered at the next meeting of the appropriate committee of the EC.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: Steel issues concerning the treaty of Paris are discussed in the European Coal and Steel Communities working group. We are aware of no plans for ISERBS to be on the agenda of the next meeting.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the procedures for approving projects designed to attract Rechar money after 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 November, Official Report, column 96.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those representations which he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the proposal to establish Rechar II.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: I have received numerous representations, from both within and outside Parliament, with regard to the establishment of a Rechar II programme.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of postal administrations, in Canada, the United States of America, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands; in respect of their(a) quality of service achievements for first class letters, (b) volume of mail delivered, (c) number of delivery points, (d) turnover and profit, (e) definition of monopoly position, (f) regulator (g) ownership and (h) proposals for privatisation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: As part of the Post Office review, we have considered developments in a number of countries, including those mentioned by the hon. Member and also others such as Australia and New Zealand.

  My Department does not hold detailed information such as that sought on all the countries listed by the hon. Member. Some of the information is available for EC countries in the EC Commission's Green Paper—COM(91)476—published in June 1992. Geographical and other differences, particularly density of population, mean that such data are not always instructive in making comparisons between them or with the United Kingdom.

  Important developments in overseas postal administrations include the abolition of the postal monopoly in Sweden from 1 January 1993 and the proposal of the Netherlands Government to sell a substantial stake in the postal administrations' holding company in 1994. Competitive reforms are being considered in most of the countries mentioned and some are considering the conversion of their postal administrations to plc status, with or without privatisation. There is, however, no set pattern of reform yet emerging in any of these areas.

  We will continue to follow these developments with interest in reaching decisions on the Post Office review.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of maintenance requirement assessments completed by the Child Support Agency since April;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of benefit savings achieved by the Child Support Agency since April.
  425
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. Hepplewhite to Mrs. Jane Kennedy, dated 29 November 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your Questions to the Secretary of State about estimates of maintenance assessments completed by the Child Support Agency since April 1993 and benefit savings achieved since April 1993.
  The number of maintenance assessments completed to 31 October is 56,800. The benefit savings so far reported by the Agency in the same period is £142 million. This does not represent the total amount of savings achieved by the Agency because some are scored retrospectively.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what target he has set the chief executive of the Child Support Agency for the time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from R. Hepplewhite to Mr. David Lidington, dated 29 November 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question to the Secretary of State about the targets he has set for the time taken to respond to letters from honourable Members.
  All letters from Members of Parliament addressed to me are acknowledged and I aim to respond within an average of 20 working days. Recent press interest has stimulated a great deal of correspondence from constituents and although that target is not being met at the moment, the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that correspondence from Members will be answered as promptly as possible.
  I hope you will find this helpful.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of the representations received regarding the operation of the Child Support Agency on the basis of(a) sex of the applicant and (b) region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Between April 1993 and November 1993 the Department of Social Security headquarters and the Child Support Agency headquarters received in the region of 3,000 written representations covering a range of views about child support issues.

  The cost of establishing the number of written representations made to field offices and Child Support Agency centres would be disproportionately high. The number of representations made in person or by telephone, the region from which the people who have made representations came from and their sex is not recorded.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of cases dealt with so far by the Child Support Agency, by constituency.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, that information in the form requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, a report showing the agency's national performance is available each month in the Library.
  426
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the chief executive of the Child Support Agency's performance-related pay is calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The nature of the Child Support Agency chief executive's performance package was set out in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 5 November, at column 588. The amount of the chief executive's total remuneration in any year will be published in the agency's annual report for that year.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if sufferers from repetitive strain injury qualify for sick pay.

  Mr. Scott
  Employers administer and pay statutory sick pay. Subject to the satisfaction of the other qualifying conditions, payment is made whenever the employer is satisfied that his employee is incapable of doing the work required under his contract of service, whatever the cause of incapacity.

  Whether or not occupational sick pay is payable in these circumstances will depend on the terms of individual schemes.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of single pensioners who are calculated for(a) income support purposes, (b) housing benefit purposes and (c) council tax benefit purposes, to have notional income from savings of £1, £2, £3, £4, £5, £6, £7, £8, £9, £10, £11, £12, £13, £14, £15, £16, £17, £18, £19 and £20 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables. Details in respect of council tax benefit are not available.

  Income support

  Amount of notional income

  Single pensioners1

  £1

  211,000

  £2

  9,000

  £3

  7,000

  £4

  6,000

  £5

  5,000

  £6

  4,000

  £7

  3,000

  £8

  3,000

  £9

  3,000

  £10

  3,000

  £11

  2,000

  £12

  2,000

  £13

  1,000

  £14

  2,000

  £15

  2,000

  £16

  2,000

  £17

  2,000

  £18

  2,000

  £19

  2,000

  £20

  2,000

  All cases

  72,000

  427

  Housing Benefit

  Amount of notional income £

  1 Single pensioners

  1

  217,000

  2

  13,000

  3

  11,000

  4

  9,000

  5

  10,000

  6

  9,000

  7

  6,000

  8

  5,000

  9

  7,000

  10

  5,000

  11

  5,000

  12

  5,000

  13

  5,000

  14

  3,000

  15

  3,000

  16

  4,000

  17

  3,000

  18

  3,000

  19

  2,000

  20

  2,000

  All cases

  128,000

  Sources: Income support quarterly inquiry, November 1992.

  Housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system, income support statistics annual inquiry, May 1992.

  1 Single pensioners are defined as people in receipt of income support and/or housing benefit aged 60 or over who do not have a partner.

  2 The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples were receiving means-tested benefits in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables:

  Number of cases

  Percentage

  Income support:

  Single pensioners

  1,463,000

  33·3

  Pensioner couples

  254,000

  9·8

  Family credit:

  Single pensioners

  220

  1

  Pensioner couples

  1,300

  1

  Disability working allowance:

  Single pensioners

  26

  1

  Pensioner couples

  51

  1

  Housing benefit/Community charge benefit:

  Housing benefit only

  Single pensioners

  187,000

  4·3

  Pensioner couples

  64,000

  2·5

  Community charge benefit only

  Single pensioners

  524,000

  12·1

  Pensioner couples

  371,000

  14·3

  HB and CCB

  Single pensioners

  639,000

  14·8

  Pensioner couples

  337,000

  13·0

  Notes:

  Sources:

  1. Income support statistics, quarterly inquiry, November 1992.

  Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards, April 1993.

  Disability working allowance caseload allowing for three months' backdating of awards, June 1993.

  Housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample of cases in Great Britain, May 1992. 1992 Provisional estimates, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
  428
  2. Income support figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  3. Percentages are of the estimated numbers of single pensioners and pensioner couples in private households in Great Britain.

  4. For income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance pensioners are cases where the recipient and/or the partner are aged 60 or over. For family credit pensioners are cases where the main earner is aged 60 or over.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will express the value of the state pension for a single person as a percentage of average male earnings at April.

  Mr. Hague
  The answer is 15.9 per cent.Source: Employment Department's new earnings suvey—all adults average weekly earnings.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the number of pensioner households with total weekly incomes below income support level.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The latest estimates for the take-up of income-related benefits are for 1989 and show that there were around 1·3 million pensioners who were eligible for but not claiming income support.

  Estimates of take-up of income support are subject to particular uncertainty because of under-reporting of receipt of benefit in the family expenditure survey on which the figures are based. This particularly affects pensioners who often fail to distinguish between retirement pension and income support which are paid as one combined payment.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people paid contributions to a personal pension in the latest tax year for which figures are available; and how the total is divided between(a) the self-employed, (b) employees not contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, (c) employees contracted out of SERPS paying only the minimum needed to contract out and (d) employees contracted out of SERPS paying more than the minimum needed to contract out.

  Mr. Hague
  The number of people paying contributions to a personal pension scheme during the financial year 1991–92 is in the table.

  Million

  (a) Self Employed contributors

  0·5

  (b) Employed contributors (not contracted out of SERPS)

  2·2

  (c) Employed contributors (Contracted out of SERPS, receiving DSS minimum contributions to thier scheme only)

  3·0

  (d) Employed contributors (contracted out of SERPS, making personal payments in addition to DSS minimum contributions

  2·1

  Total

  7·8

  Notes:

  1. Data derived from Inland Revenue Statistics.

  2. The figure for the number of self-employed contributors is an estimate only.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the proportion
  429
  of the money contributed to a typical personal pension at the rebate only level by a man of 30 years which would be absorbed in expenses, charges and commission during the lifetime of the contract up to maturity;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the proportion of the money contributed to a typical personal pension at the rebate only level by a man of 30 years which would be absorbed in expenses, charges and commission during the lifetime of the contract if it were terminated after five years;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the proportion of the money contributed to a typical personal pension at the rebate only level by a man of 30 years that would be absorbed in expenses, charges and commission in the first year of the contract.

  Mr. Hague
  Charges associated with personal pensions vary according to the investment base underlying the policy and also between different personal pensions providers. Consideration of the level of charges associated with appropriate personal pensions is a matter for individual investors in their choice of scheme. The DSS has recently published a new guide for potential personal pension investors suggesting questions to ask before deciding on a scheme. The guide advises potential investors to ask about cost and benefits of schemes offered to them and to compare different products available.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those covered by personal pensions at the rebate only level are entitled only to the minimum benefits needed to contract out of SERPS.

  Mr. Hague
  All holders of appropriate personal pensions are contracted out of SERPS. The benefits received from a rebate only plan take the form of an annuity purchased with the fund produced by the investment of the rebate together with any incentives, additions and tax relief payable.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has yet completed his review of national insurance contributions for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. My proposals will take effect from 6 April 1994. The levels of contributory benefit expenditure I am maintaining, and the extra help with fuel costs which I am making available to pensioners, widows and people receiving invalidity benefit, will mean a continuing shortfall in the national insurance fund between income and outgoings. The stability of the fund will be maintained partly by means of the Treasury grant introduced by the Social Security Act 1993 and partly by means of the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions for employees and the self-employed which was announced in the Budget last March.

  Employers and Employees

  In line with the Social Security Contributions and
  430
  Benefits Act 1992, the lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions is to be raised to £57 a week, which is the nearest whole pound to the basic retirement pension rate for a single person from April 1994. The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £430 a week which is slightly less than 7·5 times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. These new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £56 and £420 respectively.

  There will be no change to the initial rate of 2 per cent. payable by employees on the first £57 of weekly earnings, but the main rate payable on employees' earnings between £57.01 and £430 a week will increase from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. as already announced.

  For employers, I am proposing to reduce the standard rate of contribution from 10·4 per cent., to 10·2 per cent., a reduction of 0·2 per cent. I also propose to decrease, from the same date, the reduced rates which employers pay for lower-paid workers. The reduction will be 1 per cent., giving new rates for 7·6 per cent., 5·6 per cent. and 3·6 per cent. These reductions will therefore be especially helpful to employers of the lower-paid, often smaller employers, and should more than offset extra costs which employers meet as a result of changes to the reimbursement provisions for statutory sick pay.

  The thresholds for the special reduced rates will also be raised so that from April 1994 they apply to weekly earnings which fall below the ceilings of £100, £145, and ·200 respectively, compared with £95, £140, and £195 at present.

  Not Contracted-Out Employees and their Employers

  Neither the employee nor his employer will have to pay any contributions if earnings are less than £57 a week. Employees earning up to about £64 a week will pay slightly less in contributions. Employees earning above £64 but not more than the existing upper limit of £420 will generally pay more contributions, ranging from a few pence to £3·56. Employees with earnings above £420 a week will pay a maximum increase of £456. For employers, the reduction in their contributions will depend on the level of the employee's pay.

  Contracted-Out Employees and their Employers

  Those with earnings between £63 and £420—the former upper earnings limit—will pay more contributions, ranging from a few pence up to £3·58 a week more. Those who earn more than £420 will pay contributions on the next £10 of earnings from next April—up to £430 a week, the proposed upper earnings limit, a maximum increase of £4·40 a week. Contracted-out employees who earn £62 or less will pay the same or slightly less.

  For employers, the reduction will again depend upon the level of employee's pay.

  Self-employed people

  Although contributions for employees are to increase, I do not propose to raise the flat rate class 2 contribution other than in line with inflation. It will therefore increase by 10p to £5·65.

  However, class 4 contributions, payable by those self-employed people with profits above a certain level, will be increased by 1 per cent. to 7·3 per cent. The annual limits of profits will be raised to £6,490 and £22,360 from

  431
  £6,340 and £21,840 respectively. Self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions will pay an extra £5.20 a year in 1994–95.

  The changes for class 4 contributions mean that some lower earners will pay less or no class 4 contributions; higher earners will pay a maximim of £187·21 more.

  Class 3—voluntary—contributions

  The rate of class 3 contributions will be raised by 10p to £5·55 a week.

  National Health Service Allocation
  432
  The allocation to the national health service, cunently 1·05 per cent. from employees and 0·9 per cent. from employers, remains unchanged.

  Treasury Grant

  In accordance with section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993, I propose to maintain the level of the national insurance fund during 1994–95 by means of a grant from the Treasury. I estimate that the grant required will be approximately 6·4 billion.

  As usual, I shall by laying a draft order before Parliament together with a report by the Government Actuary describing the effects of my proposals.

  Benefits (Uprating)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out details of the new rates of benefits proposed from April 1994 and the details of help to be made available to meet the cost of VAT on domestic fuel.

  Mr. Lilley
  The annual uprating of social security benefits will take place, as usual, in the first full week of the tax year—which in 1994 will be the week beginning 11 April.

  Expenditure on social security will be £83 billion in 1994–95, £87·8 billion in 1995–96 and £91·7 billion in 1996–97. The settlement fulfils the Government's commitment to the needy, the sick, the elderly, to disabled people and to families. It gives the promised help to those who may have most difficulty in meeting the cost of VAT on domestic fuel.

  I have reviewed social security benefits in accordance with section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. My proposals, which are set out in the schedule, fully reflect the commitment to increase all major benefits in line with inflation. The statutory instruments to implement them will be laid before both Houses for debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to introduce similar changes for Northern Ireland.

  All national insurance benefits will be uprated at least in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index up to September, which this year is 1·8 per cent.

  In addition, all pensioners who receive a full basic pension, including those receiving income support, will gain an extra 50p per week for single people and 70p per week for couples to help meet the cost of VAT on fuel. This help will double in April 1995 when VAT on fuel rises to the standard rate. Widows and people receiving invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, war pensions unemployability supplement and disabled people on income support will receive similar increases in both April 1994 and April 1995.

  Income-related benefits are normally uprated by the Rossi index—RPI less certain housing costs—which this year increased by 3·5 per cent. in the year to September. In April 1994, however, extra help will be provided to people receiving income support by bringing forward by a year the effect of VAT on domestic fuel on the Rossi index. Next April their benefits will go up by a total of 3·9 per cent. This is more than the rate at which earnings are rising. These increases will feed through into other income-related benefits: family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Altogether, the total package of extra help through the social security system will be worth more than £1.5 billion over the next three years. More than 15 million people will gain. By paying the additional increase from April 1994, the Government have ensured that help will be available before payment is due on bills which include VAT.

  The Government's success in keeping inflation low has maintained the value of benefits between upratings. This contrasts with the erosion of purchasing power between upratings during the high inflation of the 1970s. Since September, there has been a further welcome fall in the rate of inflation.

  The main features of my uprating package are:

  Retirement Pension
  434
  Retirement pension which is received by 10 million people will rise by £1·50 per week to £57·60 for a single person and by £2·30 to £92·10 for a couple. Not only does this mean a bigger rise next year but it builds in a permanent enhancement to the basic pension which will be uprated in future years.

  Invalidity Benefit

  Invalidity pension will increase by £1·50 to £57·60 per week for a single person and the basic rate of severe disablement allowance will rise from £33·70 to £34·80 per week.

  Unemployment Benefit

  Unemployment benefit for a single person will rise from £44·65 to £45·45 per week.

  Child Benefit

  Child benefit will be fully uprated in line with prices meaning £10·20 per week for the first or eldest eligible child and £8·25 for each subsequent child.

  War Pensions

  War pensions will be uprated fully in line with prices. Also, the special MOD payments to pre-1973 war widows, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, will rise in line with the RPI—from £47·84 to £48.70 per week.

  Non-dependant Deductions

  From next April, I propose to increase the level of non-dependant deductions to income-related benefits to £5, £9, £13 and £25 per week. At the same time, income thresholds and the thresholds for second adult rebates will be raised by up to £4 per week.

  Residential Care and Nursing Home Limits

  The limits for existing income support recipients living in residential care homes will be increased by £9 per week for the elderly and very dependent elderly, and by £7 per week for other groups. There will also be a £5 increase to the London extension for residential care homes. All nursing homes limits will be increased by £10. The residential allowance paid under community arrangements will be increased by £3 per week to £53 in London and £48 elsewhere.

  Schedule of Main proposed Social Security Benefit rates from April 1994 (weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  Attendance Allowance

  higher rate

  44·90

  45·70

  lower rate

  30·00

  30·55

  Child Benefit

  only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable

  10·00

  10·20

  each subsequent child

  8·10

  8·25

  Child's Special Allowance

  see note on Child Dependency Increase

  10·95

  11·00

  Council Tax Benefit

  Personal allowances single

  18 to 24

  34·80

  36·15

  25 or over

  44·00

  45·70

  lone parent—18 or over

  44·00

  45·70

  couple—one or both over 18

  69·00

  71·70

  dependent children

  under 11

  15·05

  15·65

  435

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  11 to 15

  22·15

  23·00

  16 to 17

  26·45

  27·50

  18

  34·80

  36·15

  Premiums

  family

  9·65

  10·05

  lone parent

  10·95

  11·25

  pensioner

  single

  17·30

  18·25

  couple

  26·25

  27·55

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  19·30

  20·35

  couple

  29·00

  30·40

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  23·55

  24·70

  couple

  33·70

  35·30

  disability

  single

  18·45

  19·45

  couple

  26·45

  27·80

  severe disability

  single

  33·70

  34·30

  couple (one qualifies)

  33·70

  34·30

  couple (both qualify)

  67·40

  68·60

  disabled child

  18·45

  19·45

  carer

  11·95

  12·40

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  14·05

  14·40

  lower rate

  11·20

  11·50

  Non-dependant deductions aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: £108 or more

  2·00

  2·30

  gross income: up to £108

  1·00

  1·15

  others, aged 18 or over

  1·00

  1·15

  Old rates 1993

  New rates 1994

  Dependency increases

  Adult Dependency Increases

  For spouse or person looking after children, with; retirement pension on own insurance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit

  33·70

  34·50

  severe disablement allowance

  20·15

  20·70

  invalid care allowance

  20·15

  20·65

  sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  32·30

  33·10

  unemployment benefit

  27·55

  28·05

  maternity allowance/sickness benefit

  26·40

  26·90

  Child Dependency Increases, with; retirement pension, widows' benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and sickness/unemployment benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  10·95

  11·00

  Note: The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases, guardian's allowance and child special allowance to be adjusted where the increase or allowance is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom Chb is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase or allowance is reduced by the differential (less the 75p derived from the October 1991 increase in Chb) between the rate of Chb payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child. This gives a rate of £9·80 (1993) and £9·80 (1994).
  436

  Old Rates 1993 £

  align="right">New Rates 1994 £

  Alternative maximum Council Tax Benefit second adult on Income Support

  25 per cent. of council tax

  Second adult's gross income:

  under £108·00

  15 per cent. of council tax

  £108 to £139·99

  7·5 per cent. of council tax

  Capital

  upper limit7

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregarded Where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  1·500

  Various specified empolyments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent

  25·00

  25·00

  Where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  Where carer premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  War disablement pension and war window's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  Certain Voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  Student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  Student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  Where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  437

  Old rates 1993 £

  New rates 1994 £

  Disability living allowance

  Care component

  Highest

  44·90

  45·70

  Middle

  30·00

  30·55

  Lowest

  11·95

  12·15

  Mobility component

  Higher

  31·40

  31·95

  Lower

  11·95

  12·150

  Disability working allowance

  Adult allowance

  Single people

  43·95

  46·05

  Couples/Lone parents

  60·95

  63·75

  Child allowance

  Under 11

  10·75

  11·20

  11 to 15

  17·85

  18·55

  16 to 17

  22·20

  23·05

  18

  31·00

  32·20

  Applicable amount (i.e taper threshold)

  Single people

  41·40

  43·00

  Couples/Lone parents

  69·00

  71·70

  Capital

  Upper limit

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  Amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  Maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  War disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  Voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  Student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  Student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  Income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  Furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  Where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  Earnings Rules

  Invalid Care Allowance

  50·00

  50·00

  Unemployment Benefit (daily rate)

  2·00

  2·00

  Unemployment Benefit (maximum weekly amount

  56·00

  57·00

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  42·00

  43·00

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitter earnings level(annual amount)

  2,184·00

  2,236·00

  War pensioners unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,184·00

  2,236·00

  Adult dependency increases with sickness benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  26·40

  26·90

  (b) over pension age

  32·30

  33·10

  maternity allowance

  26·40

  26·90

  unemployment bebefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  27·55

  28·05

  (b) over pension age

  33·70

  34·50

  retirement pesion, invalidity

  pension, severe disablement

  allowance, unemployability

  supplement where dependent

  (a) is living with claimant

  44·65

  45·45

  438

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45·09

  45·09

  retirement pension, invalidity

  benefit and unemployability

  supplement where dependant

  not living with claimant

  33·70

  34·50

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  20·15

  20·70

  invalid care allowance

  20·15

  20·65

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

  for first child

  120·00

  120·00

  for each subsequent child

  16·00

  16·00

  Family credit

  Adult credit

  42·50

  44·30

  Child credit

  under 11

  10·75

  11·20

  11 to 15

  17·85

  18·55

  16 to 17

  22·20

  23·05

  18

  31·00

  32·20

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  69·00

  71·70

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Guardian's Allowance

  see note on Child Dependency Increase

  10·95

  11·00

  Hospital Downrating

  20 per cent. rate

  11·20

  11·50

  40 per cent. rate

  22·40

  23·00

  align="right">Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  Housing Benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  16 to 24

  34·80

  36·15

  25 or over

  44·00

  45·70

  lone parent

  under 18

  34·80

  36·15

  18 or over

  44·00

  45·70

  couple

  both under 18

  52·40

  54·55

  one or both over 18

  69·00

  71·70

  dependent children

  under 11

  15·05

  15·65

  439

  Old rates 1993 £

  New rates 1994 £

  11 to 15

  22·15

  23·00

  16 to 17

  26·45

  27·50

  18

  34·80

  36·15

  Premiums

  family

  9·65

  10·05

  lone parent

  10·95

  11·25

  pensioner

  single

  17·30

  18·25

  couple

  26·25

  27·55

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  19·30

  20·35

  couple

  29·00

  30·40

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  23·55

  24·70

  couple

  33·70

  35·30

  disability

  single

  18·45

  19·45

  couple

  26·45

  27·80

  severe disability

  single

  33·70

  34·30

  couple (one qualifies)

  33·70

  34·30

  couple (both qualify)

  67·40

  68·60

  disabled child

  18·45

  19·45

  carer

  11·95

  12·40

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  14·05

  14·40

  lower rate

  11·20

  11·50

  Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances

  aged 25 and over, in receipt of

  Income Support aged 18 or over, not

  in remunerative work or gross income under £72

  4·00

  5·00

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work:

  gross income: £72 to £107·99

  8·00

  9·00

  gross income: £108 to £138·99

  12·00

  13·00

  gross income: £139 or more

  21·00

  25·00

  Service charges for fuel

  heating

  8·60

  8·60

  hot water

  1·05

  1·05

  lighting

  0·70

  0·70

  cooking

  1·05

  1·05

  Amount ineligible for meals three or more meals a day single claimant

  15·75

  16·30

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  15·75

  16·30

  each child under 16

  7·95

  8·25

  less than three meals a day single claimant

  10·45

  10·80

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  10·45

  10·80

  each child under 16

  5·25

  5·45

  breakfast only—claimant and each member of family

  1·90

  95

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part

  440

  Old rates 1993 £

  New rates 1994 £

  thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  various specified employments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent

  25·00

  25·00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  where carer premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Old rates 1993 £

  New rates 1994 £

  Income Support

  Personal allowances

  single

  under 18—usual rate

  26·45

  27·50

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  34·80

  36·15

  18 to 24

  34·80

  36·15

  25 or over

  44·00

  45·70

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  26·45

  27·50

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  34·80

  36·15

  18 or over

  44·00

  45·70

  couple

  both under 18

  52·40

  54·55

  one or both 18 or over

  69·00

  71·70

  dependent children

  under 11

  15·05

  15 ·65

  11 to 15

  22·15

  23·00

  16 to 17

  26·45

  27·50

  18

  34·80

  36·15

  Residential Allowance except Greater London

  45·00

  48·00

  Greater London

  50·00

  53·00

  Premiums

  family

  9·65

  10·05

  lone parent

  4·90

  5·10

  pensioner

  single

  17·30

  18·25

  couple

  26·25

  27·55

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  19·30

  20·35

  couple

  29·00

  30·40

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  23·55

  24·70

  couple

  33·70

  35·30

  441

  Old rates 1993 £

  New rates 1994 £

  disability

  single

  18·45

  19·45

  couple

  26·45

  27·80

  severe disability

  single

  33·70

  34·30

  couple (one qualifies)

  33·70

  34·30

  couple (both qualify)

  67·40

  68·60

  disabled child

  18·45

  19·45

  carer

  11·95

  12·40

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in residential care homes

  old age

  185·00

  194·00

  very dependent elderly

  215·00

  224·00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  195·00

  202·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  195·00

  202·00

  mental handicap

  225·00

  232·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  255·00

  262·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  185·00

  194·00

  others

  185·00

  30·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  25·0

  30·00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  280·00

  290·00

  drug-alcohol dependence

  280·00

  290·00

  mental handicap

  285·00

  295·00

  terminal illness

  280·00

  290·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  315·00

  325·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  280·00

  290·00

  others (including elderly)

  280·00

  290·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  35·00

  35·00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (Daily Rate)

  breakfast

  1·10

  1·10

  midday meal

  1·55

  1·55

  evening meal

  1·55

  1·55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in

  private and voluntary residential care

  and nursing homes

  personal expenses

  12·65

  13·10

  dependent children

  (a) under 11

  5·20

  5·

  (b) 11 to 15

  7·60

  7·85

  (c) 16 to 17

  8·80

  9·10

  (d) age 18

  12·65

  13·10

  hospital

  higher rate

  14·05

  14·40

  lower rate

  11·20

  11·50

  local authority (Part III) accommodation

  12·65

  13·10

  the Polish home Ilford Park max amount for accommodation and meals

  280·00

  290·00

  personal expenses for claimant

  16·75

  17·35

  personal expenses for partner

  16·75

  17·35

  personal expenses for dependant children (a) under 11

  5·20

  5·40

  (b) 11 to 15

  7·60

  7·85

  (c) 16 to 17

  8·80

  9·10

  (d) 18

  15·00

  15·55

  Housing costs

  deduction for non-dependants

  aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or gross income under £72

  4·00

  5·00

  442

  Old Rates 1993£:

  New Rates 1994 £

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work:

  gross income:£72 to £107·99

  8·00

  9·00

  gross income:£108 to £138·99

  12·00

  13·00

  gross income:£139 or more

  21·00

  25·00

  Deduction for direct payments arrears or housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default, and deductions for child maintenance

  2·20

  2·30

  Arrears of Community Charge

  court order against claimant

  2·20

  2·30

  court order against couple

  3·45

  3·60

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments ordinary overpayments

  6·60

  6·90

  Where claimant convicted of fraud

  8·80

  9·20

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  23·50

  24·50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £ for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5·00

  5·00

  higher earnings

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenated income

  5·00

  5·00

  income form boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount(£20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the carge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·60

  8·60

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  56·10

  57·60

  lower rate

  16·83

  17·28

  Industrial Disablement pension

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100 per cent.

  91·60

  93·20

  90 per cent.

  82·44

  83·88

  80 per cent.

  73·28

  74·56

  70 per cent.

  64·12

  65·24

  60 per cent.

  54·96

  55·92

  50 per cent.

  45·80

  46·60

  40 per cent.

  36·64

  37·28

  30 per cent.

  27·48

  27·96

  20 per cent.

  18·32

  18·64

  Under 18

  100 per cent.

  56·10

  57·10

  90 per cent.

  50·49

  51·39

  80 per cent.

  44·88

  45·68

  70 per cent.

  39·27

  39·97

  60 per cent.

  33·66

  34·26

  443

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  50 per cent.

  28·05

  28·55

  40 per cent.

  22·44

  22·84

  30 per cent.

  16·83

  17·13

  20 per cent.

  11·22

  11·42

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  6,080·00

  6,190·00

  Unemployability Supplement

  56·10

  57·60

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  11·95

  12·15

  middle rate

  7·50

  7·60

  lower rate

  3·75

  3·80

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  36·64

  37·28

  Maximum retirement allowance

  9·16

  9·32

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  73·40

  74·80

  intermediate rate

  55·05

  56·10

  normal maximum rate

  36·70

  37·40

  part-time rate

  18·35

  18·70

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  36·70

  37·40

  Invalid Care Allowance

  33·70

  34·50

  Invalidity Benefit

  Invalidity pension

  56·10

  57·60

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  11·95

  12·15

  middle rate

  7·50

  7·60

  lower rate

  3·75

  3·80

  Maternity Allowance

  43·75

  44·55

  One-parent Benefit

  6·05

  6·15

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) and other schemes

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  91·60

  93·20

  Partial disablement allowance

  33·70

  34·50

  Unemployability supplement

  56·10

  57·60

  plus where appropriate increases for erly incapacity

  higher rate

  11·95

  12·15

  middle rate

  7·50

  7·60

  lower rate

  3·75

  3·80

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  73·40

  74·80

  intermediate rate

  55·05

  56·10

  normal maximum rate

  36·70

  37·40

  part-time rate

  18·35

  18·70

  Exceptionally severe disablement

  allowance

  36·70

  34·50

  maximum rate of allowance

  33·70

  34·50

  based on loss of earnings over

  44·90

  45·70

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  Retirement Pensionl

  Category A or B

  56·10

  57·60

  Category B (lower)—husband's insurance

  33·70

  34·50

  Category C or D—non-contributory

  33·70

  34·50

  444

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  Category C (lower)— non-contributory

  20·15

  20·65

  Additional pension

  Increase by 1·8 per cent.

  Increments to basic and additional pension, contracted out deductions (from pre-April 1988 earnings) and graduatedretirement benefit

  Increase by 1·8 per cent.

  Contracted out deductions(CODs) and increments scheme to CODs (from post-April 1988 earnings)

  1·8 per cent.paid by

  Gdaduated retirement benefit (unit) (pence)

  7·35

  7·48

  Addition at age 80

  0·25

  0·25

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Basic rate

  33·70

  34·80

  Age-related addition

  Higher rate

  11·95

  12·15

  Middle rate

  7·50

  7·60

  Lower rate

  3·75

  3.80

  Sickness Benefit

  Over pension age

  53·80

  55·25

  Under pension age

  42·70

  43·45

  Social fund

  Maternity payment

  100·00

  100·00

  Cold Weather Payments

  6·00

  7·00

  Capital limit

  aged under 60

  500·00

  500·00

  ages 60 and over

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  lower rate

  47·95

  48·80

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Lower rate

  46·95

  47·80

  Standard rate

  52·50

  52·50

  Unemployment Benefit

  Over pension age

  56·10

  57·60

  Under pension age

  44·65

  45·45

  Occupational pension abatement

  35·00

  35·00

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New rates 1994 £

  War Pensions

  Disablement pension (100 per cent. rates)

  privare or equivalent

  97·20

  98·90

  officer (£ per annum maximum

  5,072·00

  5,161·00

  Age allowances

  40 per cent. to 50 per cent.

  6·50

  6·60

  over 50 per cent. but not over 70 per cent.

  10·00

  10·20

  over 70 per cent. nut not over 90 per cent.

  14·30

  14·55

  over 90 per cent.

  20·00

  20·40

  Disablement gratuity (base figures for calculation purposes only)

  specified minor injury

  6,080·00

  6,190·00

  unspecified minor injury

  3,344·00

  3,404·50

  Unemployability allowance

  personal

  59·55

  61·10

  adult dependency increase

  33·70

  34·50

  (a) increase for first child

  9·80

  9·80

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  10·95

  11·00

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  11·95

  12·15

  middle rate

  7·50

  7·60

  lower rate

  3·75

  3·80

  445

  Old rates 1993 £

  New rates 1994 £

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  73·40

  74·0

  intermediate rate

  55·05

  56·10

  normal maximum rate

  36·70

  37·40

  part-time rate

  18·35

  18·70

  Comforts allowance

  higher rate

  15·70

  16·00

  lower rate

  7·85

  8·00

  Mobility supplement

  34·90

  35·55

  Allowance for lowered standard of

  occupation (maximum)

  36·64

  37·28

  Exceptionally severe disablement

  allowance

  36·70

  37·40

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  18·35

  18·70

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum)

  higher rate

  124·00

  126·00

  lower rate

  79·00

  80·00

  Education allowance (£ per annum)

  (maximum)

  120·00

  120·00

  War widow's pension

  Widow (private)

  72·90

  74·70

  Childless widow under 40 (private)

  16·83

  17·28

  Childless widow under 40 (other ranks)

  17·08

  17·54

  Widow-Officer (£ per annum) maximum

  4,514·00

  4,621·00

  Age allowance

  (a) age 65 to 69

  8·35

  8·50

  (b) age 70 to 79

  16·10

  16·40

  (c) age 80 and over

  23·95

  24·40

  Children's allowance

  (a) Increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  13·85

  13·90

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  15·00

  15·10

  Orphan's pension

  (a) Increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  15·45

  15·50

  (b) Increase for subsequent children

  16·60

  16·70

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (maximum)

  70·85

  72·65

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  27·75

  28·25

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  56·10

  57·60

  Widower's pension

  (i) Private or equivalent

  72·90

  74·70

  (ii) Officer (£ per annum) maximum

  4,514·00

  4,621·00

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  Widow's Benefit

  Widow's payment (lump sum)

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  Widowed mother's allowance

  56·10

  57·60

  Widow's pension

  standard rate

  56·10

  57·60

  446

  Old Rates 1993 £

  New Rates 1994 £

  age-related

  age 54 (49)

  52·17

  53·57

  53 (48)

  48·25

  49·54

  52 (47)

  44·32

  45·50

  51 (46)

  40·39

  41·47

  50 (45)

  36·47

  37·44

  49 (44)

  32·54

  33·41

  48 (43)

  28·61

  29·38

  47 (42)

  24·68

  25·34

  46 (41)

  20·76

  21·31

  45 (40)

  16·83

  17·28

  Note: For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age points shown in brackets.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of income support are presently having mortgage interest payments made on their behalf; and what is the total cost to his Department at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  Five hundred and sixty-two thousand income support recipients have mortgage interest included in their assessment; the annual equivalent of the amount so included is estimated at £,270 million.Source: Income support statistics quarterly inquiry, February 1993.

  Ministerial Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 1993 Official Report, columns 34-35, if he will specify the nature of the ministerial hospitality in his Department during the financial year 1992–93 for each event, giving the cost in each case.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the form requested. The main items of expenditure are in the table:

  Expenditure on DSS Ministerial hospitality 1992–93

  £

  Minister of State's reception in honour of organisations representing desabled people

  5,710·05

  Ministerial hospotallity at other smaller functions, totalling

  6,845·85

  Ministers (Private Residences)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what visits have been made by officials to private residences of Ministers in his Department since April 1992.

  Mr. Hague
  Officials sometimes visit Ministers' private residences mainly to collect or drop off urgent papers. Records of such visits are not kept.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating Ministers' offices in his Department since April 1993.
  447
  Mr. Hague
  There has been no such expenditure on Ministers' personal accommodation during the current financial year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on alcohol in Ministers' offices in his Department since 9 April 1992.

  Mr. Hague
  The total amount spent is £6,136·79.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the Government's assessment of the level of humanitarian needs in Burundi; and what action the Government and the EC are taking to meet those needs;

  (2) how much humanitarian aid has been sent from Britain and the EC to Burundi; and of this how much was designated for refugees.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have provided £463,000 to United Nations agencies, the International Red Cross movement and Y Care International in response to their appeals for assistance for some 920,000 refugees and displaced Burundis. This includes £50,000 to the International Commission of the Red Cross for those in the north and east of the country. The EC has committed over 8·5 mecu including 3 mecu for those displaced in Burundi.

  We remain ready to consider any further appeals for assistance to the region in collaboration with fellow donors including EC and other NGOs.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  POLIS (Searching)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what plans he has to increase the value and sales of the parliamentary on-line information system by(a) extending the coverage of parliamentary questions by allowing political party to be specified in the search terms and (b) developing the system to allow for free text on-line
  searching of Hansard.

  Mr. Gary Waller
  Access by users outside Parliament to the parliamentary on-line information system (POLIS) is via a commercial service provider who markets it on behalf of the House. The House receives income in the form of royalties. The ability to search the databases by political party is not available on the public version of POLIS and there are no immediate plans to include it. The full text of Hansard is available for purchase on CD-ROM disk, published by HMSO and Chadwyck Healey but is not available on the POLIS public user service.

  I will arrange for the hon. Member's question to be drawn to the attention of the company which will be providing the POLIS 3 public user service.

  Toilet Rolls
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the latest available annual figure for the amount of money spent on the provision of toilet rolls, hand towels and soap in the Palace of Westminster.
  448
  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms.

  Veal
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will list the last three occasions on which the House of Commons canteens served veal; and what was its country of origin.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  All veal purchased by the Refreshment Department is of British origin and reared by the Quantock method. Detailed operations of the Department are a matter for the Director of Catering.

HEALTH

  GP Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the transaction and computing costs of general practitioner fund-holding schemes, in total and for each NHS region, both in cash terms and as percentages of total fundholding expenditure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of regional health authorities for details.

  Consultants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the total number of finished consultant episodes within each English health region for(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes, NHS hospitals, England

  (Thousands)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  England Total1

  8,785·3

  9,302·2

  9,636·3

  Northern RHA

  628·5

  655·3

  678·2

  Yorkshire RHA

  722·1

  751·5

  784·6

  Trent RHA

  809·2

  858·8

  899·5

  East Anglian RHA

  361·0

  379·3

  388·4

  North West Thames RHA

  536·2

  576·7

  600·4

  North East Thames RHA

  695·2

  746·6

  762·2

  South East Thames RHA

  629·.2

  673·1

  702·5

  South West Thames RHA

  457·6

  500·6

  522·2

  Wessex RHA

  526·2

  562·5

  573·9

  Oxford RHA

  383·3

  404·9

  431·1

  South Western RHA

  588·1

  617·6

  647·2

  West Midlands RHA

  959·7

  1,006·7

  1,029·1

  Mersey RHA

  487·2

  519·1

  541·6

  North Western RHA

  887·0

  927·0

  944·4

  1 Includes special health authorities.

  Source: KP70 Returns-SD2A.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of consultants in the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government encourage consultant expansion in line with the "Achieving a Balance" policy agreed with the medical profession and the national health service. However, it is a matter for each employing body to determine the number of consultants needed in each specialty in the light of local needs and competing priorities. Copies of "Achieving a Balance" are available in the Library.

  Midwives
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to encourage health authorities and trusts to offer midwife-only beds and midwife-only care to low-risk pregnant women in all maternity units.

  Mr. Sackville
  In September 1992, the national health service management executive wrote to all regional general managers listing issues needing to be kept under review. The list included the development of midwife led maternity services. More recently, in August 1993, the expert maternity group report "Changing Childbirth" emphasised that there are no legal restrictions preventing midwives from admitting women in labour to maternity unit beds. The report recommended, among other things, that the national health service should ensure that women can book with a midwife for their entire episode of care if that is what they want. This report has been the subject of wide consultation and comments on the report are being given careful consideration in the Department. Specific action to be taken in the national health service will be notified as soon as Ministers have completed their consideration of the responses to the report. Copies of both the letter and the report are available in the Library.

  Perinatal Epidemiology Unit
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of a report of her Department's review of the national perinatal epidemiology unit, together with the report which the unit prepared for the review.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 26 November at columns 242-44.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to counteract sexual harassment in the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Harassment at work in any form is unacceptable and should be treated as a disciplinary offence. Management and staff representatives in the Whitley council reached agreement last year on combating harassment at work. Employing authorities in the national health service are responsible for determining their own local policies on strategies to combat harassment at work, in line with this framework.

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients die each year in acute hospital beds; and what percentage of patients with cancer die in acute hospital beds each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which figures are available, an estimated 292,000 people died in national health service hospitals from all causes. Over the same period, 143,000 people died in England from cancer, of whom an estimated 63,000—44 per cent.—died in NHS hospitals.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the projected outturn figures for her Department's budget for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The forecast outturn for Government spending in 1993–94 for health and personal social services is £30,053 million, of which outturn for the national health service is £29,215 million.

  Immunisation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to include the Rubella vaccination alone among those girls who have not had the MMR vaccination in the targets for general practitioners.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Rubella immunisation is recommended for schoolgirls aged between 10 and 14 years. The majority of these immunisations are given in schools as part of the schools health service. Where the vaccine is administered by a general practitioner a fee is paid. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to include rubella immunisation in the target scheme for general practitioners.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were immunisation rates for (i) BCG and (ii) rubella, which have not been part of the MMR programme, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is for numbers immunised in England for 1988–89 to 1991–92 as shown in the table. Data for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  Number of Immunisations: 1988–89 to 1991–92 not part of the MMR programme

  thousands

  Year

  Single antigen rubella (schoolgirls)

  BCG vaccination (Children)

  1988–89

  229

  409

  1989–901

  219

  197

  1990–91

  199

  479

  1991–92

  221

  460

  1 The school BCG programme was suspended in 1989 as there were insufficient supplies of BCG vaccine.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of targeted children receive the(a) DTP, (b) polio, (c) MMR and (d) HIB immunisation, by district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information available for DTP, polio and MMR for the financial year 1991–92 is shown in table 7 of statistical information on "Vaccination and Immunisation", a copy of which is available in the Library. No data are yet available about the take-up of Hib immunisation.

  Notifiable Diseases
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) dysentery, (b) typhoid, (c) paratyphoid, (d) malaria, (e) tuberculosis and (f) jaundice were reported in 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  451

  Numbers of notifications for dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, malaria, tuberculosis and viral hepatitis in 1992, England and Wales

  Number

  Dysentery

  16,960

  Typhoid fever

  201

  Paratyphoid fever

  81

  Malaria

  1,189

  Tuberculosis

  5,799

  Viral hepatitis1

  8,993

  1 Infective jaundice was redesignated viral hepatitis on 1 October 1988.

  Infant Mortality
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the level of infant mortality in each EC country.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Infant mortality rate1 in each European Community country for 1991

  Infant mortality rate

  Belgium

  27·0

  Denmark

  7·3

  Germany

  6·9

  Greece

  9·0

  Spain

  27·8

  France

  7·3

  Ireland

  28·2

  Number and percentage unemployed aged 16 to 19 and 20 to 24; 19912 and 1981, Don Valley parliamentary constituency (Sources: 1991 and 1981 censuses)

  Unemployed persons

  Year and age group

  Total persons

  Economically active person1

  Total

  As percentage of total

  As percentage of active

  1981

  Aged 16-19

  6,887

  4,405

  957

  13·9

  21·7

  Aged 20-24

  7,264

  5,710

  980

  13·5

  17·2

  19912

  Aged 16-19

  5,549

  3,315

  665

  11·8

  19·8

  Aged 20-24

  7,099

  5,437

  1,020

  14·4

  18·8

  1 Persons who are employees, self employed, on a Government scheme, or unemployed.

  2 Provisional figures from 1991 census produced by aggregating ward and enumeration district statistics. Statistics for wards and enumeration districts are modified slightly to protect confidentiality.

  Abortion
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of terminations of pregnancy performed in England by regional health authority of the patient's usual residence for 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not yet available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many regions of the NHS more terminations of pregnancy are performed in non-NHS hospitals than in NHS hospitals at the last date for which figures are available; what were the figures for the previous year; and what plans she has to ensure that access to the termination procedure within the NHS is consistent throughout the health regions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the tables for England for 1990 and 1991. Arrangements
  452

  Infant mortality rate

  Italy

  28·2

  Luxembourg

  9·2

  Netherlands

  6·5

  Portugal

  10·8

  United Kingdom

  7·4

  1Deaths under one year per 1,000 livebirths.

  2Provisional.

  Source: Eurostat Demographic Statistics 1993.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged(a) 16 or 17 years and (b) 18 to 24 years living in the Don Valley constituency were unemployed according to the 1991 census; what this was as a percentage of each age group; and how this compares with the 1981 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Statistics for age groups 16 to 17 and 18 to 24 could be produced only at disproportionate cost for 1981 and, at this stage, for 1991. Final 1991 census statistics for parliamentary constituencies will be available early in 1994.

  for abortion services under the national health service are the responsibility of individual district health authorities in the light of their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Total abortions

  Abortions carried out or paid for by the NHS

  Column 2 as a percentage column 1

  1990

  England

  166,460

  78,635

  47·2

  Northern RHA

  7,289

  6,145

  84·3

  Yorkshire RHA

  10,221

  4,373

  42·8

  Trent RHA

  12,509

  7,493

  59·9

  East Anglian RHA

  5,112

  3,987

  78·0

  North West Thames RHA

  18,465

  7,041

  38·1

  North East Thames RHA

  22,015

  10,725

  48·7

  South East Thames RHA

  16,748

  6,663

  39·8

  South West Thames RHA

  11,778

  3,535

  30·0

  Wessex RHA

  8,002

  3,586

  44·8

  Oxford RHA

  8,074

  3,742

  46·3

  South Western RHA

  7,903

  5,473

  69·3

  West Midlands RHA

  18,380

  8,058

  43·8

  Mersey RHA

  7,520

  2,975

  39·6

  North Western RHA

  12,444

  4,839

  38·9

  453

  Total abortions

  Abortions carried out or paid for by the NHS

  Column 2 as a percentage of column 1

  1991

  England

  160,189

  79,939

  49·9

  Northern RHA

  6,873

  5,866

  85·3

  Yorkshire RHA

  10,136

  5,167

  51·0

  Trent RHA

  12,641

  8,178

  64·7

  East Anglian RHA

  4,776

  3,819

  80·0

  North West Thames RHA

  17,929

  6,833

  38·1

  North East Thames RHA

  20,797

  10,584

  50·9

  South East Thames RHA

  15,675

  6,607

  42·1

  South West Thames RHA

  11,594

  3,939

  34·0

  Wessex RHA

  7,557

  3,254

  43·1

  Oxford RHA

  7,693

  3,714

  48·3

  South Western RHA

  7,575

  5,483

  72·4

  West Midlands RHA

  17,692

  8,355

  47·2

  Mersey RHA

  7,163

  3,105

  43·3

  North Western RHA

  12,088

  5,035

  41·7

  Fund-holding GPs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has received on the extent to which fund-holding patients are being seen ahead of nonfundholding patients who have greater clinical need.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On investigation such allegations prove to be unfounded. Emergency and urgent cases are always given priority, and hospitals are prevented from offering contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage the patients of another.

  Geriatric Population
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the increase in the geriatric population in the next 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no statistical definition of the term "geriatric population", but the population of the United Kingdom aged 75 and over is projected to rise from 3,974,000 in mid-1993 to 4,530,000 in mid-2003, an increase of 14 per cent. according to the Government Actuary's 1991-based projections.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what percentage of incidents the London ambulance service failed to meet its call-out time standards in the financial year 1992–93, and in each month to date of the current financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The percentage of calls to which the London ambulance service failed to respond within 14 minutes in 1992–93 and in each month April-October 1993, is shown in the table.

  Percentage of calls not responded to within 14 minutes

  Percentage

  1992–93

  41·5

  April 1993

  32·0

  May 1993

  33·0

  June 1993

  40·0

  July 1993

  38·0

  August 1993

  35·0

  September 1993

  36·0

  October 1993

  42·0

  454
  Figures for period April 1993—October 1993 supplied by the London ambulance service.

  Public Health Medical Staff
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for 1992 the number of public health medical staff by grade and sex.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Number of public health medical staff in England1

  By grade and sex 30 September 1992

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Regional director of public health

  13·8

  4·0

  17·8

  District director of public health

  71·8

  43·5

  115·3

  Consultant in public health medicine

  154·1

  101·4

  255·5

  Special salary scale staff

  3·1

  2·0

  5·1

  Senior registrar and registrar

  153·9

  176·0

  329·9

  Senior house officer

  10·0

  17·5

  27·5

  Total all staff

  406·7

  344·4

  751·1

  1 Whole-time equivalents.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for 1992–93 for health visitor services(a) the total number of persons visited at home by age group, (b) the total number of visits, (c) the total number of whole-time equivalent staff and (d) the total number of health visitor students.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is collected centrally only on the number of whole-time equivalent health visiting staff and the total number of health visitor students. Data for 1992–93 will be available in summer 1994.

  Cortico-steroids
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made by the Medicines Control Agency concerning the information available for both doctors and patients arising from its investigation into the issue of immunosuppression in patients being treated with cortico-steroids and the possibility of infections including chickenpox; and if she will publish the report of the investigation.

  Mr. Sackville
  No changes have been made to date. This matter is still under consideration and advice is being sought from the committee on the safety of medicines.

  Waltham Forest Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to reduce the projected deficit by Waltham Forest health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The projected deficit of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority will be managed by the
  455
  district health authority with assistance from North East Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, the chairman of the North East Thames regional health authority for details.

  Key Workers (Care Programme)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for training for key workers in their duties under the care programme approach; and how this will be funded.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities, national health service trusts, local authority social services departments, and private and voluntary organisations involved in the delivery of mental health services, are responsible for ensuring that those members of their staff likely to be identified as key workers are trained in their duties under the care programme approach. Best professional practice is covered in pre-registration training courses for mental health professionals, which are funded centrally or regionally. Employing agencies meet the costs of any post-registration training they consider appropriate.

  Medical and nursing staff in occupational health England—at 30 September 1988–92

  Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Medical Staff

  Consultants and staff grades

  10

  20

  30

  30

  40

  Junior grades

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Clinical assistants and others

  20

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Total

  40

  50

  60

  70

  70

  Nursing Staff

  Nurse learners

  0

  10

  30

  20

  0

  Day nursery staff

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Clinical grading structure:

  Unqualidied

  —

  0

  10

  10

  10

  Scale C

  —

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Scale D (2nd level enrolled)

  —

  10

  10

  10

  20

  Scale D (1st level registerd)

  —

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Scale E

  —

  50

  50

  40

  50

  Scale F

  —

  80

  80

  80

  80

  Scale G

  —

  250

  240

  240

  230

  Scale H

  —

  90

  90

  100

  100

  Scale I

  —

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Senior nurses

  80

  40

  30

  10

  —

  Senior nurse (Staff Support Education)

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Senior nurses/midwives

  —

  —

  —

  20

  20

  Pre-1989 grading structure

  530

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Others

  0

  0

  —

  —

  10

  Total

  610

  640

  660

  640

  620

  Medical and Nursing Total

  650

  690

  720

  710

  690

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. '0' indicates figures less than five and '—' indicates no staff at all.

  3. The totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when fresh guidelines will be issued, and what form the guidance will take, to ensure that psychiatric patients are not discharged from hospital inappropriately and that those who leave get the right support from the different agencies.
  456
  The Department is currently considering what further training is required for key workers.

  Lexie McConnell
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken arising from the report by the chief executive of the management executive into the case of Lexie McConnell; and if she will make public his report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following an investigation by the national health service management executive into the case of Lexie McConnell, there was found to be no denial of patients charter rights. A letter setting out these findings was sent to Mr. and Mrs. McConnell in July.

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical and nursing staff worked in occupational health in the NHS for the last five years for which figures are available; and what were the grades of those employees.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Bowis
  The guidance, which is part of our 10 point plan for developing successful and safe community care, will draw together the principles and practices which should apply in assessing when psychiatric patients may suitably and safely leave hospital and in ensuring that the necessary care and support are provided when they do. Work on the guidance is well advanced and we shall be issuing it for consultation shortly.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each health authority in South Yorkshire the number of prescriptions issued where the patient was(a) exempt from NHS payment charges, (b) required to pay the NHS charge and (c) was a private patient.

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

  Numbers (thousands) of prescription1 items dispensed in family health services authorities in South Yorkshire in 1992

  FHSA

  Exempt2

  Chargeable3

  Barnsley

  1,959

  392

  Doncaster

  2,551

  535

  Rotherham

  1,857

  376

  Sheffield

  4,412

  838

  1 The analysis is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered, are not analysed into exempt, non-exempt or other categories.

  2 Exempt prescriptions also include prescriptions dispensed to patients entitled to charge remission under the national health service low income scheme, and prescriptions for contraceptives.

  3 Chargeable prescriptions include prescriptions dispensed to patients holding prescription prepayment certificates.

  Notes:

  Information is not collected on private prescriptions.

  Influenza Vaccination
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority the current waiting time for people wishing to be inoculated against influenza; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) on 29 November at column 305 regarding influenza vaccine supply.

  Special Needs Management Allowance
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of reductions in the transitional special needs management allowance on projects providing homes for people with drink, drug and mental health problems.

  Mr. Bowis
  Transitional special needs management allowance is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Ambulance Service (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations underlie the classification of Doncaster as a rural area for ambulance purposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  The formula for classification of national health service ambulance services as urban or rural was introduced following the acceptance of a recommendation made in an independent consultant's report in 1990. Those ambulance services serving an area with an overall population density of greater than 2·5 people per acre were classified as urban. Others were classified as rural. The population density formula 458
  acknowledges the higher number of longer distance journeys travelled by ambulance services in less densely populated rural areas.

  Doncaster falls within the overall area served by the South Yorkshire Metropolitan ambulance and paramedic service. That area is classified as urban.

  Cancer (Funding)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of funding for work on cancer is allocated to screening and prevention programmes.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chairmen of NHS trusts have not had their contracts renewed in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of chairmen of national health service trusts who have not been given a further term, or have stood down when their period of office expired, in each of the last three years is as follows:

  1991 – None

  1992 – 2

  1993 – 14

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will replace the payment of salaries/emoluments to chairmen and non-executive directors of health authorities and NHS trusts with a system based on payment for loss of earnings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers of female, male and ethnic minority directors, and chairs of NHS trusts, district health authorities and regional health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available centrally for executive members or directors. For non-executives, some 36 per cent.—1,429 out of 3,920 chairmen and non-executive appointees to national health service authorities and trusts—are women. Three per cent., 117 appointees, are from ethnic minority groups.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours a week a chairman of a national health service trust is required to work; and what is the hourly rate of remuneration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Chairmen of boards of national health service authorities and trusts are part-time appointments and minimum hours are not set. They are remunerated within a range £15,125 to £19,285 per annum according to the trust's turnover.

  Intensive Care, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by year for the last four years, and the current year to date for the Doncaster area the number of cases in which people with life-threatening conditions and in need of intensive care have been referred to hospitals outside the Doncaster area; to which hospitals they were referred; what assessment she has made as to the adequacy of
  459
  intensive care provision in the Doncaster area for the coming winter months; what action she will be taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. J Smith, chairman of Doncaster health authority for details.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued on the amount of sleep junior doctors should have in each 24 hours and in each week.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the changes she has planned to the new deal for junior doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans at present to change the new deal for junior doctors.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to implement the new deal on junior doctors' hours.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 28 October at column 767.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that provider units meet targets set by her in the junior doctors' new deal.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 28 October at column 767.

  Health Service, London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce her final plans for the restructuring of the NHS in London.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future pattern of acute health care in London; and what financial arrangements have been made for the closure of hospitals in London in 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's strategy for the future of London's acute health services is set out clearly in "Making London Better". Proposals for a number of specific changes to the pattern of services will be put forward shortly and, where appropriate, will be subject to formal consultation. As indicated in "Making London Better", resources will be available to ensure that any changes take place in an orderly fashion and no proposal will be agreed unless it offers a sound basis for delivering a high quality and cost-effective service to patients.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given to the establishment of a regional health authority for the Greater London area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is currently consulting on proposals to determine new national health service regions and establish new regional health authorities. Copies of the consultation document 460
  "Managing the New NHS" have been sent to all Members of Parliament and are available in the Library. In the configuration of regions shown in the document, the Greater London area is divided between the proposed North Thames and South Thames regions. This configuration was chosen after considering a range of options, including options involving the establishment of a single regional health authority for the Greater London area, because it most closely met the criteria of minimising disruption to the work of the national health service; maintaining a spread of medical schools across the regions; ensuring that individual regions would be administratively manageable; and respecting natural lines of communication such as road and rail links.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on improving primary health care in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In "Making London Better", the Government gave a commitment to invest £170 million on capital projects over six years. £40 million was made available in 1993–94 and has been used to fund primary health care development plans in each of the 12 family health services authorities within the London initiative zone (LIZ). It is expected that the extra LIZ moneys will fund over a hundred capital schemes this year. In addition, £7·5 million was made available over three years to fund voluntary sector projects to help prevent admission to hospital or facilitate early discharge. Thirty-one voluntary sector projects have already been approved as part of this initiative at a cost of £5 million.

  Hospital Charges
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to charge hospital in-patients for food.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Winyard Report
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Winyard report.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the working party chaired by Dr. Graham Winyard is to be formally published; and when the Department will issue a formal response.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 9 June 1993 I asked the medical director of the national health service management executive, Dr. Graham Winyard, to carry out a review of current medical staffing policies. The terms of reference were:(i) To identify and consider the options available for the continued implementation of current NHS medical workforce policies including Achieving a Balance and the New Deal. This work is to be carried out in the context of the internal market, and the proposed changes in specialist training and taking into account resource constraints and managerial feasibility.
  (ii) To make any recommendations to the Minister for Health for implementing any changes which may need to be made to existing policies by 31 October 1993.

  Membership of the working group included representatives of the medical profession and NHS management.

  Dr. Winyard has now submitted his report and we are considering a number of recommendations for changes to current medical staffing policies.

  Women Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage of women consultants at the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  As at September 1992, 16·3 per cent. of hospital consultants in England were women.

  Quest Cancer Test Trial
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was her decision on funding the Quest HDA cervical cancer test trial; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1988, Quest has not made a bid to the Department for research funding.

  Hospital Budgets
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have overspent their budgets so far in the current year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Family Practitioner Budgets
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family practitioners have reduced their budgets for purchasing hospital treatment(a) nationally and (b) in the Coventry area; what effects she expects the reduced budgets to have on patient care and on the jobs of medical staff, with particular reference to the Coventry area and on the west midlands; and what reasons she has been given for the reductions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for setting general practitioner fundholder budgets, under guidance issued by the national health service management executive EL(93)93, copies of which are available in the Library. These budgets are set at the beginning of the financial year and cannot be reduced mid-year.

  Elderly Patients (Specialist Treatment)
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to both local health authorities and residential nursing homes for the elderly as to the responsibility for payment for essential specialist medical items necessary for the post-operative and continuing care of elderly patients.

  Mr. Bowis
  A large number of such items are available on national health service prescription.

  Responsibility for prescribing drugs, dressings and appliances generally rests with the doctor who has clinical responsibility for the patient's care.

  Guidance to health authorities in EL(91)127 advised that in some cases, responsibility for prescribing for discharged patients should remain with consultants rather than general practitioners, for example where drugs or appliances were only available through hospitals.

  In December 1992 the Department issued guidance to both health authorities (HSG(92)50) and local authorities (LAC(92)24) about their respective responsibilities for funding community health services for people placed by local authorities in nursing and residential care homes after 1 April 1993.
  462
  Copies of EL(91)127, HSG(92)50 and LAC(92)24 are available in the Library.

  Qa Business Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what studies he has made of the status of ex-Government employees and their pensions in the pension funds of(a) West Midlands regional health authority and Qa Business Services and (b) Harland and Wolff.

  (2) what advice has been received from Government Actuaries on the surpluses in the pension funds of (a) West Midlands regional health authority and Qa Business Services and (b) Harland and Wolff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have been asked to reply.

  None so far as the West Midlands regional health authority pension fund and Qa Business Services pension fund are concerned. Information regarding Harland and Wolff is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

WALES

  Travellers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement concerning his revised policies for camps for itinerants in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government announced their revised policy on sites for itinerants on 31 March 1993.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that private patients are not put in for free tests in NHS hospitals in Wales at the expense of delays for NHS patients.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is nationally agreed guidance on private practice in health service hospitals. This requires local managers and clinicians to ensure there is no conflict between private practice and NHS work and that private patients should not receive services at the expense of NHS patients. I expect all health authorities and national health service trusts to ensure that there is the fullest compliance under this guidance.

  Nuclear Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the relationship between the operation of the nuclear plants at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd and the incidence of cancer recorded in the latest Welsh cancer register for Gwynedd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest published registration rates for individual cancers in Gwynedd are contained in "Cancer Registration in Wales: 1984–86".

  Registration rates for all cancers in Gwynedd, while not the highest, are 4 per cent. higher than for Wales as a whole, taking account of the age distribution of the Gwynedd population. The main cancers which contribute to the higher registration rates are of the stomach, colon, pancreas, lung, gall bladder, kidney, breast, uterus, ovary and prostate, and myeloid leukaemia. The pattern of a higher incidence of some cancers in Gwynedd has been known for more than 80 years.
  463
  Current expert opinion on the risks of exposure to radiation indicates that the low radiation doses to the population that may have arisen from Trawsfynydd or Wylfa could not be the cause of this higher incidence.

  However, the registration data for Gwynedd are being examined currently to determine the incidence of certain other types of cancer in the vicinity of Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear installations. The results will be made available in due course.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the development agencies together with their directors; and how much has been paid to each director, including expenses, in each of the past five years, and the current year to date.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is as follows:

  Development Board for Rural Wales (£ per annum)

  Remuneration

  Chairman

  Members

  1989–90

  25,445

  5,030

  1990–91

  26,975

  5,335

  1991–92

  29,290

  5,790

  1992–93

  29,835

  5,900

  1993–94

  31,925

  6,315

  Board Members:

  Chairman:

  Mr. Glyn Davies—1 April 1989 to 31 March 1995

  Members:

  Mr. Robert Gee—1 April 1989 to 31 March 1995

  Councillor Veronica Hollis—1 April 1989 to 31 March 1995

  Councillor Andrew Leonard—1 April 1988 to 31 March 1994

  Mr. Jeffrey Morgan—1 April 1989 to 31 March 1995

  Mr. Hywel Roberts—1 April 1989 to 31 March 1995

  Mr. Peter Saunders—1 May 1988 to 31 March 1994

  Councillor Keith Evans—1 April 1991 to 31 March 1994

  Sir Donald Walters—6 November 1984 to 31 March 1996

  Councillor Roger Williams—1 April 1989 to 31 March 1995

  Mrs. Christine Lewis—April 1992 to 31 March 1995

  Mr. Dyfrig John—1 April 1993 to 31 March 1996

  The Hon. Robin Gibson Watt—May 1993 to 31 March 1996

  Mr. Ian Jones—1 April 1990 to 31 March 1993

  Mr. Eddie Rea—1 April 1987 to 31 March 1993

  Mr. Michael Shaw—1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991

  Mr. J. Kendall Harris—1 April 1981 to 31 March 1990

  Welsh Development Agency

  Remuneration (£ per annum)

  Chairman1

  Deputy chair-man

  Members

  1989–90

  55,424

  17,900

  5,065

  1990–91

  58,750

  18,975

  5,370

  1991–92

  63,800

  20,605

  5,835

  1992–93

  42,235

  21,830

  6,180

  1993–94

  43,455

  33,680

  6,315

  1From June 1989 the chairman's time commitment was four days per week. From 1992–93 the time commitment dropped to two and a half days per week. The salary is subject to annual reviews by the Top Salaries Review Body.

  Board Members:

  Chairman:

  Dr. Gwyn Jones—1989–90 to 30 June 1993

  Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe—1 July 1993 to 30 June 1996

  Deputy Chairman:

  Sir Donald Walters—1989–90 to 1992–931

  Dr. Roy Bichan—1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Chief Executive:

  Mr. David Waterstone—1989–90

  464

  Mr. Philip Head—1990–91 to 31 December 1993 Members:

  Mr. David G. Roberts—1989–90 to 1991–92

  Mr. R. P. V. (Tim) Rees—1989–90 to 1991–92

  Mr. Hugh Hudson Davies—1989–90

  Mr. John Foley—1989–90 to 28 February 1994

  Mr. E. Glyn Davies—1989–90 to 31 March 1995

  Dr. Colyn Gardner—1989–90 to 1991–92

  Mr. Elfed Roberts—1989–90

  Mr. A. David Malpas—1989–90 to 31 December 1995

  Mr. Idwal Symonds—31 December 1989.

  Mr. David Cole—21 January 1990

  Mr. Richard Brewster—1990–91 to 1992–93

  Dr. Pamela Kirby—1991–92 to 30 November 1994

  1Ceased as Deputy Chair 31 December 1992.

  Members of the boards are reimbursed for expenses incurred in carrying out board duties; records of expenses are not held centrally.

  Postal and Proxy Votes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much he will spend in the lead-up to the European and local elections next year on promoting the use of postal and proxy votes by sick, disabled and absent voters; what arrangements are in place for this exercise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Nothing. The arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and he has already made a statement.

  EC Cereal Aid
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the factors involved in the decision to recognise Wales as a separate harvest region for the purposes of the EC cereal aid proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The decision to establish Wales as a separate yield region was made by the United Kingdom Agriculture Ministers in the light of circumstances relating to all four countries and having regard to the terms of Council Regulation 1765/92.

  Livestock Quotas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for measures to ensure that farmers in Wales are enabled before the end of the current year to ascertain their livestock quotas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Over 90 per cent. of sheep and suckler cow producers in Wales have been notified of their quota allocations. The remaining producers' allocations are dependent upon their application for national reserve quota and the resolution of outstanding queries, some of which require clarification from the European Commission and some from the producers themselves. It is not possible, therefore, to predict with any certainty when all the remaining producers will receive their allocations.

  Premature Deaths
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many premature deaths there were in Wales in the latest year for which figures are available; what is this figure as a percentage of the total number of deaths; and what is this percentage as a percentage of the United Kingdom average.
  465
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no generally accepted definition of premature death. There were 6,016 deaths of Welsh residents under the age of 65 in 1992, representing 17·8 per cent. of all deaths. This was 97 per cent. of the equivalent United Kingdom figure of 18·4 per cent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for local government revenue spending in 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  I propose to set total standard spending in Wales for 1994–95 at £2,704.8 million. This figure includes the £86 million for care in the community announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 2 November. It represents an increase of 4·2 per cent. including community care resources or a 2·3 per cent. excluding care in the community.

  I propose to set central government support for TSS through aggregate external finance at £2,419·2 million. The additional £86 million in community care resources the increase is 3£3 per cent., or 1·3 per cent. excluding care in the community.

  Within AEF I propose to make available £1,740·1 million in revenue support grant, £464·0 million in distributable non-domestic rates and £215·1 million in specific and supplementary grants.

  The non-domestic rate poundage for 1994–95 will increase by 1·8 per cent. to 44·8 pence in the pound in line with the increase in the retail prices index for the 12 months to September 1993.

  My proposals constitute a realistic package. They will enable local authorities to maintain services, given the sharp fall in inflation. Local authorities will need to assess carefully their expenditure priorities and look to achieve the best value for money in providing services. I am sure that Welsh local authorities will exercise prudence in making their budgetary decisions for the coming financial year.

  My Department has today written to the local authority associations to consult them on my proposals for revenue support grant in 1994–95. I will announce provisional standard spending assessments for individual Welsh authorities and my provisional capping criteria in mid-December; and my final settlement proposals early in the new year.

  Moated Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what action his Department is currently taking to record and preserve moated sites of archaeological interest; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the (a) surveys and (b) excavations that are currently being carried out of moated sites of archaeological interest.

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

  Letter from Mr. E. A. J. Carr to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 November 1993:

  Moated Sites of Archaeological Interest in Wales
  466
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions about moated sites of archaeological interest in Wales.
  The Secretary of State's policy on archaeological remains on land and how they should be preserved or recorded is set out in Planning Policy Guidance 16 (Wales): Archaeology and Planning a copy of which is in the Library of the House. As the guidance makes clear, archaeological remains are a finite, non-renewable resource which in many cases are vulnerable to damage and destruction. Accordingly, to protect vulnerable moated sites the Agency has completed a scheduling enhancement exercise of all known sites in Wales. 110 such sites have been evaluated, of which 65 are scheduled as monuments of national importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Details of both the scheduled and unscheduled sites in Wales are contained in the Sites and Monuments Records held by the four regional Archaeological Trusts in Wales.
  Insofar as preservation is concerned Cadw's Field Monument Wardens keep the condition of these important monuments under close review.
  While scheduled monument consent is required for works to monuments of national importance the Agency's records do not identify such activity by monument type. Works at unscheduled monuments do not require consent from the Secretary of State and consequently the Agency has no information in respect of such sites.

  Gardens of Historic Value
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the applicants for European Community financial assistance under the current year's awards for the conservation of gardens of historic value and (b) details of the reasons for those that failed to secure such funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for this subject has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments. I have asked the chief executive, John Carr, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. E. A. J. Carr to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about Welsh projects submitted for consideration under the European Commission's pilot projects scheme to conserve Europe's built heritage.
  Under the 1993 scheme of 'Gardens of Historic Interest', the following applications were made:

  Applicant

  Garden

  Clwyd County Council

  Gardens at Bunkers Hill Cottages, Wrexham, Clwyd

  Swansea City Council

  Gardens at Sketty Hall, Swansea, West Glamorgan

  Welsh Historic Gardens Trust

  Gardens at Hafod, Pontrhyd y Groes, Dyfed

  Cadw offers the Commission a view on the merits of each application submitted under the scheme, but the decision on whether a grant will be offered is taken by the Commission itself, on the advice of an international panel of experts. It is not the Commission's practice to comment on why any of the applications fail to receive assistance.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rural Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to reappraise the rural priority areas in respect of housing rural unfitness.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but the chief executive has advised me
  467
  that rural priority areas—RPAs—are being reappraised as part of a wider review of the executive's rural housing policy. The executive hopes to extend RPA status to other areas, by reviewing the relevant unfitness criteria under which an area qualifies for such status. The executive will also be seeking to improve the effectiveness of action in RPAs by increasing the involvement of its district/regional offices and by closer co-operation with local voluntary groups. Existing RPA's will still be targeted for grant aid where there is a continuing need.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inquiries are being made into the involvement of the terrorist known as the Jackal in the murder of Adrian Carroll.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Criminal investigations into the murder of Adrian Carroll are continuing. All evidence or information which comes to the knowledge of the police is fully investigated.

  Boarding Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many boarders there were at each boarding school in Northern Ireland at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Ancram
  At the end of October 1993 the number of boarders in each boarding school was as follows:

  Number

  Voluntary Grammar Schools

  Campbell College, Belfast

  94

  Coleraine Academic Institution

  78

  Dominican College, Portstewart

  35

  Friends School, Lisburn

  44

  Hunterhouse College, Belfast

  82

  Methodist College, Belfast

  177

  Portora Royal School

  16

  Royal School, Armagh

  66

  Royal School, Dungannon

  39

  St. Colman's College, Newry

  58

  St. Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh

  72

  Victoria College, Belfast

  48

  Controlled Grammar Schools

  Coleraine High School

  34

  Countryside
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on preservation of the countryside in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are continuing their work to maintain and enhance the quality of the countryside and to protect habitats and landscape, thereby providing enjoyment and pleasure for present and future generations. This work is undertaken on a number of fronts, including the declaration of areas of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national nature reserves.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to Northern Ireland.
  468
  Mr. Atkins
  Legislation broadly equivalent to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is being introduced in Northern Ireland by a series of Orders in Council.

  An Order in Council containing enabling powers to deal with genetically modified organisms similar to the provisions in part VI of the Act was made in July 1991 and will come into operation by means of a commencement order once the necessary regulations enacting its provisions have been finalised.

  A further Order in Council containing provisions on litter equivalent to those in part IV of the Act will shortly be laid before Parliament and should become operative early in 1994.

  I have already announced my plans for two further Orders in Council to introduce provisions on air pollution and waste management control respectively, similar to those in parts I and II of the Act. These are now being prepared. I hope to lay both draft orders before Parliament by the end of 1994.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on hedgerow preservation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are encouraging hedgerow improvement through financial incentive schemes operated by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. Both Departments provide advice on hedgerow management.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the hedgerow incentive scheme applies to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The hedgerow incentive scheme is operated by the Countryside Commission and applies only in England. In Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment have schemes which provide financial incentives for hedgerow improvement and both Departments provide advice on hedgerow management.

  Postal and Proxy Votes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much he will spend in the lead-up to the European and local elections next year on promoting the use of postal and proxy votes by sick, disabled and absent voters; what arrangements are in place for this exercise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The nature and extent of advertising or publicity related to the European parliamentary elections in 1994 have yet to be decided. Any advertising there might be on absent voting would not be directed at any specific groups of electors. Local elections have already taken place in Northern Ireland, in May this year.

  EC Students
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total estimated cost per annum for the provision of university and third-level education for European Community students studying in Northern Ireland.
  469
  Mr. Ancram
  The total costs of making provision for EC students undertaking third-level education at institutions in Northern Ireland is not available in the form requested.

  However, the estimated cost to public funds of tuition fees for students in institutions in Northern Ireland from EC countries, including the Republic of Ireland, and holding mandatory or postgraduate awards in the 1992–93 academic year, was £4·586 million.

  School Extensions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the proposed major school extension schemes at(a) Comber high school and (b) Regent House grammar school.

  Mr. Ancram
  An economic appraisal recommending a new school for a long-term enrolment of 540 pupils has been approved for Comber high school and planning of this is at outline sketch plan stage.

  An economic appraisal recommending the extending and refurbishing of the existing premises has been approved for Regent House school. A schedule of accommodation is being considered by the school and the South-Eastern education and library board.

  Forensic Science Departments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to provide permanent forensic sciences departments following the destruction of the forensic science laboratory at Newtownbreda in September 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Following the serious damage to the laboratory on 23 September 1992 it was relocated at Seapark outside Carrickfergus in County Antrim. The location of the laboratory in the longer term remains under consideration.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many student nurses there are at present; how many of them originate from the Republic of Ireland; how many nurses are unemployed; and if he will make a statement on job prospects for nurses.

  Mr. Ancram
  At 31 October there were 2,316 student nurses in training in Northern Ireland of whom 263 originate from the Republic of Ireland, while at 14 October 1993 there were 701 unemployed claimants who last worked in the nursing profession in general.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) wrote to you in April this year about job prospects in the nursing profession. He explained that improved retention of nursing staff has reduced employment opportunities for newly qualified nurses and that the proposals for rationalisation of services will impact on nurse employment in the future. The position has changed little since April as decisions have yet to be taken on the rationalisation of the service. Until these decisions are taken, it is not possible to assess accurately the implications for the nursing profession.

  Republic of Ireland (Links)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has commissioned into the benefits of closer trading and other links between Northern Ireland and the Republic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Other bodies have, however, examined the potential benefits of increased cross-border trade and, while their estimates differ considerably, all agree that more trade is possible and can benefit both parts of Ireland. The two Governments are co-operating to promote trade in a number of ways, and are jointly organising a conference on cross-border trade in Dublin on 15 December.

  Gardens of Historic Value
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the applicants for European Community financial assistance under this year's awards for the conservation of gardens of historic value and (b) details of the reasons for those that failed to secure such funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following applications were received:

  (1) Antrim Borough Council, Antrim Castle gardens, Co. Antrim

  (2) Armagh District Council with the Armagh Regeneration Trust and the Mall Trustees, Armagh Mall, Co. Armagh

  (3) Mr. B. T. Little on behalf of the Duke of Abercorn, Barons Court, Co. Tyrone

  (4) Mrs. J. R. Beresford-Ash, Ashbrook, Drumahoe, Co. Londonderry

  (5) Mr. J. Langham, Tempo Manor, Co. Fermanagh

  (6) Mr. G. B. L. Brown, Walworth, Co. Londonderry

  (7) Mr. M. G. Parkinson on behalf of Belfast City Council, Botanic Gardens, Belfast

  (8) Clandeboy Estate Company Ltd., Clandeboye House, Bangor, Co. Down

  All applications were forwarded to the Commission of the European Communities. The Antrim castle gardens application was the only one which was successful in being awarded financial assistance. The Commission was responsible for the assessment of all applications. I am not in a position to comment on the reasons for its decisions.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the new road schemes at(a) Comber bypass and (b) Forster Green junction.

  Mr. Atkins
  Work on the next phase of the Comber bypass scheme and on the Forster Green junction improvement will start in the 1997–98 and 1996–97 financial years respectively, subject to the availability of finance.

SCOTLAND

  Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to support Paisley being awarded city status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  None. City status in Scotland can be achieved only through the granting of a royal charter. It has no statutory significance in Scotland and there has been no such grant in modern times.
  471
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future local government arrangements for the Dykebar area of Paisley.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: I have written to the hon. Member about this and I will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit the Glenburn, Hunterhill, Dykebar, Lochfield, Foxbar, Thrushcraigs and South End areas of Paisley to assess the need for public sector housing investment and economic regeneration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Paisley. Officials from the Scottish Office Environment Department recently met with representatives of Renfrew district council and Scottish Homes to discuss the housing problems in the district.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are currently included in his Department's public appointments list; and how many of these are women.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of people currently on the Scottish Office public appointments list is constantly changing. At present there are in the region of 2,500 people on the list of whom some 880 or 36 per cent. are women. Until recently, the proportion of women on the list averaged 25 per cent. The higher proportion is a result of action taken by my Department to increase the number of women on the list. I am always happy to receive the names of people based in Scotland, of either sex, who are interested in undertaking public appointments work.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to how many and which organisations he is able to make appointments; and what are the top salary levels of these appointments.

  Mr. Lang
  The nationalised industries, non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies sponsored by the Scottish Office to which I make appointments are listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". The information includes the number of appointments I make to each body and the remuneration where appropriate. The 1992 edition is available in the Libraries of the House and the 1993 edition is scheduled to be published in mid-December.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a document, similar to the one recently published by the Secretary of State for Wales, entitled "Public Bodies: Appointments Made by the Secretary of State for Wales", listing detailed information concerning appointments made by him to public bodies in terms of(a) appointments, (b) remuneration, (c) occupations of appointees and (d) time commitment.

  Mr. Lang
  A list of members of bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" whom I appoint is being updated. I am considering how the information might most conveniently be made available.

  Sheltered Housing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning private owner-occupied sheltered housing; what help is available to those living in non-regulated or non-registered accommodation; and if he will consider setting up an ombudsman scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office has received a number of representations about private owner-occupied sheltered housing, most of which have alleged a lack of control over managing companies and agents operating these developments. These representations are essentially about contractual issues between the parties concerned and it would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene. Independent legal advice should be sought in such cases.

  Details of various cases have been passed to the Scottish law Commission which is considering particular aspects of sheltered housing in connection with its work on the abolition of the feudal system and the law of the tenement. We shall study carefully any recommendations that the commission may make.

  Written Answers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many written parliamentary questions he or his predecessors have answered in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures before the 1980–81 parliamentary Session are not held centrally. Annual figures from 1980 onwards for House of Commons written questions answered by Scottish Office Ministers are as follows:

  Year

  Annual number

  11980

  355

  1981

  1,588

  1982

  1,618

  1983

  1,750

  1984

  2,009

  1985

  2,026

  1986

  1,981

  1987

  2,928

  1988

  2,973

  1989

  2,917

  1990

  2,739

  1991

  2,432

  1992

  1,650

  21993

  2,105

  1For the period 27 October 1980 to 31 December 1980.

  2As at 18 October 1993.

  Source: POLIS.

  Elderly Forums
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support his Department has provided to elderly forums; what plans he has to develop the elderly forum movement; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office currently provides financial assistance to two elderly forums through the urban programme at an estimated cost of £149,138 in the present financial year. Grant of 75 per cent. is payable by the Scottish Office on approved expenditure. The projects cover eligible areas in
  473
  Strathclyde and Edinburgh. As for the future development of elderly forums, this is a matter for the forums themselves to take forward. In this connection, local authorities have powers under section 10(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to grant aid voluntary organisations in providing social welfare in their areas.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on fox hunting on estates and property owned or managed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Fox hunting on land owned by my right hon. Friend and managed by the Forestry Commission is permitted only where it has traditionally taken place or where the right to hunt or to grant facilities to hunt has been reserved in the title. No permissions are currently granted for the hunting of foxes on any of the remaining land owned by my right hon. Friend.

  Pupils (Behavioural Problems)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most recent estimate of the number of children of school age in Scotland who do not attend school for reasons associated with behavioural problems; and if will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures for non-attendance at and exclusions from schools for reasons associated with behavioural problems are not held centrally; nor is sufficient information centrally available on which to base informed estimates.

  Regulations which came into force in 1993 now require education authorities to collect information on schools attendance and truancy. This information will be published in school handbooks from December 1994 and will also be the subject of report by the audit unit of Her Majesty's inspectorate. Discussions are currently proceeding with education authorities about the collection of exclusion figures across Scotland on a consistent basis.

  Rents
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average weekly rental charge for houses owned by(a) Renfrew district council, (b) Eastwood district council, (c) Inverclyde district council and (d) Scottish Homes or its predecessors since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table shows the average weekly unrebated rent for Renfrew, Eastwood and Inverclyde district councils, Scottish Homes and its predecessor, the Scottish Special Housing Association since 1983–84:

  Renfrew district council

  Eastwood district council

  Inverclyde district council

  SSHA/Scottish Homes

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1983–84

  8·33

  10·52

  8·31

  11·96

  1984–85

  8·81

  11·02

  9·08

  13·06

  1985–86

  9·81

  11·50

  11·30

  14·23

  1986–87

  11·50

  11·94

  12·40

  15·79

  1987–88

  12·99

  12·45

  13·33

  17·28

  1988–89

  13·92

  13·91

  14·37

  19·02

  474

  Renfrew district council

  Eastwood district council

  Inverclyde district council

  SSHA/Scottish Homes

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1989–90

  16·73

  15·10

  16·85

  20·88

  1990–91

  18·70

  16·59

  19·17

  23·81

  1991–92

  20·68

  18·10

  21·44

  26·73

  1992–93

  22·45

  21·06

  23·93

  29·14

  1993–94

  24·41

  21·73

  25·94

  31·76

  Correspondence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long on average it takes his Department to reply to letters from hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has set a target of replying to correspondence from hon. Members and others within 17 working days of receipt. During the period 1 August 1992 to 31 July 1993—the first year of operation of the target—11,279 items of such correspondence were dealt with. Fifty-five per cent. of these letters received a substantive reply within the 17 working day target, and 86 per cent. were answered within 30 working days. Replies may be delayed because it is necessary to gather information from various sources; in such cases, the normal procedure is for an interim reply to be issued.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has further to develop the concept of infobuses on the model of that provided by Renfrew District Disability Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the provision of information on disability matters is the responsibility of local authorities, it is for these bodies to determine the level and nature of the service to be provided.

  HIV Education
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy on HIV education in Scottish schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government attach high priority to the provision of HIV education in schools. The school curriculum in Scotland is not statutorily prescribed and responsibility for the detailed curricular content, including that in relation to HIV education, rests with education authorities and individual head teachers.

  The Government's policy is to encourage schools to tackle HIV education within a comprehensive programme of health and social education. This co-ordinated approach is designed to ensure that information about HIV is given not in isolation but as part of a programme that considers a number of issues relating to moral choices and healthy living.

  To assist schools, national guidance is issued by the Scottish Office Education Department and the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum. Guidelines on health education were issued recently by the Scottish Office as part of the 5 to 14 programme on environmental studies. That gives health education a firm place in the curriculum and highlights AIDS as a key feature. In

  475
  addition, in 1992 the Scottish Office published a booklet entitled "HIV and AIDS: A Guide for the Educational Services in Scotland". This was distributed to all education authorities and schools in Scotland.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were defined as homeless in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each of the past five years.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The most recent published information is set out in the table.

  Households assessed as homeless1 1987 to 1991–92

  Inverclyde

  Strathclyde

  Scotland2

  1987–88

  178

  4,509

  9,595

  1988–89

  112

  4,551

  9,644

  1989–90

  142

  5,150

  11,470

  1990–91

  156

  7,333

  14,900

  1991–92

  146

  9,663

  17,600

  1Figures do not include households assessed as potentially homeless. In 1991–92 no households in Inverclyde, 3,537 households in Strathclyde and 8,700 households in Scotland were so assessed.

  2Figures up to 1989–90 relate to the number of case returns received from local authorities. From 1990–91 figures are based on authorities' estimates of the total number of applicants.

  Abbeyfield Housing Movement
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Abbeyfield housing movement in Scotland.

  Housebuilding in Inverclyde district and Strathclyde region House completions for the years 1980 to 1992

  Inverclyde district

  Agency

  Strathclyde region

  year

  Local authority

  Housing association1

  private sector

  Local authority

  Housing association1

  private sector

  1980

  8

  —

  87

  1,593

  128

  4,332

  1981

  —

  69

  155

  1,349

  879

  3,830

  1982

  26

  32

  99

  712

  263

  4,240

  1983

  —

  23

  107

  493

  321

  4,720

  1984

  —

  20

  199

  489

  420

  5,316

  1985

  —

  12

  205

  404

  412

  5,660

  1986

  —

  74

  242

  315

  314

  6,243

  1987

  64

  —

  284

  281

  252

  6,254

  1988

  —

  —

  201

  324

  274

  6,458

  1989

  —

  —

  239

  136

  394

  7,688

  1990

  —

  —

  326

  114

  483

  7,130

  1991

  37

  26

  226

  145

  824

  6,365

  1992

  —

  —

  57

  195

  851

  5,811

  19932

  —

  —

  118

  8

  188

  2,561

  1Figures for 1986 to date are provisional as data are under review.

  2Figures are for quarters 1 and 2 only.

  Advocates Depute
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many advocates depute there are; and how many are women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 13 advocate deputes, of whom four are women.
  476
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The work of the Abbeyfield housing movement in Scotland is consistent with the Government's care in the community policy. My right hon. Friend regards the movement as making an important contribution to the welfare of elderly people who no longer wish or who are unable to live in their own homes, or who need additional care. In 1992–93, Scottish Homes, the organisation responsible for funding registered housing associations, provided 11 locally based Abbeyfield societies with £500,000 in grant through its development programme.

  Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of homes built by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) private developers in each year since 1980 in (i) Inverclyde and (ii) Strathclyde; and what is his current estimate for such completions in 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of dwellings completed in Inverclyde district and Strathclyde region by local authorities, housing associations and private developers, for the years 1980 to 1992 and the first half of 1993, is set out in the table. Further information on house completions across Scotland is available in the quarterly statistical bulletin "Housing Trends in Scotland" published by the Scottish Office.

  Procurators Fiscal
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many procurators fiscal there are; and how many are women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 42 procurators fiscal, of whom two are women. The total number of legal staff in the procurator fiscal service is 271, of whom 109 are women.

  Home Insulation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a home insulation programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The home energy efficiency scheme is funded by the Energy Efficiency Office of the Department of the Environment on a Great Britain basis. The scheme provides grants for loft, tank and pipe insulation, draughtproofing and energy advice to low-income households in receipt of certain social security benefits and regulations have been laid to abolish the client contribution. Housing authorities have powers to give improvement and repairs grants to householders, which can include works for energy efficiency measures. Scottish Homes can also provide grants in certain designated areas.

  Student Support
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of any changes in the student support and tuition fee arrangements for Scottish domiciled students in session 1994–95.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am publishing today the main rates of maintenance allowances payable under the students allowances scheme and the postgraduate students allowances scheme, including rates for those courses which do not attract student loans, together with the rates of various supplementary allowances payable to both undergraduate and vocational postgraduate award holders.

  The support available to undergraduate students in 1994–95 through the main rates of maintenance grant and loan, taken together, will be 4 per cent. higher than in 1993–94, thus maintaining its value in real terms. Within that total, the main loan rates will be on average 44 per cent. higher than in 1993–94, offset in part by a reduction in the main rates of maintenance grant. The Government believe in principle that a higher share of the maintenance costs of higher education should be borne by graduates, now that student numbers have expanded so rapidly. No students will, however, be required to begin paying back their loans until after they leave their course and are earning more than 85 per cent. of national average earnings —currently about £14,000 per annum.

  Tuition fees will continue to be reimbursed to institutions through the student support system on behalf of eligible students. The maximum rate of reimbursement will be reduced by 45 per cent. in each of the three subject bands for undergraduate courses in order to ensure that planned numbers are not exceeded. Higher education institutions will be compensated through grant in aid payable by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

  These changes are consistent with those for England and Wales announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. Details have been placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce details of the 1994–95 Scottish local government finance settlement.

  Mr. Lang
  Following is the information.
  478
  Government Supported Expenditure

  I propose that Government-supported expenditure—GSE—for 1994–95 should be set at £6,013·6 million. This is an increase of 3·52 per cent. on the current year's figure after adjusting for the transfer of responsibility for the careers service from local to central Government. Excluding the further transfer of resources to local authorities for their care in the community and independent living fund responsibilities, the increase is 2·25 per cent.

  Grant-Aided Expenditure

  I estimate that the local authorities will incur £753·5 million on loan and leasing charges in 1994–95. This amount is top-sliced from GSE leaving a residual amount for grant-aided expenditure—GAE—of £5,260·1 million. This figure is 3·42 per cent. higher than that for the current year—again after adjusting for the careers service transfer—or 2·23 per cent. after taking account of transfers to local authorities next year. I shall announce GAE figures for individual local authorities as soon as possible.

  Aggregate External Finance

  I further propose that Government-determined support for local authority current expenditure —aggregate external finance—should be set at £5,272·0 million for 1994–95. This is an increase of 2·41 per cent. on the current year's figure—again including an adjustment for the careers service transfer—or 0·97 per cent. excluding resources being transferred to local authorities to meet the cost of additional responsibilities, especially care in the community. In determining this AEF figure, I have assumed that local authorities will contribute £12·5 million to the next stage of unified business rate policy. I am announcing separately today details of the total reduction which I plan to make in Scottish business rates next year.

  Provisional Capping Principles

  To assist local authorities in their budgeting process, I have again decided to announce provisional capping principles for the year ahead. I have the power to cap a Scottish local authority either where I consider that its planned expenditure is excessive or where there is an excessive increase in its planned expenditure as compared with the previous year. My intended capping principles for 1994–95 are:
  1. any increase in budget between 1993–94 and 1994–95 of more than 1·75 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is above the local authority's grant-aided expenditure—GAE—assessment for 1994–95;
  2. any increase in budget between 1993–94 and 1994–95 of more than 1·25 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is over 5 per cent. above the local authority's GAE assessment for 1994–95;
  3. any increase in budget between 1993–94 and 1994–95 of more than 0·75 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is over 10 per cent. above the local authority's GAE assessment for 1994–95; and
  4. any budget for 1994–95 more than 12·5 per cent. above the local authority's GAE assessment will be excessive save that:
  (a) if that budget is 30 per cent. or less above the authority's GAE assessment for 1994–95 and that budget is no greater than the budget set by that authority for 1993–94, the authority will not be capped;
  (b) if that budget is not more than 60 per cent. or less above the authority's GAE assessment for 1994–95 and that budget is at least 5 per cent. below the budget set by that authority for 1993–94, the authority will not be capped;

  479
  (c) if that budget is at least 10 per cent. below the budget set by the authority for 1993–94, the authority will not be capped.

  These principles are necessarily provisional. Before taking my decisions on capping, I will, of course, take into account all appropriate considerations.

  Council Tax Transitional Relief Scheme

  In the current year, provision was made for a transitional relief scheme to ensure that during the phasing-in of the council tax no household faced too great an increase in its bill as a result of the change in the tax system. I intend that this scheme will continue in 1994–95 so that those taxpayers who faced the largest increases in the current year will continue to receive assistance at an appropriate level. In general, they will receive the amount of relief granted in 1993–94 less an amount ranging from £67 a year for band A to £137 a year for band H. I estimate that this scheme will cost approximately £5 million and this will be funded in addition to the AEF sum announced above.

  In determining the local government finance settlement for next year, I have taken full account of the views the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has expressed to me. However, as I made clear to the convention at a meeting on 29 October, I regard its proposals as unrealistic, especially given the Government's view that increases in pay for public sector employees next year would require to be funded by efficiency savings. I made it clear to COSLA at the above meeting that I expected this policy to apply to Scottish local authorities and the settlement I am announcing today has been determined on that basis. The settlement includes provision for additional burdens being placed on local authorities next year including the introduction of devolved school management, child care and preparing for local government reform and water and sewerage restructuring.

  Having regard to the low level of inflation and the Government's approach to public sector pay, this is a realistic settlement. I hope that in the light of it, local authorities will budget sensibly for next year. If they do not, I shall not hesitate to use my capping powers.

  Rates
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on non-domestic rates for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government remain firmly committed to the objective of reducing Scottish business rates to the level of the English national non-domestic rate—NNDR. I intend to prescribe rate poundages for 1994–95 at a level which will mean that Scottish businesses will pay £60 million less than they would otherwise have done next year. This reduction takes account of the business rates measure which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech earlier today. I have decided that the most effective way to apply this measure to Scotland is to make a reduction in rate poundages next year which is £10 million greater than would otherwise have been possible.

  As a result of the Government's unified business rates policy and our earlier decision to limit increases in poundages to no more than the rate of inflation from 1989–90 onwards, the total reduction in Scottish business rates is now around £500 million.
  480
  The table shows the 1994–95 rate poundages which I intend to prescribe for each local authority in an order which I shall lay before the House very shortly. On the basis of those poundages, ratepayers in Berwickshire, Tweeddale, Moray and Gordon will join those in Kincardine and Deeside, Orkney and Shetland in being levied rates at the English NNDR level. Businesses in all other areas will have a cash reduction in their rates. All businesses benefit from the fact that, because of the low level of inflation, 1993–94 poundages have been uprated by only 1·7 per cent. I have again decided to make larger reductions to those poundages furthest from the English NNDR. As a result, the poundage reductions in real terms range from over 9·5 per cent in the case of Glasgow to 0·25 per cent. in the case of Gordon.

  Local authorities are being asked to contribute by means of efficiency savings £12·5 million to the £60 million reduction in business rates. The remaining £47·5 million reduction in non-domestic rate income will be offset by an increase in revenue support grant within the total of aggregate external finance for Scottish local authorities for 1994–95 which I have announced separately today.

  I have decided that the reduction in poundages should again be accompanied by a reduction in industrial derating. The level of derating will be reduced from 17·5 per cent. in the current year to 10·0 per cent. next year.

  Non-domestic rate poundages 1994–95

  Local authorities

  1994–95 poundages

  Borders

  36·5

  Central

  42·3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  38·9

  Fife

  46·8

  Grampian

  34·7

  Highland

  41·9

  Lothian

  48·2

  Strathclyde

  46·7

  Tayside

  43·6

  Berwickshire

  5·8

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  6·2

  Roxburgh

  6·7

  Tweeddale

  5·8

  Clackmannan

  5·8

  Falkirk

  4·6

  Stirling

  7·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  5·2

  Nithsdale

  5·2

  Stewartry

  4·6

  Wigtown

  4·4

  Dunfermline

  1·1

  Kirkcaldy

  2·2

  North East Fife

  1·7

  Aberdeen City

  8·4

  Banff and Buchan

  7·8

  Gordon

  7·6

  Kincardine and Deeside

  7·6

  Moray

  7·6

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  2·2

  Caithness

  3·7

  Inverness

  2·7

  Lochaber

  4·5

  Nairn

  2·2

  Ross and Cromarty

  3·7

  Skye and Lochalsh

  3·6

  Sutherland

  2·6

  East Lothian

  1·8

  Edinburgh City

  1·6

  Midlothian

  1·8

  West Lothian

  1·1

  Argyll and Bute

  3·3

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1·2

  481

  Local authorities

  1994–95 poundages

  Clydebank

  3·5

  Clydesdale

  2·5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2·5

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2·7

  Cunninghame

  3·8

  Dumbarton

  3·3

  East Kilbride

  1·7

  Eastwood

  0·2

  Glasgow City

  6·2

  Hamilton

  3·0

  Inverclyde

  2·3

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2·5

  Kyle and Carrick

  2·7

  Monklands

  3·0

  Motherwell

  2·5

  Renfrew

  3·0

  Strathkelvin

  2·3

  Angus

  3·2

  Dundee City

  5·9

  Perth and Kinross

  3·4

  Orkney

  42·3

  Shetland

  42·3

  Western Isles

  48·5

EDUCATION

  Schools, Castle Point
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children in Castle Point will be educated in grant-maintained schools in the primary sector and in the secondary sector by 1 January 1994; and what outstanding grant-maintained status applications there are for schools in Castle Point.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on schools by parliamentary constituency is not collected centrally.

  It is estimated that by January 1994 11 per cent. of primary and 61 per cent. of secondary pupils in Essex will be in self-governing schools.

  On 29 November 24 schools—17 primary, seven secondary—in Essex had applications for grant-maintained status awaiting a decision, of which seven had a proposed incorporation date of 1 January.

  Literacy
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the proportion of those in social classes IV and V who are assessed as having difficulties with literacy and other basic skills.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on the incidence of literacy and numeracy difficulties by social class is not currently available, but the Government-funded adult literacy and basic skills unit is currently working on an analysis of relevant research data, the results of which are expected to be published in the new year.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide a table showing for each standard region, with Greater London shown as a separate region, the total expenditure in 1992–93, and the budgeted 482
  expenditure in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 in respect of grants for education support and training, part to be included in single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Forth
  The only part of the grants for education support and training to be included in the single regeneration budget from 1 April 1994 will be the programme, "Raising Standards in Inner City Schools." The allocations made under this programme in 1992–93 and 1993–94 are shown in the table. Expenditure figures for 1992–93 are not yet available. Allocations for 1994–95 have not yet been decided and will be announced in due course. The programme ends in 1994–95.

  GEST: Raising standards in inner city schools

  Allocation by region

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £

  £

  Greater London

  2,262,729

  3,658,000

  Metropolitan boroughs

  3,776,920

  4,622,400

  Shire counties

  581,120

  1,846,500

  Student Loans
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give details of the support that will be given to students through mandatory awards and loans in the academic year 1994–95.

  Mr. Patten
  I have laid before Parliament today the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 and, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Education (Student Loans) (No. 2) Regulations 1993. The regulations include the new rates of grant and loan for the academic year 1994–95.

  The rates of loan available to students in 1994–95 will be 44 per cent. higher on average than in 1993–94. Taken together with the reduction in grant which I announced separately today, that will provide for a total level of support available through the main rates of grant and loan together which will be 4 per cent. higher than this year, thus maintaining its value in real terms.

  The main rates of grant and loan set out in the regulations are as follows:

  £

  Grant

  Loan (full year)

  Total

  Students living away from parents' home:

  In London

  2,560

  1,375

  3,935

  Elsewhere

  2,040

  1,150

  3,190

  Students living at parents' home

  1,615

  915

  2,530

  Note.—The loan rates shown here apply to students throughout the United Kingdom. The grant rates apply to students from England and Wales. The equivalent arrangements for Scotland and Northern Ireland are being announced separately.

  In addition, the parental and spouse's contribution scales are adjusted so that the contribution from a parent or a spouse whose residual income rises in line with average earnings will continue to fall in real terms. The supplementary allowances payable as part of the mandatory award are increased by 4 per cent. Loan rates for final year students are increased in proportion to the full-year rates of loan.

  The number of students in higher education is now higher than ever before: the participation rate of young

  483
  people has more than doubled in the past five years. Against that background, the Government believe in principle that graduates—as the main beneficiaries of higher education —should contribute a higher share of its costs. But no student will need to begin paying back their loan until after they have left their course and their income is higher than 85 per cent. of national average earnings—that is nearly £14,000 in today's prices. The Government will continue to keep the level of repayments under review.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about his Department's expenditure plans for the financial years 1994–95 to 1996–97.

  Mr. Patten
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement today, the Department for Education and OFSTED's spending programme in 1994–95 will total £10,487 million. That total is £670 million or 6·8 per cent. higher than equivalent expenditure in 1993–94.

  Total expenditure in 1995–96 is planned to be £11,059 million and in 1996–97 £11,392 million.

  Within these totals the Government have given priority to improving standards in schools through the self-governing—grant-maintained—schools programme. The planned growth in further education student numbers announced last year, to take the 16 to 18-year-old participation rate to record levels, will be sustained. Participation by young people in higher education will be stabilised at its present record level while higher education capital spending will be enhanced to meet the needs created by the recent rapid expansion in HE student numbers. In one of the most stringent public expenditure surveys for many years, the Government are reinforcing their commitment to education with 4·9 per cent. real terms growth in their expenditure on education over the next three years.

  Self-governing schools

  More than 1,000 schools have voted yes to self-governing status in ballots. The Government's expenditure plans provide for continuing growth in the sector in line with the forecast in the White Paper "Choice and Diversity" (Cm 2021) that, by 1996, most maintained secondary schools, as well as a significant proportion of maintained primary schools, would be self-governing.

  The great bulk of recurrent funding for self-governing schools is found within the totals for local authority expenditure. Central Government will increase their recurrent and capital grants to self-governing schools substantially over the next three years as their numbers grow. Central Government expenditure on self-governing schools is planned to total £157 million in 1993–94 and £244 million, £446 million and £595 million in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97. The plans also allow for the Funding Agency for Schools, which will be established from 1 April 1994.

  Capital Expenditure on Schools

  Total central Government provision for capital expenditure on self-governing, voluntary-aided and LEA-maintained schools is £600 million, £606 million and £643 million in 1995–95, 1994–96 and 1996–97. Further
  484
  details of annual capital guidelines and allocations to voluntary-aided and self-governing schools will be announced later.

  Further Education

  Total recurrent spending is planned to rise from £2.549 million in 1993–94 to £2,679 million, £2,872 million and £2,920 million in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Last year I announced that the Government were giving a high priority to the launch of the new sector of further education. We set ourselves to increase the number of students in FE by 25 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1995–96, taking the United Kingdom to the top of the international league for participation in education among 16 to 18-year-olds, and representing a substantial step towards the achievement of the national targets for education and training. We are on target to meet that projection.

  In a demanding public spending round the Government must look to the further education sector for some increase in efficiency in this period of dramatic growth. The plans announced today allow for the forecast increase in student numbers up to 1995–96 to be met in full, with an additional increase of 3 per cent. between 1995–96 and 1996–97 to maintain the 16 to 18-year-old participation rate.

  Capital expenditure is planned to be £157 million, £159 million and £159 million in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97. This will enable the Further Education Funding Council to continue to improve the state of accomodation and the stock of equipment.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of 14 September 1993 set out the Government's approach to public sector pay in the year now beginning. I shall set as a condition of my grant to the FEFC that it requires the institutions it funds to take account of the principles set out in the Chancellor's statement, and in particular of the need to cover higher pay costs from within efficiency improvements, in 1994–95. I shall in addition hold back £50 million of grant from the FEFC, to be released when there has been satisfactory progress within colleges towards more flexible contracts of employment.

  Higher Education

  Student Numbers

  The number of students in higher education has grown even faster than expected in the Government's spending plans last year. The proportion of young people entering higher education is now around 30 per cent.—close to the projection of one in three for the year 2000 set out in the Government's Higher Education White Paper in May 1991.

  This represents a remarkable achievement. But there is a limit to the burden of funding for higher education which the taxpayer can bear. The student numbers underlying the Government's spending plans announced today accordingly assume that the proportion of young people entering higher education will remain at the current record level for the next three years before rising to one in three by the end of the decade.

  Because of demographic trends, this means reductions of nearly 3·5 per cent. in the number of new entrants to higher education next year, with a smaller reduction the year after, followed by increases from 1996–97 onwards. If trends in A-levels and equivalent qualifications are maintained, there is likely to be a further small tightening in standards of entry to higher education.
  485
  In order to allow for the rising number of entrants enrolled in recent years, the expenditure plans provide for total full-time equivalent student numbers in higher education in England to rise by 90,000 or 10 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1996–97.

  The rapid growth in student numbers has imposed a large extra burden on the taxpayer. The Government believe that a fairer distribution of this burden is needed between the taxpayer and those who benefit from higher education. They have therefore carried out a review of the funding of higher education, as have the university vice-chancellors. The expenditure plans announced today reflect the outcome of that review. There will be changes in funding to remove the incentive to expand and in student support, as described below.

  Tuition Fees

  The Government will continue to reimburse the tuition fees charged to students up to the maxima specified through the mandatory awards system. In order to stay within the expenditure plans, it is essential that student numbers are now maintained at the planned level. To that end, the maximum tuition fees reimbursed through the mandatory awards system in 1994–95 will be reduced by 45 per cent. for each fee band. The new maxima for each band are as follows:

  £

  Classroom-based courses

  750

  Laboratory and workshop-based courses

  1,600

  Clinical courses

  2,800

  In addition, I have stressed to the Higher Education Funding Council for England the importance of delivering through its funding methodology for universities and colleges the planned numbers of students.

  The reduction in tuition fees will have no effect on the planned level of funding per student in higher education. Some £474 million will be transferred in 1994–95 from mandatory awards to Funding Council grant to compensate for the lower yield from tuition fees. If universities and colleges recruit the numbers of students assumed in the Government's plans, they will suffer no loss of income as a result of the reduction in fees.

  Funding Council Grant

  Recurrent grant for the HEFCE—including compensation for the reduction in tuition fees—is planned at £3,096 million, £3,350 million and £3,342 million in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 respectively. The increase next year in the recurrent funds available to universities and colleges, including both grant and tuition fees, will be 6·7 per cent.

  Capital grant will be £322 million, £381 million and £424 million in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 respectively. This is a rise in real terms of 20 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1996–97. This substantial increase reflects the need for capital investment to help with the growth of student numbers in recent years and later in the decade, together with the reorganisation of medical education and research in London following the Tomlinson report.

  As with the FEFC, I shall set as a condition of my grant to the HEFCE that it requires the institutions it funds to take account of the principles set out in the Chancellor's
  486
  statement of 14 September, and in particular of the need to cover higher pay costs from within efficiency improvements.

  Student Support

  For 1994–95, the Government will continue to maintain the real value of the funds offered to students through the main rates of grant and loan and supplementary grants, which together will increase by 4 per cent. in cash. Reductions in the main rates of grant of 10 per cent. against their 1993–94 levels will be offset by increases in loan entitlements. Similar adjustments will be made over the next two years; on present estimates they will bring the grant and loan into broad balance in 1996–97. This shift from grant to loan represents an acceleration of the Government's existing plans.

  The contribution of parents whose income rises at the same rate as average income will continue to fall in real terms. Loan rates for final year students will increase in proportion to the full year rates of loan. As now, students will not have to begin to repay their loans until they leave their courses and their incomes are higher than 85 per cent of national average earnings: that is nearly £14,000 in 1993 prices. The Government will keep the level of loan repayments under review.

  Following a review of the access funds which help students who might otherwise have difficulty in completing their courses, we have increased the funds to £27 million in each year.

  British Council
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made towards the merger between the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges and the British Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The merger between the central bureau and the British Council will take place on 1 December. This is a most welcome development. In approving it the Government have taken steps to ensure that the central bureau will maintain its own distinct identity within the British Council. Besides the organisational benefits inherent in the merger, the central bureau's wealth of experience and its internationally respected position in the field of education will complement the British Council's work in promoting Britain and in supporting education and training projects around the world. In its turn the central bureau will be able to draw on the British Council's worldwide network in promoting the international dimension in schools and colleges all over the United Kingdom.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hills and Uplands
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands is complete; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The incomes of hill farmers have risen for two years and are forecast to rise for a third. Figures produced for the autumn review and agreed with the farming unions show that the average net farm incomes
  487
  of cattle and sheep farms in less-favoured areas rose in real terms by 33 per cent. last year and are forecast to rise by a further 28 per cent. this year. This is good news for the hill farming community. It results from a combination of factors, but in particular total direct livestock subsidy payments to hill farmers are forecast to have increased substantially over the two years to 1993–94. This demonstrates the Government's firm commitment to farming in the hills and uplands. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the statistical tables which formed the basis of the autumn review this year.

  Hill sheep farmers have benefited through increases in the rates of sheep annual premium arising from the currency movements following the United Kingdom's departure from the exchange rate mechanism in September last year. Suckler cow producers will benefit from the agreed substantial increases in suckler cow premium which, taking into account the extensification premium, will total over £93 per head for 1993 compared with £59 per head under the 1992 scheme. These are very real benefits for the hill farming community.

  The economic situation is such that I am able to reduce the rates of allowances for the 1994 HLCA scheme without adversely affecting the long-term viability or well-being of the industry. The rates of allowance for the severely disadvantaged areas will be reduced by £15·80 to £47·50 for cattle, by £0·75 to £5·75 for hardy breed ewes and by £0·60 to £3·00 for other ewes. Rates in the disadvantaged areas will be reduced by £7·90 to £23·75 for cattle and by £0·42 to £2·44 for ewes. I have today laid regulations before Parliament to give effect to these new rates.

  The substantial increase in net farm incomes to which I referred earlier represents almost an extra £100 million a year overall to hill farmers in 1993–94. Even after the reductions in rates which I have announced, hill farmers will continue to be better off and will have achieved a net gain. This is partly accounted for by the fact that direct subsidies to cattle and sheep farmers in the less-favoured areas are estimated to total at least £550 million in 1994.

  While I acknowledge that HLCAs continue to play a vital role in the viability of hill farms it is indisputable that the continued rise in the level of other subsidies available to hill farmers has reduced the relative importance of HLCAs. The Government remain committed to the future of hill farming in the United Kingdom and will act as necessary to ensure the viability of this vital sector of the United Kingdom agricultural industry.

  Priorities Board
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she has received a report from the priorities board for research and development in agriculture and food; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The priorities board for research and development in agriculture and food has submitted its report to Agriculture Ministers and the chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council and it is published today.

  In producing its report the board has taken into account the recommendations of its six advisory sectoral groups. It has developed its recommendations on the basis of level funding and has therefore balanced recommendations for increased funding in support of high priority work with others suggesting areas where work could be reduced.
  488
  The board has recommended that funding of the horticulture and food sectors should be increased, that a new programme of research into non-food crops should be initiated, and that to provide funding for these recommendations, research in the animals sectors, particularly on ruminants, and in the arable crops area should be reduced. The board has also recommended that research in the environmental sector should be maintained at its present level. The board has recommended considerable re-direction of funding within all the sectors to provide for new high priority research.

  The board has also recommended that the agriculture departments and the Agricultural and Food Research Council should continue to provide a forum in which scientists, policy makers and industrialists can meet to ensure that publicly and privately funded research and development align effectively. However, having fulfilled its present remit it has said that it considers another full-scale review of priorities unnecessary for a while. As a non-departmental public body the board is due for periodic review in 1994. With this in view, the Government have therefore decided to dissolve the board, with effect from the end of this year.

  We are grateful to Sir Anthony Tennant and all the members of the board for the work they have put into this report. The recommendations contained in it will, subject to a full consideration of the resource implications, help to guide the allocation of resources in the future research and development programme. Discussion will be held between the agriculture departments and the Agricultural and Food Research Council to plan the implementation of the recommendations.

  Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she has reached a decision concerning the future of the potato marketing scheme, and whether she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Pursuant to my answer of 29 November 1993, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have carefully considered the representations made to us since we were given powers in the Agriculture Act 1993 to revoke the scheme.

  Having considered all the arguments with great care, we have concluded that the scheme must come to an end, on trading and deregulatory grounds. We are persuaded of the benefits of the free market for the whole of our industry —growers, processors and also for consumers.

  Timing, however, is very important. We accept the arguments of the board and the union that our growers, having been tightly regulated for 60 years, are not ready to be thrust immediately into a totally free market. We consider that three years is a reasonable period to allow for transition, and are therefore prepared for the scheme to continue in modified form for the marketing years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 and then end. We will, however, take a further look at the potato market before the consultation on the order to revoke the scheme which is required by the Act.

  In the meantime, we need transitional arrangements in order that the industry can adapt towards the free market in the most constructive way.
  489
  The proposals made by the PMB and NFU form a very good basis for such a transition. On this basis we propose the following modified arrangements:
  Quota flexibility should be introduced, allowing a registered producer's plantings to vary by up to 5 per cent. above or below quota without penalty.
  Planting threshold for registration in the scheme should be raised from 0-4 to 1 hectare, exempting more growers from the need to register.
  The special schemes for encouraging growing on contract should continue at their present level of uptake.
  Intervention buying should cease, except for intervention on seed potatoes, funded by seed producers themselves.
  The levy on growers should be reduced to the level appropriate for funding the board's other activities such as research, promotion and provision of market information.
  The board membership should be reduced, and means be found of broadening representation on it.
  Licensing and registration of potato merchants should cease.

  Some of these changes would require amendments to the scheme, but the most significant changes could be introduced for the 1994–95 season, if not sooner.

  This package of measures will allow our industry to move in an organised way towards a free market, which will be of benefit to growers and purchasers of potatoes and to our competitiveness in markets abroad.

  Water (Pesticides)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what communications she has had with the European Community Environment Commissioner this year on the European Community limits on pesticides in drinking water.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department works closely with the Department of the Environment which has lead responsibility for drinking water. I have had no direct contact with the Environment Commissioner this year on the EC limits for pesticides.

  Flood Warnings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking in providing and maintaining flood warning sirens; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Following the decision last year by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary that the obsolete national air raid warning siren system should be closed as soon as possible, local authorities which used the system for flood warning purposes were invited to take over the equipment and be responsible for its upkeep. I understand that discussions subsequently took place between the Home Office, local authorities and British Telecom about the maintenance of these systems. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote to the chairman of British Telecom on 9 November seeking his support in ensuring that the siren systems used for flood warning purposes are maintained by them in an operational state at least until the end of the present winter storm tide season in March-April 1994. It is anticipated that the authorities concerned will have alternative arrangements in place before winter 1994–95.

  Food Trade Fair
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the British Food Organisations that exhibited at the recent food trade fair held in Cologne.
  490
  Mr. Jack
  The bodies principally concerned with organising the substantial British presence at Anuga 1993 were:

  Food From Britain

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Marketing Board

  Potato Marketing Board

  Rural Development Commission

  Trade Promotions Scotland

  Seafood from Shetland

  Welsh Food Promotions

  Welsh Lamb Enterprise

  Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland.

  Nuclear Waste (Dumping at Sea)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Her Majesty's Government intend to file a declaration of non-acceptance in relation to the London convention decision in favour of a permanent worldwide ban on nuclear waste dumping at sea; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We are currently considering our position in relation to the recent London convention decision to introduce a permanent ban on the disposal of radioactive waste at sea.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what considerations underlay the United Kingdom's abstention at the London convention on nuclear waste dumping at sea and the proposal for a permanent worldwide ban on such dumping.

  Mr. Jack
  We believe that the option of sea disposal for large bulky wastes arising from the decommissioning of nuclear power stations and submarines should not be foreclosed as it may represent the best practicable environmental option for these wastes. The United Kingdom has no immediate plans to dump such wastes at sea and is actively pursuing a land-based option.

  Bovine Embryos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to bring forward detailed regulations on bovine embryo collection and transfer.

  Mr. Soames
  Regulations to govern bovine embryo collection and transfer have been laid before Parliament today—30 November—to come into operation on 21 December 1993.

  Orange Juice
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of sugar is permissible in one litre of(a) orange juice and (b) pure orange juice before it has to be listed as an ingredient; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Any orange juice to which sugar has been added must declare "sugar" in the ingredient listing. The word "pure" must not be used if it is likely to mislead the consumer.

  Countryside Survey
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she has discussed with the Secretary of State for the Environment the results of the countryside survey 1990 and the implications of these results for his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The results of the survey will be taken fully into account in the continuing development of our policies for the countryside.

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

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission manages 5,644 hectares of land in Nottinghamshire. A map showing the location of the individual areas has been placed in the Library.

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

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) mink and (b) arctic foxes have been kept on fur farms in the United Kingdom in each year since 1984; and how many there are at present.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink (Keeping) Order 1992, which requires that mink farms be licensed by Agriculture Departments, does not require regular returns of the number of mink kept. However, best estimates suggest that the number of mink being kept in the United Kingdom has fallen from approximately 100,000 in 1987 to some 47,000 in 1992. Information is not collected on the keeping of arctic foxes.

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will be laying an order to enable the opening of the sheep quota national reserve; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The relevant legislation will be made very shortly. Our aim is to begin allocations in the early part of next year.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to be able to confirm the size of the sheep quota national reserve, to announce arrangements for its allocation and to settle outstanding claims; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 November 1993): The relevant legislation will be made shortly. Applications to the reserve will then be invited. I hope to be able at that stage to give details of the amounts of quota currently available in the reserve, but as I have made clear on previous occasions, the size of the reserve will be limited. Our aim is to begin allocations in the early part of next year.

ENVIRONMENT

  City Pride
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had regarding city pride.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has had constructive discussions with the three city pride cities, London, Birmingham and Manchester, about taking forward this new initiative.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate the capital financing element, the equivalent budgeted net revenue expenditure on capital financing, the differences between them, the relevant population, and the difference per head of that population for each local authority in England for each of the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94, in a manner similar to those tables published in the Official Report, 19 February 1992, columns 193-200.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the appropriate level of aggregate local authority spending in 1994–95, and the level of central support for that spending.

  Mr. Gummer
  I propose that total standard spending—TSS—for 1994–95 should be £42·664 billion for England, £1·496 billion above this year's figure. This total includes the new transitional community care special grant of £736 million announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 29 October. After adjusting for changes in local authority functions and excluding community care, TSS in 1994–95 represents an increase of 2·3 per cent. over this year.

  I propose that the level of aggregate external finance—AEF—distributed to local authorities in England in 1994–95 should be —34·3129 billion, £1·0385 billion higher than this year. This figure also includes the £736 million transitional community care special grant.

  I also propose that the non-domestic rate poundage for 1994–95 in England should rise by 1·7 per cent. to 42·3p, reflecting the annual increase in the retail prices index to September. This will ensure that the benefit of the Government's success in tackling inflation will once again be passed on in full to businesses.

  I propose to set the distributable amount of non-domestic rates at £10·685 billion. I propose that the total of revenue support grant should be £18,496,837,001. Specific and special grants within AEF will amount to £5,131,062,999.

  I shall announce shortly my proposals for the distribution of Government grants, including the outcome of my review of standard spending assessments. At the same time, I shall announce my current capping intentions. I shall also set out my proposals for the second year of transitional assistance to those households which faced significant increases in their local tax bills following the introduction of the council tax, and for meeting the transitional costs of local government reorganisation.

  It is essential that local and central Government continue to play their part in restraining expenditure. Our

  493
  overriding priority is to reduce the public sector deficit. My proposals for total standard spending, aggregate external finance and the non-domestic rate poundage represent a balanced approach to the funding of local authority services in 1994–95. I look to local authorities to take the same responsible attitude in determining their spending priorities and setting their budgets in 1994–95.

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he expects to be the average percentage housing association grant payable in England in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  The average housing association grant rate set for:

  (a) 1993–94 was 67 per cent.; and

  (b) 1994–95 is 62 per cent.

  The average actually paid to associations will not be known until after the end of the financial year in question. However, I would expect that, as in 1992–93, the average will be lower than that set, as a result of efficiency gains and associations' willingness to contribute to developments from their own resources.

  Waste Water
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has recently had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the new estimated increase in costs needed to meet the EC waste water directive.

  Mr. Yeo
  These matters have in the usual way been the subject of collective discussion.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from the European Environmental Bureau in regard to the United Kingdom's environmental protection policies.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have seen the proposals from the European Environmental Bureau for a declaration on sustainable development by the European Council. I expect to meet United Kingdom members of the EEB on 6 December.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the extension of the docklands light railway to Beckton to commence services.

  Mr. Baldry
  The opening of the extension of the docklands light railway to Beckton is being delayed by the late delivery of operating software for the new Seltrac signalling system being supplied by Alcatel. All other elements are in place and fully functional. It is anticipated that the opening should take place early next year, once Docklands Light Railway Ltd. is confident that the contractor has delivered a system that will provide a fully reliable service to the public.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the docklands light railway.
  494
  Mr. Gummer
  I welcome the Chancellor's announcement in his Budget statement today that a new extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham will be built and financed by the private sector.

  Private sector companies will be invited to bid during 1994 for a concession to construct the extension. Construction on the £100 million project is expected to start soon after and the extension should open in 1997–98.

  This is another major step toward improving London's infrastructure and I am pleased to give it my approval. This scheme, together with the £1·9 billion Jubilee line extension, highlights the Government's commitment to public transport in London. The Government have already confirmed that a new east-west link, the crossrail scheme, will go forward as a joint venture with the private sector.

  The extension of the docklands light railway under the Thames to Greenwich, Deptford and Lewisham will help reduce the barrier effect of the Thames, providing an important new public transport link. It will also provide tourists with a new connection between the City and Greenwich and will benefit Kent commuters by providing a new interchange for travel into the City and east London. It will boost the regeneration of both the docklands and of the areas the new extension will serve. I am asking DLR Ltd. and its owners—the London Docklands development corporation—to give this project top priority.

  The extension, which received parliamentary approval in May this year, will go through a new tunnel under the Thames south of the Isle of Dogs and terminate at Lewisham where it will connect with British Rail. The journey time from Lewisham to the City will be less than 25 minutes; from Lewisham to Canary Wharf about 15 minutes. The costs of the project have been closely examined and initial indications are that for the project to proceed, it may be necessary to omit two planned stations at Island Gardens and Cutty Sark. Consultation will take place before a final decision is taken.

  The project is a joint venture under the Government's private finance initiative which encourages private sector investment in capital projects which have traditionally been carried out by the Government. Lewisham council will contribute £5 million towards the joint venture.

  The Lewisham line will enhance the docklands light railway's commercial standing and help it prepare for privatisation, which will bring yet further improvements in the service to passengers. I am considering the options for privatisation in the light of expert advice and will announce my decision soon.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number and value of home improvement and renovation grants paid to private owners and for tenanted properties in England since 1989.

  Sir George Young
  Information about home improvement and renovation grants paid in England for each year from 1989 to 1992 is shown in the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics 1982–1992".

  Total numbers and values of grants paid to private owners and tenants under the Housing Act 1985, the previous grants system, is shown in table 7.2. Similar information about activity under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the present grants system, is shown in tables 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5. Information about the sector

  495
  receiving renovation and disabled facilities grants is shown in table 7.8. Most common parts grants and all houses in multiple occupation grants will be for tenanted properties.

  A copy of this publication is in the Library.
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have applied for Exchequer subsidies to help with costs associated with the option of reduction, clearance and closure of properties whose house prices are so low as to make renovation uneconomic; and how much these subsidies have been.

  Sir George Young
  When a property is found to be unfit, a local authority must determine the action necessary to deal with it. Its options include renovation, clearance and closure. The cost of renovation is one of the issues the authority should consider. Exchequer subsidy is available at 60 per cent. of the cost to the authority of the action determined on. In 1992–93 £18,466,309 was paid to 122 authorities in respect of clearance activity.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings have been sold by each local authority in England over the last five years(a) under the right to buy and (b) on any other basis.

  Sir George Young
  Tables showing the available information on right-to-buy sales and total council house sales for each English local authority in the period April 1979 to June 1993 were placed in the Library recently.

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association properties have been built in each local authority area in England over the last three years for(a) general need and (b) sheltered housing; and how many properties have been acquired by housing associations and renovated for renting over the same period.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of the total numbers of housing association housebuilding completions within each local authority area in England for the latest three years are published in "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1990, 1991 and 1992 are in issues 103, 105 and 106 respectively.

  The Department collects information about special types of housing for the elderly, including sheltered dwellings. Figures for housing association completions of sheltered dwellings for each local authority area in England are also published in "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1990, 1991 and 1992 are in issues 99, 102 and 106 respectively.

  Figures showing renovation work completed by housing associations on dwellings for rent are available only for standard statistical regions. They are also shown in "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1990, 1991 and 1992 are in issues 101, 105 and 106 respectively.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of(a) the time or (b) the financial resources needed to resolve the housing problems in each local authority area of England.
  496
  Sir George Young
  No such estimate is possible. However, local authorities are responsible for drawing up comprehensive housing strategies for their areas, taking account of priority needs and available resources.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many families for whom the London borough of Wandsworth has a housing responsibility were living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on 1 November;

  (2) how many people were on the Wandsworth council housing list on 1 November.

  Sir George Young
  The latest data available within my Department relate to the beginning of the current financial year when Wandsworth reported 407 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and 6,913 households on its waiting list.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new dwellings have been(a) built and (b) bought by each local authority in England over the past five years for (i) general need and (ii) sheltered housing.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of the total numbers of local authority house-building completions within each local authority area in England in each calendar year 1988 to 1992 are in the publication "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1988, 1989 and 1990 are in issue No. 103, for 1991 in issue No. 105 and for 1992 in issue No. 106.

  The Department collects information about special types of housing for the elderly, including sheltered dwellings. Figures for local authority completions of sheltered dwellings for each local authority area in England are in certain issues of "Local Housing Statistics". Annual data for 1988 to 1992 are in issues Nos. 90, 94, 99, 102 and 106 respectively.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  The Department does not collect data on how many new dwellings are bought by local authorities for either general need or sheltered housing.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions have been made to assist authorities with clearance procedures for new house building; and if he will list what help has been given to each local authority in England over the last five years.

  Sir George Young
  It is for local housing authorities, in preparing comprehensive housing strategies for their areas and in performing their enabling role, to identify the problems and the solutions, working together with housing associations and the private sector. My Department helps where it can. Subsidy is available to help meet the costs of clearance activity.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many clearance projects in England have been delayed due to the problems of rehousing those that will be displaced in the process.

  Sir George Young
  The Department of the Environment does not collect statistics on delayed clearance projects.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present strategic guidance for the
  497
  provision of new dwellings in Doncaster, South Yorkshire; what meetings he has held with Doncaster metropolitan district council on this matter; and what allowance has been made for the need for more (a) student and (b) single-person accommodation in Doncaster.

  Sir George Young
  Regional planning guidance note 5 for South Yorkshire, issued in December 1989, indicates that Doncaster metropolitan borough council should, in the period between 1986 and 2001, plan for 14,000 dwellings to be provided in its area, either through new construction or by conversion of existing buildings. No further strategic guidance has been issued since 1989; but local planning authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside, including Doncaster MBC, are in the process of preparing regional planning advice which they hope to submit jointly to the Secretary of State around the end of the year. The Secretary of State will then prepare and issue for consultation draft regional planning guidance and, in doing so, will take into account the advice provided by the authorities.

  Officials have regularly attended meetings of the regional planning conference as observers and the Department helped to fund a study of population trends in the region in order to assist in the formulation of advice on housing provision.

  Allowance for single person and student accommodation is usually included within the overall estimate of dwellings to be provided, although it is noteworthy that in its 1993 housing strategy statement Doncaster MBC has identified no significant need for more single-person or student dwellings.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to his estimates of local authority capital provision for housing set out in figure 80 of his Department's annual report 1993.

  Sir George Young
  Information on the Government's public expenditure plans for housing is contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", to be published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. Separately, the Department will issue a press notice this afternoon, giving information on the programmes for which it is responsible. I will write to the hon. Member shortly when more detailed information becomes available.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has recently had with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and Wales with respect to English counties.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was abolished by section 24 of the Local Government Act 1992 which, by virtue of the Local Government Act 1992 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1992, was brought into force on 31 October 1992. Local government in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Drainage Boards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by valuation tribunal the number of council tax appeals that have been received to 498
  date in respect of internal drainage boards; how many have been heard; what was the decision of the tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Appeals to valuation tribunals in respect of internal drainage boards concern the valuation of agricultural land and buildings for purposes of drainage rates rather than of council tax. The information relates to valuation tribunal offices, which can cover one or more tribunals. The decisions of the tribunals are not available centrally.

  Information is provided below in respect of those offices reporting these appeals:

  Land Drainage Appeals to Valuations Tribunals in England by Tribunal Office: April— September 1993

  Office

  Received

  Resolved

  Avon and Gloucestershire

  21

  21

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  3

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  33

  10

  Dorset and Somerset

  `79

  0

  East Sussex

  106

  1

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  43

  43

  Humberside

  72

  41

  Kent

  60

  7

  Lincolnshire

  251

  65

  Leicester, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire

  4

  0

  North Yorkshire

  28

  14

  Norfolk

  31

  0

  Suffolk

  20

  0

  West Sussex

  113

  0

  TOTAL

  864

  193

  1To July.

  Special Needs Allowance
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of reductions in the transitional special needs management allowance on projects providing homes for people with drink, drug and mental health problems.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation is currently reviewing the funding arrangements for special needs schemes run by housing associations, including schemes for people with drug, alcohol and mental health problems, in the context of the new arrangements for community care. To assist with the introduction of community care, levels of transitional special needs management allowance funding are continuing unchanged during 1993–94. No decisions have been taken yet on funding for future years.

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

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has received five letters about this proposal, including one from the London borough of Camden.

  Urban Areas
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to assist shopping provision and infrastructure within urban areas which are currently poorly provided for.
  499
  Mr. Baldry
  The recently revised planning policy guidance note 6—PPG6—"Town Centres and Retail Developments" sets out our planning policies for retail development. A major aim of the guidance is to sustain or enhance the viability and vitality of town centres.

  The urban block of grants, particularly city challenge, will continue to provide assistance for local shopping schemes.

  The single regeneration budget, which will be introduced on 1 April 1994, will provide flexible support for regeneration and development in England in a way that meets local needs and priorities.

  World Conservation Monitoring Centre
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he has recently held, or plans to hold, with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. We value highly the centre's work on biodiversity and the wildlife trade and wish it well in its new headquarters, opened by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh on 25 November.

  Seal Products
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will itemise the legislation of the last 10 years at national and EC levels which has implemented the EC agreement to ban the importation of seal products.

  Mr. Yeo
  Relevant legislation is as follows:EC directive 83/129, which required member states to ban the importation of the skins of whitecoat pups of harp seals and pups of hooded seals—blue-backs—or articles made from them, for a period of two years from 1 October 1983;
  the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 (Modification) Order 1983 (No. 1609), which implemented the directive by adding skins of harp and hooded seals to schedule 3 to the Act;
  EC directive 85/444, which extended the ban on importation to 1 October 1989;
  the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 (Variation) Order 1985 (No. 1502), which restricted indefinitely the import and export of skins and skin articles;
  EC directive 89/370, which extended the ban on importation indefinitely.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received on moves to allow the importation of seal products into the United Kingdom and other parts of the EC.

  Mr. Yeo
  I understand that the European Commission may propose the amalgamation of a number of measures, including the EC directive which bans the importation of certain seal products. We shall consider the implications of any such proposals very carefully.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lay before Parliament regulations to abolish the client contribution payable towards the cost of work which is grant aided under the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Yeo
  Regulations to abolish the client contribution payable by those receiving grant under the home energy efficiency scheme were laid before the House of Commons on 18 November. Subject to parliamentary approval, they are expected to come into force on 9 December.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amendments he proposes to make to the estimates of output for the Housing Corporation's approved development programme set out in figure 78 of his Department's annual report 1993.

  Sir George Young
  I shall be considering what revisions are needed to the figures in table 78 of the [993 annual report in producing the Department's 1994 report early next year.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total amount of housing revenue account subsidy payable to local housing authorities in England in 1992–93, and his estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95 indicating separately the housing and the housing benefit components, and showing the difference between the actual subsidy payable and the amount which would have been payable if expenditure on rent rebates had qualified in full for subsidy.

  Sir George Young
  The latest estimates for total housing revenue account subsidy payable are contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", to be published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. I will write to the hon. Member shortly when the more detailed information requested becomes available.

  Air Monitoring (London)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many air monitoring units there are in(a) the Greater London area and (b) north and north-west London.

  Mr. Yeo
  The number of the Department of the Environment's air quality monitoring sites in both Greater London and north and north-west London are given in the table.

  Site type

  Greater London

  North and north-west London

  Automatic Samplers

  6

  5

  Smoke/SO2 Network1

  15

  11

  NO2 Diffusion Tubes1

  17

  14

  Toxic Organic Micro Pollutants

  1

  1

  Multi-Element and Lead

  3

  3

  Total

  42

  34

  1Monitoring undertaken in collaboration with local authorities.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the air monitoring units for north London are sited.

  Mr. Yeo
  The location of my Department's air quality monitoring sites in north London are given in the table.
  501

  Site type

  Location

  Continuous:

  Enhanced Urban Site

  Camden (Bloomsbury)

  Hydrocarbon Site

  Camden (University College)

  NOx, O2 CO, SO2

  Westminster (Victoria)

  NOx, CO

  Kensington and Chelsea; Earls Court

  NOx, CO, SO2

  Kensington and Chelsea; Cromwell Road

  Smoke/SO21

  Ealing (2)

  Enfield

  Hackney

  Harrow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  London (City)

  Redbridge

  Tower Hamlets

  Westminster

  NO2Diffusion Tubes1

  Barking

  Barnet

  Brent

  Camden

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Hackney

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  London (City)

  Waltham: Forest

  Westminster

  Toxic Organic Micropollutants

  Westminster

  Multi-Element and Lead

  Brent

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  1Monitoring undertaken in collaboration with local authorities.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect on the private finance initiative of the present rules governing the treatment by local authorities on(a) capital expenditure, (b) capital receipts, (c) leasing, (d) transactions involving local authority companies, (e) guarantees, (f) equity investment by local authorities and (g) competition for public sector contracts; and what proposals he has to amend these rules in order to increase local authorities' ability to participate in the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Gummer
  The rules to which the hon. Member refers provide a framework within which local authorities can collaborate with the private sector. Within them, authorities have developed excellent plans under, for example, city challenge and urban regeneration programmes. I am always willing to consider suggestions which would help authorities to collaborate with the private sector without undermining the necessary constraints on public expenditure.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many projects involving local authorities and the private sector have been materially assisted by the private finance initiative since November 1992; and if he will list those projects showing for each(a) the estimated value of the project, (b) the expenditure to date,
  502
  (c) the nature of the material assistance from the private finance initiative and (d) all the sources of funding for the project and the amount from each source.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department and its sponsored bodies attracted over £2 billion of private investment in support of departmental programmes in 1992–93, and similarly expects to lever in up to £3 billion of private funding in 1993–94. This will assist the implementation of a wide variety of projects, most notably in housing, inner cities and urban regeneration, with many directly or indirectly involving local authorities. Separately, many authorities are pursuing local initiatives and partnerships with the private sector. It is not practicable for the Department to collect information on each project.

  Nirex Repository
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of the waste to be stored in the proposed Nirex repository, including decommissioning materials, would come from(a) the thermal oxide reprocessing plant and (b) Magnox reprocessing on the assumptions made in drawing up the United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory;

  (2) if low-level organic radioactive waste will be dumped in the proposed Nirex repository.

  Mr. Yeo
  The types of waste disposed of in Nirex's repository will depend on the authorisations granted by the regulators.
  503
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specifications he has issued as to the minimum depth of the proposed Nirex radioactive waste repository at Sellafield.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. It will be for Nirex to demonstrate the safety of its design.

  Fair Rents
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to encourage greater exchange of information and views between rent officers and rent assessment panels to encourage general consistency of approach, following the recent announcement on the outcome of the consultation exercise on increases in fair rents.

  Sir George Young
  The educational trust of the Institute of Rent Officers has established a working party comprising rent officers and rent assessment panel members, to consider and clarify issues affecting the registration of fair rents in the light of changes in the market for rented housing. The working party aims to produce a report by next spring, which it hopes will assist rent officers and members of rent assessment panels in exercising their functions under the Rent Act 1977.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the Government subsidy paid to developers of wind turbine farms is for decommissioning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The extent to which the price paid by the regional electricity companies, for electricity supplied under a contract entered into by them under the non-fossil fuel obligation, contributes to the particular generator's capital, operating or decommissioning costs, is a commercial matter for the generator.

  Countryside Survey
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has discussed with the Secretary of State for the Environment the results of the countryside survey 1990 and the implications of these results for his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman today by my hon. Friend the Minister of the Environment and Countryside.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has discussed with the Secretary of State for the Environment the results of the countryside survey 1990 and the implications of these results for his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regular contact is and will continue to be maintained with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on matters such as this.

  Departments are committed to integrating environmental concerns into all policy areas. By 1997 the Countryside Council for Wales expects also to have completed the inventory of habitats in Wales at a phase 1 level of detail.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had on the 504
  implications of the countryside survey 1990 for Government policy with (a) the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (b) the Secretary of State for Transport, (c) the Treasury, (d) the Secretary of State for Scotland and (e) the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend maintains regular contact with his right hon. Friends on these matters and will continue to do so. They are as committed as he is to integrating environmental concerns into all policy areas.

  Doncaster Drainage Act 1929
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amendments that have been made to date to the Doncaster Area Drainage Act 1929; what consideration is given to a new Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised that most of the Doncaster Area Drainage Act 1929 was repealed by the Doncaster Area Drainage Act 1933. The other amendments known to have been made before 1974 are set out in the "Chronological Table of Local Acts", published in 1985 by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The "Chronological Table of Acts of Parliament"—1992 edition—shows no specific amendments since 1974, but there will, of course, have been changes made by public general legislation. I am not aware of any new private Bill being prepared.

  Drainage Boards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by each internal drainage board the representation of district council members who are(a) councillors and (b) non-councillors; and what their percentage of representation is of the whole membership per internal drainage board.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with legislation which took effect on 1 April 1993, local authorities are entitled to appoint members to internal drainage boards in proportion to their financial contributions to the board's income, subject to their number not exceeding the number of members elected by agricultural drainage ratepayers by more than one. There are nearly 250 internal drainage boards in England and Wales and information about local authority representatives is not held centrally.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which TECs have met all the targets set down by his Department for two consecutive years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Two training and enterprise councils met all their targets for performance-related funding in both 1991–92 and 1992–93, Stockport and High Peak TEC and Northumberland TEC.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to make the training and enterprise councils more accountable to their local communities.
  505
  Miss Widdecombe
  TECs are already accountable to their local communities in a number of ways. They consult all local interests in preparing their strategies and plans. They publish summaries of these plans and hold public meetings at least annually. They also publish an annual report.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much public funding has been provided for the South West TEC based in Plymouth; and how many people are currently having help and training there to find work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department has agreed a budget of £64·2 million for 1993–94 with Devon and Cornwall TEC.

  The TEC helps many people in many different ways. Numbers currently include 6,305 young people on youth training, 3,871 adults undertaking training for work and 127 participating in learning for work.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of accumulated reserves was held in total and by each TEC in England at 1 April 1992 and at 1 April 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The level of reserves held by each training and enterprise council—TEC—is contained within the TECs' published accounts. A full set of accounts for all 75 English TECs, for the year ending 31 March 1992, has already been placed in the House of Commons Library. Each TEC's accounts for the year ended 31 March 1993 is being placed in the Library as they become available to the Employment Department.

  TECs are allowed to generate a surplus and create a reserve by subcontracting at a lower unit price than negotiated with the Department. A surplus may also be generated where a TEC's administrative costs are kept below the management fee paid by the Department. The surplus is available to the TEC, with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Employment, for further expenditure on programmes—and TEC administrative costs—for initiatives outside the programmes but within the TEC's articles and memorandum of association, or as a contribution to the TEC's general reserves.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what powers training and enterprise councils have to switch their allocation of funds between various parts of their budgets; how much each TEC in England has transferred from the budgets it was allocated for youth training and employment training; to what purposes the funds were subsequently allocated; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils—TECs—may switch their allocation of funds between youth training, training for work—which replaced employment training—compacts, education business partnerships, and business and enterprise support, so long as no budget is increased or decreased by more than 5 per cent. TECs may also increase their learning from work budget by up to a maximum of 5 per cent.

  During the current financial year, five TECs have used this facility to]transfer funds out of either their youth training or training for work budgets. Details are shown in the table.
  506

  TEC

  Amount £

  Additional provision purchased

  Switches from youth training

  Avon

  258,000

  Training for work

  Birmingham

  928,000

  Training for work compacts Education business partnerships Business and enterprise support

  Central England

  216,000

  Training for work compacts Education business partnerships Business and enterprise support

  Wolverhampton

  149,000

  Training for work Business and enterprise support

  Switches from training for work

  Wearside

  251,000

  Youth training

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which TECs are using adult training credits within their training for work provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following training and enterprise councils in England are currently using adult training credits within their training for work provision with assistance from the Department:

  Barnsley and Doncaster;

  Bedfordshire;

  Bradford;

  Cambsetc;

  Hertfordshire;

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks;

  North London;

  Rotherham;

  South Thames;

  Stockport and High Peak.

  In addition, a number of other TECs are issuing adult training credits within their training for work provision using other resources.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps the Government are taking to improve the employment prospects for people aged 50 years and above.

  Miss Widdecombe
  With inflation and interest rates lower than for many years, our economic policies are improving employment prospects for everyone. For older people, building on the work of my advisory group, I recently launched "Getting On"—a drive to combat ageism in the workplace and encourage employers to recognise the skills, experience and commitment older people offer.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds are on waiting lists for youth training places in the east midlands.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 11 November there were 197 young people covered by the youth training guarantee who had been waiting for the offer of a YT place for eight weeks or longer in the Employment Department's east midlands region.

  Disability
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department is taking to improve access to work for disabled people.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve the job opportunities for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A new scheme, called access to work, will improve the range and type of help currently available under the Department's special schemes and proposals have been published for improving the help available through the sheltered employment programme.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what consultations he has had with employers' organisations about the likely impact of changes in funding for access to work schemes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has had from charities concerned with disability and employment on the proposals that employers should pay half the cost of employing people with disabilities who have been working for them for over six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Henley have been in correspondence with, and have met, a number of leading employer and disablement organisations about access to work, about which my right hon. Friend made a statement to the House on 22 June 1993,Official Report, column 102. When my right hon. Friend has reached decisions on details of access to work, including the employer contribution, a statement will be made to the House.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he intends to take to reduce youth unemployment in Nottinghamshire.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The local employment service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help young unemployed people in Nottinghamshire find the best and quickest route to employment. The Government's plans are kept continually under review. Any plans will be announced in the normal way.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects on wage levels of the abolition of wages councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Abolition of the wages councils will enable the introduction of much greater flexibility in pay rates and more variation in pay structures. It is therefore not possible to make firm forecasts of the overall effect of abolition.

  Civilian Employment
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the total of civilian employment in the south-eastern region has changed in the last 10 years.
  508
  Miss Widdecombe
  Between June 1983 and June 1993, the civilian work force in employment in the south-east rose by 169,000 or 2 per cent.

  Training
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people leaving employment training got a job in the last quarter for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest quarter for which figures are available is October 1992 to December 1992. Thirty-one per cent. of all employment training leavers in that quarter went into a job—slightly more than in the same period in 1991. In April 1993, employment training was replaced by training for work.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people were participating in(a) training for work—employment training/employment action, (b) community action, (c) learning for work, (d) workstart pilots, (e) North Norfolk Action, (f) the business start-up allowance, and (g) youth training for each region and for Great Britain as a whole in each month since March; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what number and percentage of those leaving employment training—training for work—were immediately on leaving, three months after leaving, and then six months after leaving, either (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else, in each region and for Great Britain as a whole.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information is contained in a large number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing for each standard region, with Greater London shown as a separate region, the total expenditure in 1992–93, and the budgeted expenditure in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, in respect of(a) programme development fund, (b) education business partnerships, (c) teacher placement service, (d) compacts/inner-city compacts, (e) business start-up scheme, (f) local initiative fund and (g) TEC challenge.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Total expenditure for 1992–93 and budgeted expenditure for 1993–94 are shown in the following tables, table 1 for programmes delivered through training and enterprise councils—TECs.

  Training, enterprise and education directorate—TEED—regional offices are currently finalising contracts with TECs for TEC challenge and the information requested is not yet available.

  Programme development funds are administered through the Employment Service whose regional boundaries are different from those of TEED. The information for these funds is shown in table 2.

  Budgets for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment following the announcement on 4 November of integrated regional offices.
  509

  Table 1

  Total expenditure for 1992–93 and programme plans for 1993–94

  Education business partnerships

  Teacher placement service

  Compacts/Inner city compacts

  Total expenditure 1992–93

  Programme plans 1993–94

  Total expenditure 1992–93

  Programme plans 1993–94

  Total expenditure 1992–93

  Programme plans 1993–94

  South East

  271,471

  175,000

  388,568

  364,178

  114,459

  315,000

  London

  274,652

  290,668

  237,950

  292,014

  918,915

  825,000

  Eastern

  154,953

  115,000

  184,065

  247,697

  110,210

  230,000

  South West

  172,991

  129,730

  208,369

  217,719

  246,551

  317,250

  West Midlands

  220,830

  232,000

  264,759

  267,186

  643,424

  501,500

  East Midlands

  140,930

  115,000

  215,871

  195,995

  256,363

  392,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  189,346

  165,000

  221,173

  244,957

  729,518

  592,844

  Greater Manchester

  144,330

  147,000

  157,967

  162,000

  782,052

  466,800

  North West

  132,460

  143,000

  190,624

  225,000

  697,298

  818,000

  Northern

  105,251

  120,001

  127,161

  133,427

  661,576

  689,000

  England Total

  1,807,214

  1,632,399

  2,196,507

  2,350,173

  5,160,366

  5,147,394

  Local initiative fund

  Business start up scheme

  total expenditure

  programme plans

  total expenditure

  programme plans

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  South East

  7,410,321

  4,616,703

  6,965,460

  8,579,810

  London

  7,433,386

  5,461,092

  7,430,643

  11,769,267

  Eastern

  2,337,807

  2,844,697

  2,542,104

  5,719,354

  South West

  6,369,115

  4,598,444

  6,949,773

  9,342,602

  West Midlands

  4,531,111

  3,696,004

  7,485,364

  9,683,651

  East Midlands

  4,369,307

  3,145,000

  6,136,123

  7,418,052

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,123,362

  8,558,600

  8,743,013

  11,199,176

  Greater Manchester

  3,479,910

  2,844,697

  6,023,815

  5,719,354

  North West

  2,320,109

  2,740,000

  6,158,712

  8,113,254

  Northern

  6,325,669

  3,567,248

  3,789,207

  5,290,509

  England total

  49,700,097

  42,072,485

  62,224,214

  82,835,029

  Total expenditure for 1992–93 and programme plans for 1993–94

  Programme development fund

  Total expenditure 1992–93

  Programme plans 1993–94

  London and South East

  591,164

  744,987

  South West

  362,774

  325,000

  West Midlands

  454,464

  375,000

  East Midlands

  322,718

  979,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  512,022

  500,000

  North West

  491,330

  460,000

  Northern

  712,836

  555,000

  England Total

  3,447,308

  3,938,987

  Employment Creation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the differences between British employment creation measures and those of our EC partners.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Other EC Governments are increasingly coming to share the United Kingdom's Government view that only competitive industries and flexible labour markets generate new jobs.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his definition of full employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I do not believe it is possible or sensible to define a particular unemployment rate as "full 510
  employment". The aim of the Government's policy is to achieve high levels of employment, consistent with low inflation.

  Adult Unemployment
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage and number of adult male and female registered unemployed in the area including the Ilford, South constituency in October 1978 and October 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On the basis of the available information, unadjusted male and female claimant unemployment for over 18-year-olds in Ilford, South stood at 2,432 and 1,099 respectively in October 1983, and 3,926 and 1,228 respectively in October 1993.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department is taking to create job opportunities in rural areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The promotion of enterprise, economic diversity and employment in rural areas is primarily the role of the Rural Development Commission and Scottish Enterprise. But acting through the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils, the Department has a range of facilities and programmes available to people in rural areas, to help equip them for work and enable them to take advantage of employment opportunities as they arise.

  Workstart Schemes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the workstart pilot schemes being run by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The programme is being piloted in four areas. Just over 100 long-term unemployed people are now involved in workstart.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many offices responsible for the payment of unemployment benefit have changed the day of the week on which payments are made(a) in the past 12 months and (b) in the past five years;

  (2) what is the total amount of money which has so far been withheld from claimants of unemployment benefit as a result of changes to the day on which benefit payments are made;

  (3) what is his latest estimate of the total amount of money withheld from claimants of unemployment benefit as a result of changes to the day on which benefit payments are made in each year since 1989–90 and in the current financial year to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 30 November 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions to him about the number of offices that have changed the day of the week on which payments are made in the last 12 months and the last five years; and, as a result of this, how much money has been withheld from claimants of unemployment benefit together with an estimate of the total amount of money withheld in each year since 1989–90 and in the current financial year to date. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I am sorry that information is not available in the form you requested.
  The allocation of signing days is arranged individually by each ES local office. I am unable to say how many offices have changed clients' signing days in the last 12 months and in the last five years because this information is not collated or published.
  I can state however that no unemployment benefit (UB) has been withheld from clients due to a change in the day on which UB payments are made.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Work Permits (St. Helena)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he proposes to do to reduce the impact of phasing out the special work permit arrangements for St. Helenians coming to work in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The dependent territories quota scheme will be phased out by 1995. Discussions are 512
  continuing between Employment Department officials and other Government Departments about how St. Helenians might be helped to benefit from the training and work expereience provisions of the work permit scheme.

  Applications for work permits for St. Helenians outside the quota arrangements will continue to be considered against the normal work permit scheme criteria.

  Job Clubs
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have joined job clubs; how many have left; how many leavers got jobs; how many entered another positive outcome, in the year to April 1993, and since April 1993 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; what is the average duration of time that people spend participating in job clubs and how many people are currently in job clubs; what information he has on the wage rates and conditions that apply to the jobs obtained by job club leavers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 30 November 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about Jobclub performance and the wage rates and conditions for Jobclub leavers. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The attached table shows for each region and nationally the number of Jobclub entrants, leavers, job entries and other positive outcomes for the whole of 1992/93 and from 1 April 1993 to 31 October 1993. Those who are shown as going into other positive outcomes will have moved on to either training, full-time education or self-employment.
  The average length of time people spend in Jobclub is not routinely recorded. A sample study in March 1993 showed that 60 per cent. leave within 12 weeks, 81 per cent. leave within 21 weeks and 8 per cent. leave after a stay of more than 26 weeks.
  Records of the number of people in Jobclub at any one lime are not kept. However, the attached table shows that 142,370 people joined the programme in the first seven months of the 1993/94 operational year, an average of 4,592 a week.
  The wage rates that apply to jobs found by Jobclub members were last examined in January 1991, based on a postal survey of individuals who joined in Autumn 1989. At that time, 26 per cent. of respondents went into jobs with a wage of up to £80 per week and a further 60 per cent. went into jobs which paid £81 to £160 per week and 15 per cent. received over £160 per week.
  The Employment Service is planning a wide ranging evaluation of its programmes and services which lead to jobs. This should begin in spring 1994 and will examine, amongst other things, the wage rates of leavers going into employment.
  No information has been collected about the conditions of employment for those leaving Jobclub.
  Jobclubs continue to be both popular with the people who join and an effective way of helping them back to work. We are now able to help more members than at any time before and 47 per cent. of leavers are successful in finding jobs.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  513

  Jobclub Performance Information

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Job entries

  Other positive outcomes

  April 1992 to March 1993

  April 1993 to October 1993

  April 1992 to March 1993

  April 1993 to October 1993

  April 1992 to March 1993

  April 1993 to October 1993

  April 1992 to March 1993

  April 1993 to October 1993

  Northern

  14,135

  8,342

  14,003

  8,594

  5,625

  3,614

  1,523

  860

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19,071

  12,337

  18,477

  11,886

  8,722

  5,573

  2,771

  1,606

  East Midlands and Eastern

  19,895

  12,466

  19,426

  12,191

  9,310

  5,987

  3,050

  1,551

  London and South East

  65,316

  45,922

  63,769

  41,936

  26,048

  18,349

  9,585

  5,446

  South West

  16,036

  10,383

  15,301

  9,945

  7,327

  4,996

  2,259

  1,422

  Office for Wales

  12,666

  8,274

  12,084

  7,914

  6,355

  4,530

  1,693

  1,121

  West Midlands

  21,080

  12,456

  21,198

  12,304

  9,379

  5,937

  3,507

  1,981

  North West

  31,920

  19,258

  31,530

  19,767

  13,948

  8,919

  3,843

  2,190

  Office for Scotland

  20,878

  12,932

  20,891

  12,795

  10,211

  6,377

  2,722

  1,718

  National

  220,997

  142,370

  216,679

  137,334

  96,925

  64,282

  30,953

  17,898

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of investors in people awards and commitments at 26 November by English training and enterprise council area is shown in the table.

  Awards

  Commitments

  Avon

  10

  128

  AZTEC

  6

  40

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  6

  37

  Bedfordshire

  8

  85

  Birmingham

  8

  18

  Bolton-Bury

  4

  39

  Bradford

  2

  74

  CAMBSTEC

  2

  27

  CEWTEC

  9

  28

  CILNTEC

  1

  27

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1

  44

  Central England

  8

  23

  CENTEC

  4

  30

  County Durham

  8

  32

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  5

  39

  Cumbria

  2

  53

  Devon and Cornwall

  24

  73

  Dorset

  14

  79

  Dudley

  1

  24

  ELTEC

  7

  106

  Essex

  5

  23

  Gloucestershire

  26

  345

  Greater Nottingham

  3

  66

  Greater Peterborough

  1

  13

  HAWTEC

  6

  49

  Hampshire

  14

  184

  Heart of England

  9

  41

  Hertfordshire

  3

  28

  Humberside

  7

  98

  Isle of Wight

  0

  8

  Kent

  2

  41

  LAWTEC

  3

  56

  Leeds

  7

  78

  Leicestershire

  0

  44

  Lincolnshire

  1

  68

  London East

  3

  30

  METROTEC

  5

  28

  Manchester

  4

  79

  Merseyside

  7

  118

  Milton Keynes

  I

  11

  NORMIDTEC

  7

  50

  514

  Awards

  Commitments

  Norfolk and Waveney

  8

  19

  North Derbyshire

  7

  36

  North London

  1

  62

  North Nottinghamshire

  6

  36

  North West London

  2

  30

  North Yorkshire

  7

  73

  Northamptonshire

  5

  43

  Northumberland

  4

  12

  Oldham

  0

  18

  QUALITEC

  0

  12

  Rochdale

  1

  10

  Rotherham

  5

  31

  SOLOTEC

  1

  27

  Sandwell

  1

  22

  Sheffield

  3

  51

  Shropshire

  4

  31

  Somerset

  4

  53

  South and East Cheshire

  7

  48

  South Thames

  3

  53

  Southern Derbyshire

  12

  104

  Staffordshire

  4

  17

  Stockport and High Peak

  0

  59

  Suffolk

  4

  48

  Surrey

  6

  37

  Sussex

  8

  84

  Teesside

  7

  42

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  20

  99

  Tyneside

  12

  85

  Wakefield

  2

  22

  Walsall

  2

  27

  Wearside

  2

  14

  West London

  1

  44

  Wiltshire

  8

  53

  Wolverhampton

  3

  27

  At 26 November 1993, over 470 organisations in the United Kingdom had achieved the investors standard while over 4,330 had formally committed to achieving the standard.

  This is encouraging progress and demonstrates that employers are serious about their most valuable resource —their people. Over 10 per cent. of employees in employment are now covered by organisations recognised as or committed to investors in people.

  Training (Accidents)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) fatal, (b) major and (c) minor accidents have occurred on youth training and on training for work for each available quarter since April in each region and in Great Britain as a whole; and if he will make a statement.
  515
  Miss Widdecombe
  The table gives the accident figures for the quarter April to June 1993, which are the latest available, for youth training and training for work.

  Youth training

  Training for work

  Region

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  South East

  0

  8

  21

  0

  4

  1

  London

  0

  4

  13

  0

  0

  7

  Eastern

  0

  7

  32

  0

  2

  6

  South West

  0

  5

  15

  0

  1

  4

  West Midlands

  0

  13

  39

  0

  3

  7

  East Midlands

  0

  3

  26

  0

  1

  10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  7

  57

  0

  0

  35

  North West

  0

  9

  46

  0

  1

  16

  Northern

  0

  5

  43

  0

  4

  25

  Scottish Enterprise

  0

  12

  45

  1

  3

  9

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  0

  4

  25

  1

  3

  22

  National totals

  1

  77

  364

  2

  22

  142

  Notes:
  1. Employment Department figures for trainees have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for employed persons. However, the Employment Department's figures include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments, and road traffic accidents, which would not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.
  2. Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurences Regulations 1985.

  Agriculture Gangmasters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether agricultural labour gangmasters are required to register as employment agencies; and how many gangmasters are registered in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Whether individual agricultural gangmasters are required to be licensed under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 depends upon their method of operation. If the hirer of workers exercises the control and supervision of workers hired out by a gangmaster, the gangmaster should be licensed. If the gangmaster retains control and supervision of the workers, his or her activities are those of a subcontractor and are outside the scope of the Act. There are currently two licensed gangmasters in Lincolnshire, five in Cambridgeshire and 17 in Norfolk.

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of learning for work places agreed with training and enterprise councils in England for 1993–94 and approximate numbers of participants reported by them as at 27 September are given in the table. Places will be allocated for 1994–95 in December. The budget the Department of Employment allocates to TECs to meet fees and expenses is commercial 516
  in confidence. However, £54 million is available in England for fees, allowances and other costs during the year ending August 1994.

  Monitoring and evaluation arrangements will provide information about starts, participants and qualifications. We are also monitoring take-up by gender and disability. The destinations of individuals leaving courses is being followed up. Information will also be analysed on costs and benefits.

  Learning for work is scheduled to continue until August 1994 when TECs will be free to use their experience of the arrangements to offer similar provision within training for work.

  Learning for work position at 27 September 1993

  National TEC name and TEED region(RO)

  Region—TEC position Places contracted and agreed (region-TEC) for 1993–94

  Starts

  Suffolk

  193

  57

  CAMBS

  171

  45

  Greater Peterborough

  167

  60

  Norfolk and Waveney

  623

  40

  Essex

  818

  200

  BEDS

  315

  51

  HERTS

  450

  180

  Total EASTERN RO

  2,737

  633

  Southern Derbyshire

  317

  106

  Leicester

  457

  100

  Greater Nottingham

  490

  40

  Northamptonshire

  294

  51

  North Derbyshire

  179

  0

  Lincolnshire

  216

  20

  North Nottinghamshire

  225

  14

  Total EAST MIDS RO

  2,178

  331

  Manchester

  916

  195

  Stockport and High Peak

  155

  13

  Oldham

  139

  27

  517

  National TEC name and TEED region (RO)

  Region—TEC position Places contracted and agreed (region-TEC)for 1993–94

  Starts

  Rochdale

  129

  34

  South and East Cheshire

  119

  13

  Bolton and Bury

  231

  41

  Metrotec

  0

  10

  Total NW (GM) RO

  1,689

  333

  Aztec

  375

  220

  Centec

  730

  146

  Cilntec

  508

  49

  Letec

  752

  n/a

  Nltec

  395

  250

  Nwltec

  360

  50

  Solotec

  528

  130

  Sttec

  1,109

  550

  Wltec

  602

  177

  Total LONDON RO

  5,359

  1,572

  Durham

  320

  43

  Northumberland

  149

  30

  Teesside

  479

  1

  Tyneside

  660

  82

  Wearside

  242

  n/a

  Total NORTHERN RO

  1,850

  156

  Cewtec

  360

  20

  Cumbria

  210

  34

  Eltec

  359

  60

  Lawtec

  410

  71

  Merseyside

  1,030

  121

  Normid

  227

  47

  Total NORTH WEST RO

  2,596

  353

  Hampshire

  680

  122

  Heart of England

  367

  74

  Wight

  25

  0

  Kent

  1,350

  386

  Milton Keynes

  120

  50

  Surrey

  345

  24

  Sussex

  330

  n/a

  Thames Valley

  448

  60

  Total SOUTH EAST RO

  3,665

  716

  Avon

  660

  90

  Devon and Cornwall

  875

  85

  Gloucestershire

  258

  39

  Dorset

  360

  42

  Somerset

  224

  48

  Wiltshire

  252

  86

  Total SOUTH WEST RO

  2,629

  390

  Birmingham

  420

  0

  Central England

  343

  53

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  532

  193

  Dudley

  400

  10

  Hereford and Worecester

  162

  62

  Sandwell

  312

  75

  Shropshire

  166

  5

  Staffordshire

  466

  0

  Walsall

  222

  27

  Wolverhampton

  268

  0

  Total WEST MIDS RO

  3,291

  425

  Humberside

  580

  17

  North Yorkshire

  160

  69

  Wakefield

  142

  12

  518

  National TEC name and TEED region (RO)

  Region—TEC position Places contracted and agreed (region-TEC)for 1993–94

  Starts

  Leeds

  443

  92

  Bradford

  325

  11

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  306

  31

  Sheffield

  372

  33

  Rotherham

  190

  22

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  300

  27

  Total Y and H RO

  2,818

  314

  NATIONAL TOTAL

  28,812

  5,223

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in unemployment so far in 1993; what are the comparable figures for the rest of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Internationally comparable unemployment figures based on the International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment are published by EUROSTAT in its monthly "Unemployment Bulletin", copies of which are available in the Library. These show that the United Kingdom is one of only two European Community countries where the rate of unemployment is now below what it was at the beginning of the year.

  Coal Miners (Retraining)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to take to meet the costs of retraining for former coal miners; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has made available £75 million to training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service to provide additional training and retraining provision for unemployed people in pit closure areas, including former miners.

  British Coal Enterprise also has substantial resources to retrain and provide other opportunities to help ex-mineworkers.

  The £75 million forms part of the larger £200 million Government package to help the regeneration of pit closure areas.

  Careers Services
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy that inspectors' reports following careers service inspections be made public.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This is already current policy throughout Great Britain.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

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

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

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what expenditure will be incurred by the Office of Public Service and Science in the period 1994–95 to 1996–97.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Spending on the areas covered by the Office of Public Service and Science—OPSS—HMSO and Central Office of Information will be £1,318 million in 1994–95, £1,354 million in 1995–96 and £1,359 million in 1996–97.

  Planned expenditure on public service tasks—OPSS, COI, HMSO—is £76 million in 1994–95, £70·9 million in 1995–96 and £70·2 million in 1996–97.

  Provision for science is £1,242 million in 1994–95, £1,283·1 million in 1995–96 and £1,288·8 million in 1996–97. These figures include £154 million, £157 million and £157 million respectively to cover the additional responsibilities of the research councils for projects which they support in higher education institutions, which under previous arrangements would have been the responsibility of the higher education funding councils. After adjusting for this transfer, the science provision will be 4·2 per cent., 7·9 per cent. and 8·4 per cent. higher in cash terms than the estimated outturn in 1993–94.

  I shall be announcing the allocation of the 1994–95 science budget in due course.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the worth of civil service work market-tested by September; what proportion has been competed for by in-house teams; and what proportion was awarded to the private sector without in-house competition.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Provisional estimates show that by 30 September 1993 around £700 million of civil service work has subjected to a process of examination and review to improve value for money under the competing for quality initiative. Of this, about £624 million was market tested or strategically contracted out. Excluding the contractorisation of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment—value £275 million—about 66 per cent., or £232 million was competed for by in-house teams. The remaining 34 per cent., or £117 million, together with the AWRE contractorisation, was awarded to the private sector without in-house competition.

DEFENCE

  Senior Officers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) field marshals, (b) admirals of the fleet, (c) air chief marshals are currently on (i) the active list and (ii) the retired list; at what cost in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  All admirals of the fleet, field marshals, and marshals of the Royal Air Force—five-star officers—remain on the active list. Normally, only the Chief of the Defence Staff, currently a marshal of the Royal Air Force, is actually a serving officer. Unusually, we have two serving officers at this level at present. The other is chairman of the NATO military committee, an international appointment. They are on a salary of £112,084·20.

  The remainder are in effective retirement. Those promoted in the early 1980s to date are in receipt of a pension of 48·5 per cent. of active service pay—£54,361. Those promoted before then receive pension or half pay—£56,042.

  Current numbers of five-star officers are:

  Full pay

  Half pay

  48·5 per cent.

  Total

  Royal Navy

  —

  5

  3

  8

  Army

  1

  —

  7

  8

  RAF

  1

  —

  5

  6

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  Total

  2

  5

  15

  22

  These figures do not include His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who holds five-star rank in all the armed forces, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, who holds the rank of field marshal.

  Horizon 2000
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his intention that foreign-built hulls will be permitted in tenders for the future anti-aircraft frigate—Horizon 2000 project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The intention for the future air defence frigate is that each nation will build its own ships in its own country.

  Landing Platform Helicopter
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds the bidding of foreign hulls was excluded from the tendering arrangements for the landing platform helicopters.

  Mr. Aitken
  In the absence of progress towards the opening of the market for warship building within the EC on a fair and equitable basis, we decided the most appropriate course was to restrict invitations to tender to United Kingdom shipyards.

  Minehunters
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State. for Defence on what grounds foreign-built hulls were permitted as part of the last invitation for Sandown class single role minehunters; and if he will make a statement.
  521
  Mr. Aitken
  The last competition for Sandown class single role minehunters in 1990 permitted prime contractors to include foreign-built hulls in their bids to ensure as wide a competition as possible in order to maximise value for money for the defence budget and the taxpayer.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his intention to permit foreign-built hulls in the forthcoming tender for a further batch of Sandown class minehunters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We expect to make an announcement on future orders for the Sandown class shortly.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's minehunting capability.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government are committed to retaining a capable and effective mine countermeasure fleet. We therefore intend to continue over the next decade with our modernisation programme, which will entail the procurement of further Sandown class single-role minehunters and a mid-life update for the Hunt class. The 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates makes clear our intention to build up to a fleet of 25 of these highly capable vessels. We expect to make an announcement on future orders for the Sandown class shortly.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to issue an invitation to tender for a further batch of minehunters.

  Mr. Aitken
  We expect to make an announcement on future orders for the Sandown class shortly.

  Glass-reinforced Plastic
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what in current prices has been his Department's total investment in glass-reinforced plastic in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has invested a total of £6 million in capital facilities for the production of GRP mine countermeasure vessels. This has been offset by receipts due under various agreements which total £4·7 million to date. Both figures are at current prices.

  Submarine Movements
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which VHF station will broadcast details of the movements of submarines to the fishing fleet in Irish seas area VIIA; and if he will make a statement about arrangements for this service in this submariner exercise area.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Irish sea area VIIA north of 54 deg. north forms part of the Clyde exercise areas and is covered by the Subfacts scheme, under which advance notification of dived submarine movements is broadcast in certain coastal areas. Changes in the existing broadcasting arrangements for Subfacts are being planned and consultations about these changes have taken place with representatives of the fishing industry, including the Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation. I hope to make an announcement soon.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if it is his Department's policy to restrict the explosive firepower of Trident to that deployed on the Polaris force prior to Polaris having been updated with Chevaline;

  (2) if it is his Department's policy to restrict the explosive firepower of Trident to that of the Polaris/ Chevaline force currently deployed.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government's policy is to deploy the minimum nuclear capability necessary to provide an effective deterrent in the circumstances of the time. On current plans, the total explosive power to be carried on each Trident submarine when they enter service will not be much changed from the total explosive power currently deployed, following the Chevaline development, in each Polaris submarine.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department has reached its calculation that when Trident is fully in service the explosive power of the United Kingdom's operational nuclear inventory will be more than 25 per cent. down on the 1990 figure.

  Mr. Hanley
  The calculation compared the explosive power of the United Kingdom's operational stockpile of Chevaline and WE177 warheads in 1990 with the explosive power of the planned future operational stockpile of Trident anti WE177 warheads when Trident is fully in service.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department will demonstrate that it has not deployed more than 96 warheads on each of the Trident submarines when they enter service.

  Mr. Hanley
  In keeping with the practice of successive Governments, we do not make public the number of warheads actually deployed on our submarines. The question of verification does not arise.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what negotiations or studies his Department is carrying out into possible future use of cruise missiles on board Trident submarines.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what change took place in the explosive firepower of the deployed Polaris force in connection with the deployment of Chevaline.

  Mr. Hanley
  The introduction into service of Chevaline brought with it a reduction in the total explosive power deployed on each Polaris submarine.

  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of the ability to overcome existing anti-ballistic missile defences in determining the size of the United Kingdom's minimum deterrent.

  Mr. Hanley
  All relevant factors are taken into account in assessing the minimum level of capability necessary to provide effective deterrence.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the accuracy of a nuclear weapon is a significant factor in determining its destructive effectiveness.
  523
  Mr. Hanley
  Accuracy of delivery is a significant factor in determining the likely effectiveness of a nuclear warhead against its intended target and therefore has a bearing on our assessment of the minimum capability necessary to provide effective deterrence.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish an open government document on Her Majesty's Government's policy on nuclear weapons and non-proliferation following the speech he made to the Centre for Defence Studies on 16 November.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. A copy of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Vehicles
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the financial and administrative consequences of the non-established status of the 39 all-terrain mobile platforms held and maintained by 5 Airborne Brigade; what dedicated Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and associated support is available; when consideration of the future requirement for such vehicles for 24 Airmobile Brigade is due to be completed; what vehicles capable of deployment by support helicopter are currently held by 24 Airmobile Brigade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no financial or administrative consequences resulting from the non-established status of the 39 all-terrain mobile platforms held and maintained by 5 Airborne Brigade.

  Location

  Purchaser

  Date sold

  Chatham Dockyard

  Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust

  20 January 1988

  Milford Haven

  Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  23 December 1991

  Arrochar

  Clydebank Developments

  21 January 1993

  Invergordon

  The Bannerman Company

  31 May 1993

  Inveraray

  I. Turner

  2 June 1993

  Holy Loch (Ardnadam)

  G. R. Thompson

  11 June 1993

  In addition, offers for the purchase of two further piers at Holy Loch—Sandbank—and Gourock are at an advanced stage of consideration.

  Royal Navy Ships
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships are currently in full-time service in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 30 November, there were 130 commissioned surface vessels and submarines in service with the Royal Navy. There are also 21 vessels in service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, whose supporting role is essential to the provision of the Royal Navy's overall capability.

  Manpower Service Personnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many air marshals are currently on full-time service in the Royal Air Force;

  (2) how many other ranks are currently on full-time service with the Royal Air Force;
  524
  The brigade has a dedicated Combat Service Support Battalion comprising a general support squadron—which includes REME personnel—a close support squadron and a REME workshop. There are also REME personnel with the infantry battalions.

  We expect consideration of 24 Airmobile Brigade's all-terrain mobile platform requirement to be completed in the course of next year.

  24 Airmobile Brigade currently holds the following vehicles capable of deployment by support helicopter:

  Trucks Utility Light/Medium

  Trucks Utility Heavy

  JCB Rough Terrain Fork-Lift Trucks Motorcycles

  Four-Tonne Trucks

  Trailers

  Piers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of piers previously owned by his Department which have been sold in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and if he will lisit the the purchaser and the selling price in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of the piers previously owned by the Ministry of Defence which have been sold in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years and the purchaser in each case are set out in the table. The sale prices are commercial in confidence.

  (3) how many generals are currently on full-time service in the Army;

  (4) how many other ranks are currently on full-time service with the Army;

  (5) how many admirals are currently on full-time service in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the 1 October 1993 issue of the tri-service personnel statistics publication No. 9—TSP9—"Rank Structure of UK Regular Forces", which is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Nuclear Shelters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of(a) nuclear shelters, (b) nuclear bunkers, (c) command shelters and (d) command bunkers previously owned by his Ministry which have been sold in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and if he will list the purchaser and the selling price in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested less the sale prices, which are commercial in confidence, is set out in the table:
  525

  Location

  Purchaser

  Date sold

  Bowsey Hill, Warren Row, Berkshire (Temporary Regional Seat of Government—Bunker No. 6

  The Document Storage Co. Ltd.

  31 August 1988

  Sopley, Hampshire (Command Bunker)

  The Document Storage Co. Ltd.

  12 August 1993

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Russian Government still have inspection rights under the disarmament treaty at RAF station Greenham Common; what was the date of their last visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Russian Government will retain inspection rights at Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth under the intermediate range nuclear forces—INF—treaty until the year 2001. The last visit to RAF Greenham Common by a Russian inspection team took place on 16 April 1992.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy when strengthening the operational role of the Western European Union to ensure that there is no weakening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or the transatlantic link; what effect he expects his proposals to have on the course of the NATO summit on the future of NATO; and what plans he has to publicise progress on his proposals for the Western European Union.

  Mr. Hanley
  It has always been United Kingdom policy that development of the operational role of the Western European Union should strengthen NATO, including the transatlantic link. Discussions are continuing with allies on the preparations for the NATO summit, which will provide an important opportunity for the alliance to continue and enhance its adaptation to the new security environment. Progress in developing the Western European Union is made public in a variety of ways, including communiqués issued following meetings of the WEU Council of Ministers. The most recent of these took place in Luxembourg on 22 November.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional resources will be made available this winter to British service men serving in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  Additional resources for British forces in Bosnia include specialist arctic winter clothing for all troops, heaters for Warrior armoured vehicles and cold weather food supplements.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all nuclear-powered submarines that have visited(a) Liverpool, (b) Southampton, (c) Cardiff, (d) Portsmouth, (e) Torbay and (f) Portland during the last 12 months; and if he will list the dates concerned.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following nuclear submarine visits have been made over the last 12 months at the locations in question:
  526

  Location

  Names

  Dates

  Liverpool

  HMS Spartan

  28 April to 4 May

  Southampton

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  Portsmouth

  USS Flying Fish

  10 to 15 March

  FS Amethyste

  10 to 14 May

  USS San Juan

  20 to 26 May

  HMS Spartan

  13 to 18 October

  USS Pargo

  22 to 27 October

  Torbay

  —

  —

  Portland

  —

  —

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what RAF operations the search and rescue service would be supporting from RAF Brawdy in the event of the search and rescue Sea Kings being based there from April 1994.

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

  Army Sales Team
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the Army sales team; when it was established; and what was its budget in each year since then.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Army sales teams organise and conduct demonstrations, training and trials of British defence equipment in the United Kingdom and overseas; and assist companies with sales promotion material and provide specialist advice. An Army sales team was first formed in the late 1960s. Budgetary details going back to that time could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort. Their budget was £1·3 million in 1991–92, £1·4 million in 1992–93, and is forecast at £1·6 million in 1993–94.

  US Submarine (Incident)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring of foreign submarines he will introduce following the Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch report of the snagging of the fishing vessel Lupina C by a United States navy nuclear submarine to ensure that submarines adhere to the submarine code of conduct when steaming through United Kingdom territorial waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The code of practice governing the conduct of submarines when operating in the vicinity of fishing vessels applies to all foreign submarines operating dived within United Kingdom territorial waters. Since the incident involving the USS Sturgeon, efforts have been made to improve foreign submarines' awareness of the code's requirements, and it is clear that they take these very seriously and observe the rules to the letter.

  Lesbians and Gay Men
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries he has made as to the effect of lifting the ban on lesbians and gay men serving in the armed forces of those countries in which the ban has been lifted; and if he will name the countries concerned.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are aware that some countries allow homosexuals to serve in their armed forces and that the Australian and Canadian armed forces have recently lifted their ban on homosexuals.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the position of lesbians and gay men in the armed services; when he will bring forward 528
  legislation to decriminalise homosexuality in the armed forces; and if in the interim he will refrain from pursuing criminal proceedings in respect of homosexuality.

  Mr. Hanley
  Homosexuals are precluded from service in the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence has accepted that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civil life should no longer constitute an offence under service law. The amendment to the law will be made as soon as the legislative programme allows. In the meantime, it is not intended to prosecute service personnel who engage in homosexual activity that is legal in civilian law unless there are other grounds for prosecution under service law. Personnel who engage in homosexual activity that is lawful under civilian law will, however, continue to be administratively discharged from the services.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Game Licences
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to the abolition of game licences.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are consulting with interested groups to see whether there is a less burdensome means of achieving the objectives for which the game licences were introduced.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that more than mildly encouraging reply. Perhaps I may spur him on in his endeavours. Is he aware that at the end of December last year there were only some 47,000 game licences on issue compared with 700,000 shotgun licences? Does my noble friend not feel that if, even on a conservative estimate, only half of those shooters require game licences, the resultant legality rate of 13 per cent. leaves a lot to be desired? Does he not consider that the situation as regards game licences should either be strongly tightened, perhaps as I suggested in December last year, or that game licences should be abolished altogether?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point, and his figures are fairly, although not exactly, accurate. The figures expose the fact that a large number of people have shotgun licences but not game licences. That is one reason why we are looking seriously at, and having consultations about, the future of the game licence. I was tempted to invite all Members of the House who shoot but who do not have a game licence to stand up, but I thought that that might be far too embarrassing.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend says that, but I feel positively antique. I ask my children whether they have a game licence and I invariably find that those aged under 40 never have one. Everyone over 40 has one. Why should the oldies have to pay for the "youngies"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not comment on whether my noble friend looks or feels like an antique. I suspect that increasingly people do not realise that they should have a game licence as well as a shotgun licence. That exposes the reason why consultations are taking place about the future of that licence.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the Minister is a fly fisher, especially a salmon fly fisher. There are game fishing licences. Of course, I urge that that game fishing licence should be abolished. However, I recognise that that is impossible. Therefore, will the
488
Minister and the Government not consider increasing the grant-in-aid to the National Rivers Authority so that it can reduce the cost of game fishing licences? That will enable many people who must endure enforced idleness through unemployment to enjoy that sport.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good try but he has gone rather wide of the Question on game licences. Fishing licences are not required in at least one part of the kingdom. That is why, on one occasion when I was fishing in the south, somebody asked me whether I had such a licence and I looked at him in an extremely puzzled way. Therefore, I understand the problem.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, there was a rather obscure phrase in my noble friend's original Answer. He referred to the purposes for which game licences were introduced. Will he let me into the secret and tell me what those purposes were?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the purpose of the present system of game licences for those who kill or deal in game is primarily to prevent poaching and also to ensure compliance with the statutory closed season.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the cost of collection is greater or less than the yield of the tax?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the cost of collection is less, although I must admit that it is only marginally less, than the return obtained from the £6 licence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered the possibility that a number of people who hold shotgun licences may shoot for game but may also shoot for other purposes? For example, certain Welsh farmers who are my neighbours shoot rabbits and other creatures from time to time with shotguns. What is the distinction between a game licence and a shotgun licence for those purposes?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that if his neighbours are shooting rabbits, they require a game licence. If they are shooting pigeons, they do not require a game licence. I shall check on that as there is some doubt among my noble friends behind me who no doubt have game licences. In any event, people who shoot, for example, pigeons or clay pigeons do not need game licences. Only those people who shoot pheasants, partridges, grouse and so on require a game licence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking about those of us who have a shotgun licence and shoot rabbits, I have to stand up and say that I do not have a game licence. But I may be an antiquity.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is in much the same position that I found myself when I went fishing in England.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that game licences are not required for shooting wild fowl, pigeons or vermin?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the matter is becoming somewhat complicated. My understanding on the three species mentioned by my noble friend is that a game licence would not be required. If I am wrong, I shall write to him.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend said that he thought the shooting of rabbits required a game licence. I personally have always been assured by everyone to whom I have ever talked that that is not so. I also understand that the shooting of ground game like hares does not require a game licence. Can my noble friend confirm whether or not that is the case?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am inclined to think, perhaps wrongly, that the shooting of hares requires such a licence. However, I shall check the position and, if I am wrong, I shall write to my noble friend. I should point out to my noble friends that I knew that the Question would not be easy to answer and that I would end up feeling like a slow-flying pheasant going over a line of very accurate guns.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, with reference to the supplementary question posed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can my noble friend confirm the figures as regards the cost involved? If there are, give or take, 47,000 game licences at issue and, again, if they average, very conservatively, £5 per game licence, that is, crudely, £250,000. I cannot believe that it costs less than £250,000 to collect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend's calculation about the £250,000 income is correct. However, my answer was also correct because it costs £225,000 to collect.

The Official Report
2.46 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in respect of the daily Hansards covering the debates in each of the two Houses of Parliament, they will state (a) the average price per copy in 1979 and 1992, and (b) the number of copies sold in each of those years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the price of the daily editions of the Official Report of both Houses in November 1979 was 45 pence per copy. In 1992, the daily Hansard for the House of Lords was priced at £4.20 and that for the Commons at £7.50. The average daily sale of the House of Lords Official Report in 1979 was around 4,000 copies, and in 1992 was 2,200. The corresponding figures for the House of Commons were 6,500 copies and 3,700 copies respectively.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Government for their unusually clear, accurate and unambiguous reply. However, will the Minister please explain to the House why the price of the daily reports has increased by a very considerable multiple of the rate of inflation that has taken place since the country had the fortune to elect Her Majesty's present Government in 1979? According to the figures that the noble Lord produced, the price of the House of Lords Hansard should now be far less than £2 as distinct from the £4.20 that he gave, and the price of the House of Commons Hansard should be a fraction of the £7.50 that it is today. Can the Minister explain—possibly by reference to the Next Steps prospectus—why it is that the price of those government publications should have increased by such a colossal amount that bears no relationship to the increase in the retail prices index? To date, that is 155 per cent. since 1979.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the compliment contained in the early part of his questions. However, I hope he realises that both the Government and I always try to answer Questions clearly and unambiguously. The answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question is not nearly as complicated as anything to do with Next Steps; it is simply the result of the reduction of a subsidy of £6 million in 1983, which was reduced to nil in 1992 when it was decided that the full price of the cost of the production of Hansard should be charged.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what consultations have taken place between his department and, first, the Library Association; secondly, the Standing Conference of National and University Libraries; and, thirdly, the Council of Polytechnic Librarians (as it is still called) on the question of the effect of the price on the sales figures of Hansard? Further, what advice was his department given by them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord what consultation process took place because, apart from anything else, it took place a few years ago. At that time, a decision was finally made to reduce the overall level of subsidy. That of course is one of the reasons why the overall circulation figures have dropped. Many libraries used to receive two or three copies. But now, because of the increase in price, they have decided they need only one.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many university libraries are not taking Hansard at all?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that of course is a decision they must make for themselves. However, my experience of university libraries indicates that in many cases they would obtain far better value for money from buying Hansard than from other publications that they buy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's decision to remove the subsidy to which he referred will necessitate further factual research on my part? In the meantime, will he

491
explain what are the considerations that allowed the Government deliberately to decide they wanted the circulation of Hansard to decline? Has that anything to do with the exposure of the nakedness of the Government's policies during the periods that I have mentioned?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. The reason was entirely financial. It was decided that Hansard should reflect its real cost of production. I explained earlier why the circulation may well have reduced. The noble Lord should realise that Members of the Opposition are equally represented in the contents of Hansard. Perhaps we should look more at the contents of Hansard rather than at its price to seek reasons for the reduction in circulation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us are concerned about this matter? Hansard is a record of parliamentary proceedings and not governmental proceedings. The widest possible distribution of Hansard should be encouraged. Is it not a fact that the costs of production of journals such as Hansard reduce as the circulation increases? Would it not be in the best interests of democracy and indeed of economy if the Government and Parliament—Parliament also has a responsibility here—were to see to it that Hansard is priced at a figure which would encourage the circulation to rise rather than to decline?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord shares with me the desire to see the maximum circulation of Hansard. For that reason, HMSO is commissioning a market research exercise during the early part of 1994 to see what potential exists for increasing sales of Hansard.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has the noble Lord ever heard of Commander King-Hall and the efforts that he made to popularise Hansard by establishing the Hansard Society? Is there not a great deal to be said for subsidising Hansard, especially in view of the abysmal reporting of Parliament by the press, particularly of your Lordships' House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there have been substantial changes in the reporting of Parliament over the course of the past few years. The introduction of television in particular has made Parliament's proceedings far more accessible than was once the case. It is easy for people to obtain a copy of Hansard. I have mentioned libraries and universities that already hold copies of Hansard. There is no reason why anyone should be excluded from being able to see what parliamentary procedures are all about.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that often there are disputes about matters that have sometimes been recorded erroneously in the press? The answer seems to be that if one wants to know the truth one must get hold of a copy of Hansard. There we can read the truth. In that way, one does not have to rely on newspaper or television reports.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the actual recording is carried out by Hansard, which is an arm of the House itself. The printing and publishing is carried out by HMSO, which is an entirely different organisation. HMSO is not involved in the correct interpretation of the rumblings of either House.

Royal Free Hospital: Renal Unit
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the recommendations of the London Implementation Group Renal Review that treatment for kidney patients at the Royal Free hospital should be moved to the Middlesex hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government are still considering their response to the recommendations of the specialty reviews.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that there are hundreds of ill and worried kidney patients at the Royal Free hospital who feel that their service may be fragmented? Is she further aware that the Royal College of Surgeons feels that kidney and liver transplant units should work closely together?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of the disquiet that there is in London and the worry that people have. It is the Government's intention to make a decision as soon as possible in order to dissipate those concerns. Yes, we are aware of the advice from the Royal College of Surgeons.
Baroness Robson of KiddingtonMy Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there are some specialties that might be suitable for centralising, such as orthopaedic surgery, which on the whole necessitate one visit and one hospital stay? However, renal patients who have to attend hospital for treatment as often as three days a week or more may have to travel from the neighbourhood of the Royal Free hospital to the Middlesex hospital. What compensation will they receive for the time they lose and the expenses they incur in travelling there?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I appreciate that renal services are different from many other services. However, these are factors which will be taken into account when the Secretary of State reaches her decisions.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this matter has been outstanding for months and months? When will we be given a decision? Why in heaven's name are we transferring anything from the Royal Free hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, many things have been happening during the summer. Hospitals such as the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton have put

493
in individual trust applications. They are out to consultation at the moment. The consultation ends for the Royal Brompton on 10th December and for the Royal Marsden on 3rd January. Consultation ended on 15th November on the merger of St. Marks with Northwick Park. I could go through all the hospitals in London explaining to your Lordships the very many moves that are taking place at the moment. Everything we do requires consultation. Those consultation dates are all different. We need all that to be completed before the Secretary of State makes her decisions.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, when the Minister takes the decision does she look first at the economic consequences of moving a unit from one hospital to another? Does the noble Baroness believe the report that I have heard as an all too frequent patient at the Royal Free hospital that economically the unit there represents value for money?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Royal Free is recognised as a well run, cost-effective hospital. The capital and resource consequences and purchasing intentions of district health authorities will be taken into account when any changes are considered. It is evident that there is now skill and expertise to treat patients locally rather than sending them to London.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these proposals have been discussed widely throughout the London area, particularly among hospital patients? Is she also aware that the London Kidney Patients' Association, which represents many thousands of kidney patients from all over London, held a meeting on 18th August this year when it was unanimously agreed,
"that the Renal Review of Specialty Services is without reservation seriously flawed; and that if the recommendations are to be followed seven renal transplant units in London, north of the River Thames, will have their work carried out in three hospitals; and that should fears of closures of London hospitals be justified all that work will then be concentrated in one hospital, The London Hospital"?
In other words, there will be one hospital left for the whole of north London to deal with these patients. I understand that these proposals are fairly well advanced. Whatever has happened to patients' choice?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one of the factors which is evident in London is the number of different specialist centres, not only for kidney transplants but also, for example, for coronary care. At the moment we have 11 renal units in London, yet we have only four in the rest of the shire counties. There seems to be a discrepancy. There is a problem in trying to ensure that there is enough expertise within all the units in London and that they maintain their viability.
As I have said, there are now many specialist units in other parts of the country which are doing equally good work. We are seeing few patients being referred to London. Those factors have to be considered, as well as the general fall in the population of London.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness look more closely at the main argument put forward by the specialty review team in its report, which she mentioned in her first Answer, for transferring renal transplant
494
surgery from the Royal Free; namely, that University College, London, and the Middlesex have a stronger academic and scientific base? While that is true for biomedical science as a whole, is she aware that the Royal Free unit has made a very important contribution to research on renal medicine over the years? For instance, in the past three years the Royal Free unit has published 50 per cent. more papers on nephrology and renal medicine than UCL/Middlesex. That includes the three Ps—the former kidney hospitals which are now housed in the Middlesex.
Does the Minister agree that the decision of the specialty review team should be reviewed in the light of the above and of the points made by other noble Lords this afternoon about the damage that could be done by breaking up an established and carefully built up expert team?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, Ministers would not agree that the specialty reviews are seriously flawed. The people who carried out the reviews have excellent reputations. They come from other parts of the country and are not directly concerned with services in London. However, their report is just one of the pieces of information that has been submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There are other considerations, some of which I have mentioned this afternoon. They are issues concerning hospital sites, the views of local purchasers and the views of academic and research staff. It is a question of balance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords this afternoon.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister give the assurance that patients' views will be taken into consideration and also such issues as space and parking?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. That is always part of the consultation when major moves are being put forward.

Foreign Factory Ships: Inspection
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When their inspectors will complete their survey of approximately 100 foreign factory ships lying off the Shetland Islands, in view of the recent serious accidents involving three of these ships.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, an intensified programme of inspection is now under way on those vessels. Bearing in mind the problems of access, particularly in bad weather, no estimate of the completion date for the programme can be made at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Thanks to the local rescue services no lives were lost in the two ships which had to be abandoned. While the vessels assist British fishermen

495
by providing a substantial market for their catches, do their standards of safety and pollution meet our requirements, and are they adequately insured?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is indeed a tribute to the skill and courage of our rescue services that no lives were lost in those extremely hazardous operations. We recognise that the commercial activities engaged in by the vessels are of great importance to our fishing industry. We expect them to meet the internationally agreed standards. Our current inspections of the ships are intended to establish to what extent they comply.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the question of insurance. Are the Government pressing on eastern European governments the necessity for insurance? So far there has not been a catastrophic accident, but the relatively recent events must make the people of Shetland very worried about the possibility of a serious oil spill. If it is difficult to inspect the ships because they lie offshore and the weather is changeable, is it not all the more important that we do something about insurance for such vessels?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is no requirement in UK law for vessels other than oil tankers to have compulsory insurance for pollution damage. The prudent owner of a vessel normally takes out appropriate insurance cover. Until the recent incidents off Lerwick we had limited experience of uninsured vessels. The problem of insurance cover for those vessels in particular is one of the matters being given urgent consideration by the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what proportion of the ships are British registered, what proportion are registered with countries of the EC, and what proportion are registered elsewhere?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures. I shall notify the noble Lord of them in writing if that is acceptable. However, I understand that the majority of the so-called klondyke ships are registered in eastern European countries.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister says that there will be intensive examination of the ships. Can he tell the House how many people of student age there may be on these ships and whether the cut of 10 per cent. in student grants announced so extraordinarily this morning by Mr. Patten will apply to such students as there may be on those ships? Will he further note that on the whole we on this side of the House prefer Budget announcements to be made in the Budget and we hope that the Government take the same view?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I rise totally puzzled by the questions addressed to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot give him the figure for those under a certain age which he requested. If he would like, I shall write to him.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that virtually all the crews of these vessels come from eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and
496
the Baltic states? Is he aware that two klondykers, both Russian, are now total wrecks near Lerwick and that the marine pollution control unit has done an admirable job in removing their bunker oil? Who will now be responsible for them and any nuisance which they cause?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I echo my noble friend's tribute to the marine pollution unit. The owners have abandoned the wrecks. As neither of the wrecks poses a threat to navigation no public authority has the power to remove them or to seek to recover the costs of their removal from the owners.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it true that there are 100 factory ships? What proportion of their catches are landed in the Common Market area, and particularly in Britain? There must be some way of stopping the price of fish going up so steeply that many people in this country cannot afford it. Is it because the catches are all being syphoned off to central Europe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. There are a great many so-called klondyke ships lying off the Shetland Islands. The number varies as the ships move in and out of the area, but the figure he quotes is not far off the mark. I do not have details of the distribution of the fish from those vessels, but I shall write to my noble friend if he wishes.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to local government in Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Packaging: ECC Report
3.8 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham Lord Lewis of Newnham rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Packaging and Packaging Waste (26th Report 1992–93, HL Paper 118).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to speak to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to start by emphasising that one of the prime concerns of the directive was with environmental problems. The directive is addressed to problems that packaging and packaging waste create for the environment. The present solutions are leading to the distortion of a single market because of differences in national measures being employed to control packaging and packaging waste. The aim of the directive is to consider proposals that will set essential requirements for packaging which will allow free movement of goods within the Community and reduce environmental pollution.
Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Communities has carried out an inquiry into

497
the proposal for a Council directive on packaging and package waste. The report of the proposal was published in October. The government responses were received at the end of last week. I should like to thank the Minister for those replies.
It is important to recognise that any legislation concerned with packaging will affect many industrial sectors. Any industry which uses packaging in transport or storage to ensure that the final product reaches the customer in good condition—I refer to the food, drinks or electronics industry—will be affected by the directive. It is perhaps important to appreciate that packaging performs many functions, some essential and others useful. The packaging of foods, which contributes to hygiene, the avoidance of waste and convenience to the customer, is well recognised, as is the safe transport and distribution of many sensitive goods, as in the electronics industry. However, excessive packaging of some goods contributes in a very visible way to the general environmental problems associated with waste disposal.
The committee has visited Brussels, Bonn and Paris to examine schemes proposed or in place in those countries. Germany has introduced a sorting and collecting system, the Duals System Deutschland (DSD.), which I shall outline in a moment. That is providing considerable problems over waste disposal. The French are developing a collection scheme (Ecoemballage) which has similar problems to the German scheme but also significant differences which seem to be avoiding the problem over "waste" mountains.
In Belgium we were informed of the proposed eco-taxes. Other schemes in place are the Danish ban on non-returnable bottles, which makes the importation of canned drinks illegal, and the Dutch non-statutory scheme of a "packaging" covenant.
The initial proposals in the directive are for targets of a 90 per cent. recovery of packaging waste, with 60 per cent. being recycled, leaving approximately 10 per cent. for landfill. In the UK 90 per cent. of domestic waste at present goes to landfill sites. Those targets were to be attained within 10 years. Recently, however, revised proposals have been made, with a limit of 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. recovery, with 30 per cent. for recycling, and a more limited time-scale of five years. I believe that the position will then be reconsidered.
It is also proposed that provisions are made for comprehensive statistics on packaging and packaging waste. Those are to be collected and passed on to the Commission. The data base being proposed seems to the committee to be over-elaborate. It is indeed difficult to assess the packaging content of domestic waste. However, it has been assessed at approximately 25 per cent. for the UK. Waste due to packaging as a whole is only 1 per cent. of the total waste. The majority of the waste is associated with agriculture and industry and a considerable amount with the construction industry. That still leaves something of the order of 50 million tonnes of packaging waste for the Community as a whole, which is not an insignificant amount.
The present government target for 25 per cent. recycling by the year 2000 was set in 1990. However, recently the Secretary of State for the Environment has challenged leading representatives of the packaging industry by Christmas to put forward plans to recover between 50 and 75 per cent. of the UK packaging waste and also to indicate measures that will help the ailing recycling industry. Noble Lords will note the word "ailing". The measures have to include, first, a commitment by business to carry the costs of collecting and reprocessing; secondly, finding measures to increase the markets for recycled materials; and, thirdly, providing safeguards for the recycling industry for plastics and paper from foreign imports. It will be interesting to see how those challenges are met.
In their response to the report, the Government state:
"By introducing this initiative, we believe that we will be able to demonstrate, in discussions on the directive, that it is possible to reduce the environmental impact of packaging significantly without placing unreasonable burdens on industry or consumers".
Since I believe that the Belgium presidency is pressing for an agreement at the Council meeting on 3rd December, I assume that the Minister will be able to tell us the outcome of the survey.
One of the more pressing and immediate problems arises from the position in Germany. The German system, introduced in 1991, requires the producers of packaging to be responsible for the collection and recycling of the packaging waste. Incineration and landfill in Germany are not normally acceptable methods of disposal of packaging waste, which imposes a large burden on the recycling capacity within the country. The old directive refers to 90 per cent. recycling. That has clearly been a major problem. It has led to paper and plastic wastes being exported at negative prices to countries even as far away as Indonesia and South America. That threatens schemes in other countries, and in particular affects the recycling industries in those two areas. Waste mountains in both plastic and paper are now occurring in Germany.
In contrast, the slower implementation of the scheme for France, and the acceptability of incineration and incineration with energy recovery as methods of recycling, has avoided the problems which arise in Germany. In Paris we were told that the form of the waste recovery scheme must also recognise the local circumstances; the solution for Strasbourg may not be the solution for Marseilles. The French scheme, which is relatively restricted when compared with the German scheme, also adopts and utilises the local collecting schemes for waste already in operation on an economic basis. That is not the case with the German situation. Those are two points for which the committee had considerable sympathy.
One immediate problem with the proposed directive is that it does not differentiate between materials when considering recovery targets. Perhaps I may illustrate that point by citing some of the variations which can occur. Metals such as aluminium and steel have a much higher potential for recovery and recycling. Over the past four years the recycling of aluminium cans in this country has increased from 2 per cent. to 16 per cent. The capacity of the existing plant is a maximum 65 per cent. recovery assuming that the market does not

499
change. The Aluminium Federation told us that aluminium was extremely favourable for recycling as the energy saved in recycling was 95 per cent. compared with the production of virgin aluminium. However, it felt that the initial target of 90 per cent. recycling was unattainable but that the target of 60 per cent. was demanding but attainable.
It is possible to absorb all the scrap steel. Magnetic separation in domestic waste can be carried out efficiently. The committee had an opportunity to see that process in operation. However, few waste disposal sites have that facility. A magnetic separation unit is considered to pay for itself over a period of approximately two years. That suggests that there should be a wider use of the separation procedure, and perhaps encouragement to install that type of procedure.
In 1992, about 12.5 per cent. of steel cans were recycled in this country; in Germany the figure was 50 per cent. British Steel Tinplate believes that a figure of 50 per cent., the more recent target, is still too high and unlikely to be attained in the UK by the year 2000. It also points out an important factor: energy recovery and composting are not alternatives available for steel, which places an even bigger burden on recovery processes.
With glass, there is a much greater public awareness of recycling. I think that we are all aware of the bottle banks for different coloured glasses and the interesting and determined way in which people use them. It is an interesting statistic that the UK is at the bottom of the European table, with only 19 per cent. recovery of glass compared with the figure for the Netherlands of 73 per cent. That perhaps illustrates the magnitude of the potential problem; and the position has not been improved with the proposed cut next year in prices paid for cullet to local authorities by British Glass Recycling. That is clearly causing concern to local authorities, and in some instances it will remove all the income from the recycling process. Other variations in payments appear to be affecting some of the small collectors. I believe that one firm, Ochil Glass Recycling in Scotland, has reportedly gone out of business because of the changes.
The recycling of plastic packaging proves the most difficult. Approximately 8 per cent. is recycled in the UK, with plastic bottles being recycled at only less than 1 per cent. The presence of cheaper imported plastic also affects the market and possibly reflects the position in Germany. The Plastics Federation indicated that only a small fraction of plastic used in packaging in household waste was suitable for recycling due to the contamination and expense of sorting and washing such material. Perhaps I may point out that recycled plastic cannot be used for certain purposes, particularly those involving food containment. In general, there was a belief that incineration with energy recovery was the best and most preferable mode for dealing with plastic, although, as I stated previously, it is not an acceptable method of recycling in the initial directive. I am not clear whether the recent negotiations on the directive have altered the situation and would certainly appreciate the views of the Minister on that point.
At a meeting of the Environmental Council in October, Germany promised to stop exporting plastic
500
packaging waste to EC countries by Christmas. However, as I believe the Department of the Environment has indicated, that does not solve the problem; it merely postpones it. Until markets are found in Germany, we shall have mountains of recycled plastic rather than mountains of recycled plastic waste. As the price of the initial plastic waste is subsidised, the recycled material will be commercially cheaper. The prospect is then that we may be passing this on and causing problems to our own recycling industries. The German approach to the problem poses the question of whether the present German ordinance and DSD are contrary to the Treaty of Rome. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government take a view on the legality of the system and when the Commission is expected to give its views on the point, which I believe it is also debating.
Another important product to be considered for recycling is paper and board. It represents a large percentage of the total waste, being approximately 35 per cent. The British Paper and Board Industry Federation felt that the proposed 90 per cent. target set by the initial directive for recovery was unrealistic. One important factor to remember in this area is recovering the cost in the low value of the product and the cost of transport if it involves long distances. The recycling industry will also suffer from the market distribution set by the German system, which is effectively once again subsidising its waste. The industry was set an upper target of 60 per cent., which involves only the recycling of better kinds of waste, with the suggestion of incineration and composting still playing a major part in the recovery.
One problem which the committee felt was proving a difficulty was the so-called hierarchy of waste management. That is the preference, first, for prevention followed by recovery, then recycling and finally disposal. That clearly has an immediate appeal, but it does not always necessarily correlate with the most effective environmental or energy-saving procedures. It may be a useful guide, but it does not cover all possible solutions.
Perhaps to illustrate the point I may cite two cases which we met. We were informed by the German Coffee Association that its use of aluminium and plastic lightweight packaging involved a major saving in transport, and replacement by a more readily recyclable material such as metal or glass would increase the number of lorries on the road by a factor of three, with all the concomitant energy and environmental problems associated with that.
Another example is the recycling of milk bottles, which is common practice in this country, but it requires five litres of water per bottle, which must be heated to ensure sterilisation. That makes it a feasible prospect in certain parts of the Community, but I suggest that where water is scarce it could be a difficult operation to put into practice.
Article 11 of the directive draws attention to the use of economic instruments as a method of controlling packaging and packaging waste. The use of a landfill levy to move the economic advantage from landfill to, say, incineration has been suggested in the latest report

501
of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The landfill tax has also been given support by British Steel Tinplate and the British Paper and Board Industry Federation.
An alternative and more direct economic indicator would be perhaps a packaging tax, but the committee felt that it would have to be extremely high to affect the purchasing behaviour of consumers and would probably fall disproportionately on the poorer consumer. The committee felt that economic instruments could and should have a role to play in the management of packaging waste, but it does not necessarily have to be uniform across the Community and must recognise individual solutions consistent with avoiding discrimination between states for free movement of goods.
In summary, the committee felt that the present systems in operation have problems in effecting the operation of the single market within the Community. The German system, in particular, is causing severe problems, especially in paper and plastic recycling, producing waste mountains and leading from a rather dogmatic assessment of the relative merits of the principal methods of waste disposal, the hierarchy of waste management of recovery, recycling and landfill.
The committee suggests that there should be a more direct acknowledgement of the market's capacity to absorb waste products and a more vigorous support of the proximity principle, in which individual member states aim to deal with their own waste disposal and do not export their waste problems. From environmental considerations and the increase in the production of waste, there should be a direct attack on the reduction and minimisation of packaging, particularly on the packaging per item. At present the manufacturers and producers of packaging do not have to meet the costs of disposal and there is no economic incentive to reduce packaging. We feel very strongly that this should be corrected.
The recovery and recycling of materials vary. For aluminium and steel, as opposed to plastics, the case for recycling is clear. Other materials are intermediate in position, but cannot be recycled indefinitely. I think that that is particularly true of paper and board.
With regard to targets, we are not convinced that the same targets should be set for all materials, and we recommend that incineration with energy recovery should be considered as a recycling process, as well as other forms of recovery such as composting, to meet the directive's targets.
The limitation of landfill to 10 per cent. of the waste stream does not seem to the committee to be sensible and ignores the different geological possibilities in different countries. We suggest that targets for landfill should be set locally or nationally.
Finally, perhaps I may thank the members of Sub-Committee C. I very much appreciate their enthusiastic approach to what I think is a very important report. Perhaps I may couple that with an acknowledgement of the great help from our clerk, Mr. John Goddard, by whose efforts the study was carried out very expeditiously. I also acknowledge the considerable help of our two specialist advisers, Mr. Nigel Haigh and
502
Dr. Nicholas Handley. As noble Lords will remember, Mr. Haigh is director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy and Dr. Handley is a lecturer in economics at the University of Stirling. In conclusion, I also thank all those who gave evidence to the committee during the course of the inquiry. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Packaging and Packaging Waste (26th Report 1992–93, HL Paper 118). —(Lord Lewis of Newnham.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I should like to begin with a tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, whose wise and patient chairmanship took us through a convoluted and complex topic. I also pay tribute to his very comprehensive introduction, in which he covered many of the points that I intended to make, although I hope that I may be able to bring to them one or two slightly different slants.
Only 1 per cent. of all waste in this country—which includes agricultural and industrial waste—is packaging waste. But it constitutes 25 per cent. of household dustbin waste. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, it is subject to public education and to local methods of disposal.
Before we began the inquiry, I had two assumptions. One was that a considerable reduction could be made in the amount of packaging that was used. That matter was not directly addressed by the draft European directive. But we heard a considerable body of evidence about the importance of packaging: for hygiene; the shelf life of perishable goods; transport; and storage—and, so far as the producers and manufacturers are concerned, because it provides a convenient place for putting their advertising. Packaging is undoubtedly important for all those reasons. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, more could be done; for example by setting targets for the quantity of packaging in relation to the retail price of goods, and in encouraging producers to use less, and thinner, packaging.
The second assumption that I had made before we started the inquiry was that in the hierarchy of dealing with packaging waste, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, recycling and re-use was always better for the environment and made less use of raw materials and energy. That assumption was also shared by the European Commission, which said that from an environmental point of view recycling was preferable to incineration with energy recovery. Friends of the Earth also set out a hierarchy of importance whereby packaging should first be reduced, then be re-used, and then be recycled before other methods of disposal are considered.
However, paradoxically, there are occasions where efforts to recycle or re-use all packaging leads to more damage to the environment. For example, if there are only one or two recycling plants in the whole country, the energy used and the pollution caused by long-distance transport of often bulky packaging may exceed the energy and pollution costs of production from raw materials.

503
Secondly, re-usable packaging often has to be stronger and bulkier. Replacing plastic covering for food, often unre-usable because of contamination, with re-usable glass or tinplate could be environmentally more damaging. As the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, mentioned, a study was done to that effect by the German Coffee Association which shows not only that three times as many lorries would be on the roads, but also that in place of 11,000 tonnes of plastic film, one would require either 120,000 tonnes of tinplate, with all the costs of production, or 470,000 tonnes of glass. Therefore, even though those materials might be re-usable, there would be enormous costs in terms of transportation, cleaning and initial production.
There are, moreover, physical limits to some types of recycling. Paper and board, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, may be used only four or five times before the fibres become too short for further use. Paradoxically, in this case the use of the raw material may have some beneficial effects on the environment. Rapidly growing young trees, although they may be boring monocultures, and unaesthetic, may sop up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do mature forests.
However, some materials are highly suitable for recycling and more could be done. Aluminium in particular, which sells for something like £600 a tonne, is economically attractive to the industry. In the past four years in this country, not only has recycling of aluminium gone up from 2 per cent. to 16 per cent., but in the first six months of this year, 56 per cent. more was recycled than in the first half of last year; so the pace is accelerating. Quite clearly, quite high targets, such as, ultimately, 90 per cent. of aluminium recycling, could be set, which would have enormous benefits not only in terms of the constant re-use of the aluminium but also in terms of the reduction in bauxite mining with its environmental pollution and destruction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, steel is another material which is well suited to constant recycling. But currently only 12½ per cent. of steel cans are recycled. That is another area in which public education could be more effective.
In regard to glass, the arguments for recycling are considerably less clear, partly because the costs of recycled glass are approximately the same as for glass which is produced from the raw materials. The raw materials themselves are abundant. Recycled glass is heavy to transport, with the attendant costs of lorries and their pollution. The government target of 60 per cent. is realistic; but there is, particularly in this country, the problem of recycling excess green glass as we are not a wine-producing country and it is therefore difficult to find uses for it.
In conclusion, dealing with packaging waste turned out to be much more complex than I had supposed. Different materials require different solutions and different targets. The need for different types of recycling will vary from one European country to another. Unlike Germany, we have no shortage of landfill sites. If properly managed, they need not pollute water systems, and the methane can be used for energy production. Incineration with energy recovery, which is
504
widely used in France, produces less residue and is a process that will be expanding in this country. Efforts should continue to reduce the bulk of packaging and to re-use and recycle wherever possible. But where that is not possible, the most energy-efficient and environmentally appropriate system should be used.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, a lot of waste has gone under the bridge since I introduced the Beverage Containers Bill into this House in 1981. The whole of the scene for waste disposal, dealing with waste in the best possible way, and recycling, has changed. Noble Lords did not give that Bill a Second Reading. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—I refreshed my memory by looking at Hansard—in spite of the fact that I gave him a real plug for what was then, I thought, the best red plonk on the market, voted against it.
It is worthwhile that we should pay attention to this matter, and great tribute is due to the committee that produced the report. I am only sorry that the debate has attracted so few speakers. Indeed, it has attracted only three of the 12 members of the committee. When a debate on a report of this kind is absolutely swamped by every member of the committee having the chance to express their views, that is not a good thing. However, I would have hoped that more than three members would have taken part in today's debate.
It is a worthwhile report on a subject about which the public feel strongly. Although that feeling may be a mixture of opinions which do not stand up very often to logical examination, nevertheless on the whole we can have no doubt that we have to minimise waste and recycle as much as possible. The hierarchy of dealing with these matters; namely, to avoid packaging at all where possible and after that, to re-use that packaging in different ways which have been worked out as being basically the right order is something that we should stick to where we can. Where that hierarchy fails—some examples have been given in the report and in today's speeches—we should examine the reasons for failure. One reason given in certain areas is that the hierarchy fails because it does not take into consideration the long distance that waste has to be taken in order to be recycled. That is an absolutely fair point. No one doubts that the hierarchy has many exceptions and that we should treat every problem on its own terms.
One suggestion is that we should look in slightly different areas to solve our problems. For a solution to our problems we tend to look to Europe-wide legislation, to countrywide policies and often to very high technology. Surely, we should try to deal locally with local problems and find intermediate and suitable technology rather than large technology, dealing with every problem as it comes. It is in that area that the work of local government can be useful. From these Benches, I am particularly proud that Liberal Democrat councils almost entirely lead the field in that area. Plenty of other councils do very well, but the shining examples picked out time and again—not merely by my own party' s

505
propaganda units but by observers in general —are the Liberal Democrat councils; for instance, Sutton and Richmond.
I have a reservation about the lowest possible cost to households. That point is made on page 17 of the report. I am not sure that that is where we need mainly to attack the lowest possible cost. The lowest possible cost should be attacked where it hits very hard certain sectors. On the whole the ordinary household is able to bear the ordinary cost of dealing with waste if told what to do and encouraged to do it.
Of course the poor will find it very difficult. One of the side-effects in an economy in which the poor are getting poorer is that it becomes more difficult to do what should be done because it hits the poorest worst. That is absolutely true. Such measures do hit the poorest worst. That is another reason why the economic and social security policies of this Government should be revised. When we take new steps to deal with conservation, waste and anything which will cost more for poor households, that problem must be addressed.
There are one or two additional points to be made. First, we are short of information on the subject, despite all the work of the committee. The committee itself found that it was very short of the information that it needed. Noble Lords will remember the old military maxim: the time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. I firmly believe that the time spent in obtaining statistics is seldom wasted. Statistics can become something to be pursued for their own sake and figures can be produced which nobody needs. But time and again in the proceedings of this House and another place, information which would help us to govern the country better and which ought to be available is not to hand because we have not got around to providing it.
Again, this is an area in which hypothecation is important. My party is examining more closely the need for some hypothecation to be brought into taxation. There appears to be a very strong case for it in this area. There is a case for taxes which are set aside to pay for improvements in particular areas and which indeed may be self-liquidating taxes in the sense that, if the product of taxation is used to help solve the problem, there will not be any more taxation in the future. Surely, that is devoutly to be wished. I know that the Treasury will resist to the last ditch hypothecation in almost any field, but I believe that it is an idea which must come. We shall have to make a breakthrough in this area as in some others.
There seem to be a number of general principles that should be applied. The first is that appropriate technology should be used at a local level. I have already commented on that. The second principle is that, although one understands the Government's position in not wanting to have compulsion where it is unnecessary, nevertheless voluntary effort by itself is not enough. To realise that one has only to look at the voluntary effort of the newspaper industry in recycling paper. I should be very interested if the Minister would tell the House what effective plan he expects to have by Christmas 1993 to meet his key objectives. Christmas 1993 is not very far off. We are embarking on the last month of the
506
year. For such an important debate we should be able to obtain some idea of the progress that has been made in that particular challenge to the Government. It may or may not prove to be useful.
The next principle is the need for help to the poor when additional burdens are put on them to deal with such a requirement. The hierarchy to deal with it is much the same as the hierarchy which has been mentioned to deal with waste disposal. The best way of dealing with problems which hit the poor is to try to ensure that the poor are not so poor in the first place.
Finally, I believe that this is an area in which we are beginning to see the need for a move from classical to ecological economics. The best solution will not necessarily be reached by looking at the pounds and pence, or even the ecu end of the sum as it is outlined in classical economics. We have to look very clearly at the overall necessity for a sustainable economy which will sustain this planet, which will not overburden it with waste and which will produce a better and saner society. As a stage along that line I commend to your Lordships' House this report, produced by a great deal of hard work and containing much interesting evidence.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. He challenged the members of the committee to look at one or two of the points we made and I may comment on one or two of the points that he made. I thank my noble friend Lord Lewis for chairing the committee in such an excellent way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said. We got through a great deal of work extremely quickly. We knew that to a degree we were firing at a moving waste van—the European Commission and the presidency were trying to get the directive agreed and therefore we had to work hard.
I thank also our two expert advisers. From his wide experience, Nigel Haigh gave us a great understanding of the ecological and environmental problems of packaging waste. Our economic adviser helped us a little to understand the complex problems of the economics of packaging, pricing and other matters.
The directive is needed. Many problems in packaging waste arise from the original German directive and the subsequent French, Belgian and Dutch schemes. I am not sure that the directive is right. For example, one of the problems that we discovered was that when an article had a green spot on it, as established by the German directive, all it meant was that somebody had paid their dues to get the packaging recycled. It did not mean, as many people thought, "This packaging is ecologically acceptable and is a good green item". We discovered that the Germans and the French, because of close frontier problems, had to agree that the green dot on a French package, which was not the same as the green dot on the German package, nevertheless made it acceptable to be retailed in a German store. The need for a directive is partly economic and partly environmental.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, we had a number of problems with targets and statistics. We could have spent much more time doing the reconnaissance that he would have liked us to do, but we

507
would have found little in our field glasses. For example, items like paper are expressed in weight, but not as dry weight, average moisture weight or wet and soggy paper as recovered from the bin after a heavy shower. So the target is 60 per cent. or 90 per cent. of what? Calculating the amount of water allowed in the percentage is one of the problems behind the directive. That is why we feel that spending a lot of money on statistics—not necessarily viable and valid statistics—just for the sake of them should be looked at carefully and negotiated clearly in Brussels.
We felt that the system started from an exceedingly rigid scheme introduced in Germany, where, for political reasons and because "Greens" were strong in the last election, they had to ban unacceptable landfill. That was partly because they had absorbed East Germany and for many years the landfill zone for German waste was somewhat to the east of the previous frontier. Also they had environmental problems because they did not manage the landfill effectively.
Similarly, environmental pollution in the atmosphere due to poor incinerators meant that incineration was not acceptable. But one needs to look at the problem carefully. It will take 10 years to develop and install a suitable network for incinerating waste. But we have heard—I shall explain in a minute why—that plastic is difficult to recycle. Plastic is made from oil. Being oil-based, it may be a natural material to burn in order to recover the energy lost when it was originally manufactured. That is where problems arise with a rigid approach. Both I and the committee generally were in favour of flexibility. We felt that, within its own methods, a hierarchy within each country should decide which schemes were best and what the percentages should be. Therefore, flexibility is important.
I had considered giving a short illustration of a life cycle, but I shall not do so. The life cycle of each product and package—the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, gave examples of glass and paper—can be considered in relation to the energy costs of moving items around; the energy costs of the way it is packed and the capital costs. There is a great deal to be said, and one should look at it in that way.
Pollution does not arise from waste; it arises from the way that waste is handled. There is noise pollution. When glass is crushed it is noisy. We discovered that in Germany there was an absolute ban on filling bottle bank containers between noon on Saturday and noon on Monday to avoid disturbance for the German population. Those are different problems.
I am in favour of reducing packaging as packaging. However, we heard that it is important to provide packaging that is strong, that protects the food adequately and that can be sensibly used and economically designed. For example, scent is over-packaged. But it is a high value product, as was recently concluded by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the image is important. Packaging costs are totally irrelevant to someone who is buying scent. On the other hand, they may be highly relevant for other products. Each item must be considered separately.
508
Packaging must be used sensibly. In Brussels we were told that there had been a new design for a half litre or litre plastic milk pack. The thickness had gone down from 0.7 millimetres to 0.3 millimetres—a saving of just over 50 per cent. But it was practically irrecoverable for two reasons. First, there was more contamination from the milk. Secondly, it was not possible to reduce the thickness of the printing indicating who had packaged the milk, which cows it had come from and so forth. Therefore, when plastics are recycled one ends up with thicker packaging. Indeed, recycled plastic must be thicker because the product is weaker than the original.
The pricing of packaging and of its disposal is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, and I agree with him. The normal cost of collecting packaging waste (25 per cent. of the total dustbin load) can be borne as part of the rates. However, if a directive says, "You have to sort this waste; you have to put it in different coloured bins", more lorries will be needed because it will not be possible to collect all the different coloured bins in one day; and that will increase the cost. As we heard earlier, somebody may set up a scheme on a costing basis for the recovery price of glass, paper and so forth. But we over-recover; the market demands change and the local authority or the contractor will not receive a sufficient return on the waste. Therefore, they will need to charge more.
One of the problems of the German scheme was that initially, whatever the packaging, the price was so much per kilo. The Germans discovered very quickly that they were overpricing glass; the price was about right for aluminium and steel and perhaps for paper. But, my goodness, little pieces of plastic—we saw bales piled high—are much more difficult to pick up. One has to have a highly sophisticated sorting plant employing people to make sure that one gets the right kind of plastic in the right bin and that these white foam things go in one bin and the plastic sheeting in another. One also gets butter wrapped in metalised plastic. Another example is a carton of wine. The cardboard packaging is simple but there is also a handle. If one tries to recover the handle, one needs labour. Inside the carton there is an aluminised piece of plastic—perhaps two kinds of plastic. There is a major recovery problem with the aluminium.
The Germans set out with the idea that the great German engineers could in time—they did not allow enough time—design a new plant to convert plastic back into the oil it started from. I think, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that high technology solutions are not the answer to a low technology product and a low technology problem. I support the report.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, under this rather simple heading of Packaging and Packaging Waste is a very diverse and complex problem, as we have already heard in the debate today. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue, especially in view of the meeting of environment Ministers later this week in Europe.
Many concerns have been addressed by the committee in looking at this issue and it has adopted a

509
pragmatic approach. It is certainly a topic that needs a pragmatic approach. I should like to make one or two points arising mainly under "Opinion of the Committee", which I found particularly interesting to read. I very much agree with the committee when it says that we do not appear to have developed in the United Kingdom a culture to approach recycling in a positive way. It is an issue not just for the industry itself or for the Government in isolation. It is an issue for all of us. In itself it is difficult enough to push forward, and I certainly agree that more needs to be done.
I very much take on board the points made in paragraphs 40 to 46 of the committee's opinion where it talks about the distortion of the single market. The German ordinance has been mentioned several times, and it provides a salutary lesson. The ordinance on packaging was hailed by many countries in Europe, including this country, as possibly the benchmark for how we should deal with the tremendous amount of waste that is not recycled or reclaimed. As it has turned out, it has been a damaging ordinance not just in Germany but, as we have seen, here in the United Kingdom, too, and for the paper-making and board-making industries in particular. It has done damage to the recycling industry, small as it is, within the United Kingdom.
The ordinance was carried out against a background of being environmentally friendly and marking the way for others. I am delighted that the Germans have had second thoughts, and I agree with the direct wording in paragraph 6 of the report which says that the committee was puzzled how a country could introduce a system of waste collection with such bizarre and damaging consequences when it was devised with environmental objectives in mind. There is a lesson to be learnt here about pushing forward sometimes too quickly when it may have a profound effect not just on employment but on the economy as well.
We have to develop in the United Kingdom a culture of environmental concern. We are very backward compared with a number of other countries in Europe. We have to make changes in the way we deal with the whole issue. Indeed, one could question whether it can be dealt with by a European directive. It is such a complex issue that perhaps the directive should contain specific details of what can and cannot be done in industries which are so different and different in their ability to recycle their waste. I therefore welcome the committee's view that any replacement of the German system should be more pragmatic—the noble Lord, Lord Brain, used the term "flexible".
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, say that the figures of 90 per cent. by weight of packaging to be removed from the waste stream in 10 years and 60 per cent. by weight of each material to be recycled are to be changed to something like 50 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. I had heard that that was a rumour. I had not heard that it was a fact. But if it is a fact, and if it is to happen against a five-year time cycle, it is something that industry in Britain could take on board more readily.
510
I have two main areas of concern. One is the level of 90 per cent. to 60 per cent. The other relates to my knowledge of the printing industry in particular. My previous union was very much involved with the ink manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom from the health and safety point of view of the people we represented. We made much progress, particularly in the elimination of toluene from printing inks which has a bad effect on the health of workers. That measure is not applicable over the whole of Europe, but I assure your Lordships that it is necessary for the health of people at work in printing companies. Once one is sensitised to ink containing toluene one never gets rid of that sensitivity. That kind of atmosphere can have a serious effect on one's health, particularly one's breathing.
In the draft directive there are proposals about heavy metals. If that part of the directive is carried through, the manufacture of ink in Britain will probably be impossible. I am assured that that is the case by chemists within the industry. We do not want a situation which may appear to be environmentally welcome—I certainly criticise both the printing and paper industries for their slowness in some areas in dealing with this—but which then affects the very economic well-being of the industry and is not practical to apply within it.
In conclusion, if the directive—one hopes, substantially amended—is to go through, I agree with the committee that it must have the legal basis of Article 100a. If that is the case, at least we will have similar treatment across Europe and not guidelines which some follow and some do not. That is absolutely essential and I hope that the Government will take it on board. If the directive goes through—I repeat, one hopes substantially amended—it must include legal backing.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am in particular difficulty today in addressing your Lordships on this matter. First, as opposed to all the other speakers, I am not an expert on this subject, and I shall make that abundantly clear during the course of my speech. Secondly, I believe that for the first time ever in speaking on any report of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, I completely disagree with what the report has to say on the basic matters. I am completely unpersuaded by what it says. Of course, I rely as usual on the Minister himself to explain to me in his reply why I am mistaken. But it would be of no help to your Lordships if I were not to tell noble Lords of my views.
I am thoroughly taken aback by the remark in the Memorandum made by the Department of Trade and Industry that,
"We welcome this thorough report and concur with the bulk of its conclusions and recommendations".
They perhaps can weasel out with the word "bulk"; but basically I do not. I shall explain the economics of that.
It is not because I do not believe that waste represents an important problem. Industry, left to itself and with free choice, will produce excess packaging and will not handle waste correctly because it will be concerned only with what are called private costs and benefits. It will not take account of the impact of excess packaging on society and the economy. So there is a case for

511
intervention; but it is not clear to me. However, the adviser to the committee explains it very clearly and it is not obvious that the committee understands the matter.
In this connection, and while in an acerbic mood—and I shall continue to be—I was somewhat intrigued by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do not know what the subject of ecological economics is. Perhaps he will explain it to me at some time. I understood that the Liberal Democrat Party believed in classical economics, and I certainly do. I would advise the noble Lord that the way to approach this problem is by using the principles of classical economics which, in this connection, mean "let us examine and endeavour to quantify the costs of the waste which will tell us approximately what it is worthwhile investing in order to avoid those costs". That is the central principle of classical economics in this and in all other problems. What is immensely damaging to the British economy and which goes back to the time of Adam Smith (dare I remind the Liberals?) is remarks of the following kind: "Let us not pay any attention to costs. These matters are so important that we just go ahead and do them". Why I am so concerned about the Department of Trade and Industry (which used to call itself the Department for Enterprise) is that in welcoming this report, they seem to have lost sight of that classical economic principle.
The main point on which I reject the committee's report is that, in its view—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Brain—this directive is needed, and the Commission has a locus in this matter. I have read the appropriate section and I do not see what the argument is. I can see no case for the Commission poking its nose into a matter which I regard as overwhelmingly one to be approached by the principle of subsidiarity—that is to say, that these are matters for the concern of the individual nation. The report says:
"There can be no doubt about the need for quick action to control the proliferation of national measures".
The report refers to "national measures" as further distorting and fragmenting the market.
As an economist. I have to say two things: the first is that there is considerable doubt whether there is any need to intervene in what individual countries are doing. That does not mean that the countries themselves should not be concerned with what they are doing. I am totally unpersuaded by the notion that individual countries acting on their own distort the market. I spent my life studying and lecturing on free market principles. This is the first time I have ever heard that packaging was a distortion of the free market. I like to learn about these things; but that is news to me. I do not see that what the individual countries are doing is a distortion. The Minister will deal with this matter definitively, but I can only react as a layman.
In reply to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, I simply do not see that this matter is in any way infringing the Treaty of Rome. If one regards the problem of waste as itself causing market damage—in other words, the argument which I put forward at the beginning that these costs are not fully taken into account—then it is in accord with the Treaty of Rome if,
512
in my judgment, a government intervenes for its own country in order to offset that damage. I do not see a Treaty of Rome problem myself, but we shall rely on the Minister to explain that to us in a few minutes.
If I reject the view that the Commission has a locus here, which I do, and if I reject the need for a directive. I could then just sit down and say that the rest of the report is a complete waste—if noble Lords will forgive a play on words—of time. But there are one or two other matters which I might as well bring out while I am in this mood, and while I am on my feet. One is the attack on the Germans. I am somewhat bewildered, but I am here to be taught something on this matter. How can what the Germans are doing be damaging to the recycling industry? That is what the report seems to be saying. I am at a loss to understand that because what the Germans are doing is raising the demand for recycling facilities by their proposals because they are subsidising that kind of activity. I would have thought that would be enormously to the advantage of the recycling industry rather than damaging it—again, on the general ground that when the demand for services goes up, that is a good thing. If the market works, what should happen then is that new people enter the recycling field because it now becomes more profitable and there is an appropriate outcome.
Speaking as a mere common or garden economist, I am totally unable to follow what the committee thinks it is up to on that matter. As I have said, I do not see how in this case an industry can suffer as the result of an increase in demand for its services. The Germans may have made a mistake in subsidising what they are doing. It may turn out to be too expensive for them, which I understand to be the case. In those circumstances, they will learn the lesson which we all do when we sometimes make a mistake: they will stop doing it. I cannot see how either there is a case for intervention here or what business it is of the Commission.
As noble Lords can see, I do not believe that this report comes remotely to grips with the problem. Perhaps because of its sensitivity to environmental matters, I believe that the committee has gone off in the wrong direction. I have a final comment to make on the expert advice which it got and on how we might approach this matter. It is true that we have excess packaging because those who do the packaging do not bear the full costs of their activities. Then, as the Government themselves say, they believe in the "polluter pays" principle. These people will then be defined as polluters.
The way in which to get the market to work properly is to impose the true costs on them. That can be done in one of two ways. The way suggested by the Committee's expert adviser is that the activity can be taxed. The other way is inversely in that one can cease to allow all packaging costs as an offset to income in order to define taxable income. It can be done either way. That seems to be the right lines on which to approach this matter rather than in terms of detailed directives, uniformity in countries and all the typical Euro-blah.
There is a difficulty. Different industries will be affected in different ways. There is at least one industry

513
about which I am very sensitive because of my membership of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I refer to the pharmaceutical industry, which has to have very high-class packaging. It does that partly as a sales gimmick. We can criticise that. It is also done partly as a protection for the very dangerous drugs which it is often dealing with. I hope the Minister will remind us of the present situation; but I believe that at one point the directive suggests that there would be a sort of "out" as regards the recycling of packaging which was itself dangerous. I am a little out of date now, and I am not quite clear what is the present position. It would certainly be wrong to recycle certain pharmaceutical waste packaging. That would be dangerous. My inverse point is that we have to ask ourselves, as regards industries where certain types of packaging are very important, whether we would really want to impose considerable extra costs on them.
I think that I can conclude by relying on having made my view of this matter very clear. I was tempted to say that this is a report on waste, and that the committee has made a contribution to that; but I thought that that was so nasty that I should not say anything like it, so I do not. I hope that I have made it clear to your Lordships that at least one Member of your Lordships' House is unconvinced by this report.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I have found most interesting. I, for one, would like to congratulate the committee on behalf of the Government on producing this report.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because I too come to the subject as a layman—at least, I came to it as a layman, but, having had a spell as a Minister in the Department of the Environment, which for part of the time looked after some of these areas of interest, and now being a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, I have come to have an appreciation of the problems. I started some time ago in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but I have come over a period of time to agree more with the viewpoint that was expressed by the committee. I suspect that the committee has had to deal with some of the problems that were raised by the noble Lord, and I agree with him that some difficult issues are involved.
If left on its own, industry could of course face up to some of the problems that have been created by the use of packaging and by packaging waste. The problem that we face in this country and the solution to it is precisely the reason that the European Community has to be involved. These are cross-border problems, especially those that have been caused by Germany, but I shall deal with that point later.
I hope that having an early debate on the report has allowed noble Lords sufficient time to consider our written response. As I said earlier, I very much enjoyed reading the committee's report. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, should be unhappy with the fact that only three members of the
514
committee are speaking today. I do not believe that that is necessarily a measure of the success of the committee. Indeed, it is sometimes useful if fewer committee members speak and if more non-members feel able to do so or come simply to listen to the proceedings.
The directive will impact on all businesses in the UK, with a particular emphasis on those involved in the packaging chain—material producers, packaging convertors, packers and fillers, and retailers—to those involved in the collection, sorting, recycling and in the recovery of energy from waste and disposal of waste.
In October, the Presidency indicated a determination to achieve political agreement on the directive at the Environment Council meeting on 2nd December. In pursuit of this, it has brought forward, and is continuing to bring forward, significant revisions to the amended Commission text of 9th September. I will give further details of that when mentioning the relevant parts of the directive. I hope that that will be useful to the House.
We share industry's and the committee's concern about market distortions and problems which have been created by the initiatives of individual member states in this area. Many of these initiatives have been promoted on the basis of environmental protection, but have had significant practical or economic, and in some cases environmentally detrimental, consequences.
I refer in particular to the German Packaging Ordinance, which most noble Lords have mentioned. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for his clear exposition of the limitations of the German scheme and its negative effects. It requires high rates of collection and the recycling of waste packaging and has led to the collection of far more waste than can possibly be recycled in Germany —and therein lies part of the problem but also, to some extent, some of the advantages. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would argue that it is a distinct advantage for the German consumer to be subsidising the cheap provision of recycled plastics in this country for our own recyclers to use. However, that has had a very serious effect on the infrastructure and collection industry in this country because the recycling industry prefers to buy subsidised German waste. The United Kingdom industry is not getting its raw materials at the same price as its German competition—and that has a serious, debilitating effect on British industry. In the age of the single market, it must therefore be right that the European Commission should have a role to play in seeking some sort of harmonisation of the rules that apply in dealing with recycleable waste.
Many noble Lords have asked about the roles of the Treaty of Rome and the European Commission in dealing with the German situation. We as a Government continue to press the Commission for an early decision. I understand that the Commission tried to take action on the Danish ban on the one-trip beverage containers, but the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Denmark. However, that should not be used as an excuse for inaction in this case. The Commission must come to a decision on whether or not the German system breaks some of the fundamental principles underlying the Treaty of Rome.

515
I see an appropriate harmonising measure as one essential element in tackling and preventing distortions. However, I also recognise that the directive will not provide a short-term solution to the problems facing the UK recycling infrastructure. We have been concerned to take national measures and actions in parallel with discussions in Brussels.
The aims of the proposed directive on packaging and packaging waste are twofold: first, as a single market measure to harmonise the basis on which member states take action relating to packaging and packaging waste, in order to avoid distortion to competition and restrictions to trade and to contribute to the functioning of the internal market; and, secondly, as an environmental measure which is necessary on internal market grounds to reduce the adverse environmental impact of packaging.
The draft directive requires member states to establish national packaging waste collection systems in order to meet specified recovery and recycling targets. It requires member states to allow free circulation for packaging which meets the essential requirements of the directive and to take appropriate measures to ensure that only packaging which meets the essential requirements may be placed on the market.
The UK industry regards these harmonisation objectives as very important. The Government share that view and agree that this should be the main thrust of the directive. The directive also sets out recovery and recycling targets. We subscribe to the packaging and waste management "hierarchy" of waste prevention—re-use, recovery and safe disposal—but we recognise the vital importance of its flexible application. We would argue that recycling should not be considered to be automatically the better recovery option for all waste. We agree with the committee's conclusions on the application of the "hierarchy" in paragraph 105 of the report.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brain, the Government subscribe to the idea of a broad waste management hierarchy. However, in each case a decision about which route to follow must be governed by the principles of using the best practicable environmental option. As stated by the noble Lord, it is important to take account of the economic and environmental costs associated with the transport of waste over long distances and the technical obstacles to repeated recycling. A high degree of flexibility is needed to take account of the differing economic, environmental and technical capabilities of the different countries and different regions. That is important and is a point on which I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. Different countries will want to do things in different ways, and the directive is about setting the minimum standards.
Our main concerns as regards the provisions of the directive have centred around the target levels, economic instruments and essential requirements with which packaging must comply in order to be allowed free circulation. Although we are considerably
516
encouraged by the flexibility being shown by the Presidency, we shall continue to seek further amendment.
Let me deal with the first of those concerns—targets. We have argued consistently that the targets for recovery and recycling set out in both the original and amended Commission proposals were unrealistic and unachievable. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, cleverly demonstrated the difficulty with targets. They fail to take account of the economic and environmental costs that would be involved in attempting to meet them. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the solution is economic and environmental. I am not sure how one can divorce the two. The whole point is to find economic instruments that cost out the environmental solution.
Earlier this month, the Presidency proposed that the targets should be expressed as bands. The present proposals are based on target bands of 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. for recovery and 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. for physical recycling averaged across all materials. Within the recycling target, a minimum recycling level of 15 per cent. is proposed for individual materials (plastic, paper and board, metal, glass and composite packaging). Member states would need to set in hand action plans to achieve recycling rates within those bands within five years of implementation.
We have been heartened by the signs shown by the Commission in recent negotiations that it may be content to agree to lower targets. We are encouraged that the Presidency's targets show greater realism in three respects. First, they are significantly lower than in the original proposal and are now consistent with our own domestic proposals for producer responsibility (in other words, 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. recovery by the end of the century). Secondly, future targets are to be reviewed after five years' experience, although the proposal anticipates that review will allow the levels to be raised. Finally, we feel that the use of a band for recovery target should strengthen the internal market benefit of the directive, because it should place a limit on what individual member states may attempt.
On our second point of concern, the current wording of the Presidency text of the article on economic instruments is declaratory and permissive, and makes specific reference to consistency with the Treaty. We should be concerned at any change toward the more prescriptive proposals made by the European Parliament.
Thirdly, we are not satisfied with the provisions on "essential requirements" to which all packaging would have to conform in order to obtain a guarantee of free movement. That is a vital part of the directive for assuring the single market, and details need to be right. We are continuing to argue for justifiable requirements. We are assured that the intention is that the directive will not affect current health and safety legislation, including that on hazardous waste, and international agreements on the transport of dangerous goods. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for the contribution she made with her detailed knowledge of

517
the printing industry. I agree with her that the directive should pay due regard to health and safety and should not prejudice it.
I shall speak briefly on the legal base. We support the directive as a harmonising measure in support of the single market. We shall endeavour to ensure that the provisions of the directive reflect that. Thus, on policy grounds, we support the use of Article 100A as the appropriate treaty base for the directive.
The statistical information requirements have been amended and reduced in the latest Presidency proposals, and we feel are now more consistent with the requirements of the directive.
Considerable concern has been expressed at possible costs of the directive, particularly at the assessment of compliance costs of over £2 billion per annum for the original Commission proposal. Estimates of compliance with the new lower targets in the Presidency proposal are informally put much lower at £100 million to £150 million per year. Much depends on the targets set for plastics and composites, where the costs of material recycling rise sharply. We shall have a much better indication when the industry brings forward its detailed proposals for producer responsibility.
We shall have to ensure that a system is in place in the UK to implement the directive. We expect the producer responsibility initiative to play a major role in that. In July, Ministers challenged those involved in the packaging chain to commit themselves to ensuring that between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of all packaging waste is recovered by the year 2000, by voluntary means. If the industries concerned cannot satisfy us by Christmas that they are committed to achieving the objectives, or if they persuade us that legislative backing is necessary, we shall need to consider moving towards a legislative approach to ensuring producer responsibility.
I have focused at some length on the problems that we perceive with the directive, but there are a number of clear benefits which would arise from an appropriately worded directive. Our support for a harmonising directive derives from those benefits. The alternative we should be faced with in the absence of a directive would be the likely proliferation of national schemes, each with its own requirements for packaging. Those could seriously impede the free movement of goods within the Community. The example of the Danish ban on one-trip beverage containers has vividly demonstrated that.
Earlier this year we undertook a formal consultation exercise—clearly, on the original proposal—and we have met a number of interested parties to gauge industry's views on the directive and on the Government's approach to it. In general, industry has been supportive of the approach we have taken and the need for a directive. The results of the exercise have helped greatly to identify problem areas and to inform government's negotiating position.
Particular benefits arise from the harmonisation elements of the proposal. For example, the elaboration of European standards will be particularly helpful in those areas where technical barriers to trade exist, by
518
assisting the free movement of goods; the harmonisation of marking provisions would also be useful—there would be agreed marks for agreed purposes; and, of course, one of the underlying intentions of the directive is to ensure that member states' recycling and waste management plans do not cause detrimental effects. In conclusion, all those very real benefits will give UK companies the confidence to plan ahead up to and beyond the turn of the next century.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to reply formally to the committee's recommendations. I hope that the reply has been helpful and that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, especially, may feel differently about the committee's report than he has hitherto.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, I should like to reiterate the Minister's final remark about the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I shall come back to it in a moment if I may. I thank the Minister for his useful commentaries. The remark about the Treaty of Rome is one that I anticipated that he would have to make. I am somewhat disappointed about the need for a reply by Christmas since I believe that if we are to take the Minister's reply to our report, there is an urgency associated with the meeting at the end of this week. We agree with the Minister about the concern over targets. The targets that were set initially seemed to us to be unrealistic. However, it is important to recognise that targets are part of this game. If we are to play it, then it is important to have targets, but they must be set realistically. The present suggestions fall into that category.
I hesitate, although I return to it again, to talk about economics. The one area in which I find economics even more difficult to understand is that connected with the environment. Cost benefit analysis and assessment of the value of the blue sky is something that yet eludes me, although I am sure that it is well within the capacity of established economic departments in the country. I shall come back to that point if I may.
On the legal concern, the point I tried to make at the very beginning was that although there was a temptation to consider this problem as an environmental one, our general feeling was that it was covered by Article 100A. It was more concerned with harmonisation aspects. I believe that that was also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, dealt with the hierarchical problem which worried the committee. That is associated with life cycle analysis which is the present way of considering the whole balance of energy and other valuable features involved in environmental questions. I much preferred the initial phrase which was "cradle-to-grave analysis", but that seems to have been overtaken by the more recent term. It is important in any of those considerations to recognise the importance of energy as equivalent to mass. It is an idea which surprisingly came from Einstein but it seems to have been totally ignored by the German community as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made some important points. I was interested to hear of his early

519
incursions into some of those problems. I agree completely when he says that each of those problems must be considered on its individual merits. The proximity principle has been avoided in much of the discussion, but it is an important principle associated with waste and I am surprised that it has not been brought into our considerations to a much greater extent. My noble friend Lord Brain illustrated admirably some of the problems we investigated in this area. He illustrated how much we appreciated the advice given by our economic adviser, although it appears that it may have lacked strength in certain circles.
I was extremely interested in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that the German system starts with what seems to be a very high idealistic approach. Anyone who had started with that scenario would have anticipated much more successful results. I believe that the problem of the German system is that the Germans do not charge for their waste at the end of the day. Many other aspects of their system have a great deal to offer but the fact that at the end of the day the disposal of their waste involves virtually no charge whatever has been, if not the Achilles' heel, at least a feature within the system which has caused problems.
We considered the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, about heavy metals. Johnson Matthey in particular were concerned with printing problems in that area. I cannot see a simple solution although, as a chemist, I believe genuinely that there are alternative methods of obtaining printing materials rather than by using heavy metals, which may make it possible to avoid the problem. I remind your Lordships that the problem about heavy metals is that they tend to be cumulative. Therefore, a potential problem for the future is created. That is why there is a sensitivity, if not a hypersensitivity, about that situation.
The point about the legal basis has been covered. The Minister was able to point out that the figures of 60 per cent. and 30 per cent. are fact and not fiction.
What do I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston? I should never dare to disagree with an economist, particularly a classical economist.
Lord Dormand of Easington: All the more reason to disagree!
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My main anxiety as regards the problem is that now that the plastics industry is to recycle in Germany, this country will be in the difficult situation where the market is swamped with plastic which is considerably cheaper than in the other markets. That will undoubtedly affect our plastics industry. That is the point. If we want all plastic to be recycled in Germany, that is fine. But is that essentially the economist's view of the matter?
The other problem is glass. I believe that we have a tragedy on our hands. Because of the cheapness of the glass from Germany, our glass collection will be seriously affected. Local authorities will lose money on that. Therefore, there will be no high incentive for us to start collecting glass. The whole concept of going on a Saturday or Sunday to drop bottles in a bottle bank, as my noble friend Lord Brain pointed out, will disappear. That may not be considered undesirable but it will affect
520
the whole concept of recycling as an ideal in a country such as ours. It is a subsidised position for all the commodities which are put back into the recycling process. That is the critical part of the operation. But as a layman, I hesitate to disagree with an eminent economist on the issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Standards Institution
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the powers and resources available to the British Standards Institution are sufficient to maintain the rising standards required in a modern society.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask this Question this evening for a number of reasons. The basic reason—I hardly need say it—is that standards are needed by everyone including consumers, industry and government. That reason is more important now than it was 20, 10 or even five years ago because we now live in a consumer society. It is a society in which television, radio and newspapers are constantly bringing complaints, suggestions and problems to the notice of the public; and in so doing, they involve government, local authorities, manufacturers and the service industries.
If one asks colleagues in another place about their postbags, they will tell you that they are 10 times heavier than they were a decade ago. I have personal experience of that. People who write to their MPs on such matters nowadays would not have dreamt of doing so not very long ago. It is significant that your Lordships are now sometimes the recipients of such letters. At one time that was unheard of. Therefore, an independent organisation is needed now more than ever. This country is fortunate in having the British Standards Institution. That is an expert body with more than 30 years' experience in seeking constantly to raise standards.
The BSI is not just concerned with Britain in the narrow sense. It is this country's voice in European and indeed world standardisation. It puts the point of view of industry and consumers and brings back information on changes that will affect them. When I say "them", I mean the country as a whole. Quality means good design, efficiency, cost-effectiveness—that will be a matter of particular interest to this Government—and reliability. More and more, consumers demand those benefits of the products and services which they buy. Manufacturers particularly need them if they are to succeed in fiercely competitive world markets.
Some people say, "Yes, we know all that. There is no need to preach about it". They say that competition will take care of it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In today's economies, both here and abroad, low standards are seen in shoddy and even dangerous products. Some are deliberate, brought about largely by the need to maximise profits. But others derive from innocent ignorance; ignorance of the fact that a body such as the BSI can be of immense help.
I have mentioned the products on two occasions, so perhaps at this point I should emphasise that service industries should equally be subject to standards. As one who has a particular interest in education, I was delighted to know that a primary school achieved registration early this year, the first one to do so. The report stated:
"BS 5750 procedures have sorted out administrative and planning headaches, which has resulted in teachers' time being free to get on with the main business of the school, teaching their pupils.
I shall bear that in mind when I speak on education in the future.
At all times in considering the BSI, some fundamental questions need to be asked. Are the standards which the institution sets high enough to meet the ever-growing demands of a constantly changing society; and, closely related to that question, are the resources available to it sufficient to enable it to achieve its objectives?
Let us look at some of the basic facts. From my knowledge of the BSI, it can be said that there is the total commitment of its staff allied to a high degree of expertise. They are supported by more than 26,000 committee members working in a voluntary capacity. The involvement of them all is fundamental to the work of the BSI; and its achievements, as I am sure your Lordships will know, speak for themselves. They are the human resources and one could have said much more about them had time permitted.
But, what about financial resources—an issue of obviously critical importance? The BSI is an independent, non-profit distributing organisation; and any surplus generated has, under its charter, to be reinvested to advance the objectives of that charter. It has three main sources of revenue: first, receipts from sales; secondly, membership subscriptions; and, the remainder from government funding.
Perhaps I should mention that all of the national standards bodies in the European Community and EFTA countries receive funding from their governments. In Germany the figure is 14 per cent., and in France it is 27 per cent. In its last allocation, the BSI received 15 per cent. Perhaps I should also mention that the main income source for all standards bodies in Germany, France and the UK is from sales of standards. No less than 25 per cent. of BSI's income comes from its subscription scheme, a figure very much higher than those of Germany and France. I am sure that the Minister will realise that that is largely due to the self-help efforts of BSI and very much to its credit.
When the White Paper called Standards, Quality and International Competitiveness was published in 1982, the Government matched pound for pound what BSI received from its subscribing members; but the situation has now changed. Over the past five years it has fallen from 28 per cent. of the total standards budget to 15 per cent. I have to say that I am puzzled by such a dramatic reduction. I do not believe that the Government are losing their interest in standards or that they are any less committed to them; indeed, they are represented on no less than 60 per cent. of the BSI committees.
Similarly, it cannot be argued that BSI needs less money; in fact, the opposite is the case as it requires more money. I shall give your Lordships an example of the difficulties that can arise. Producing publications on standards is an expensive operation which is sometimes met by sales. However, there are standards which are no less vital but which sell only a few copies to a limited customer base. It will be readily appreciated that they make up the majority of all standards published. However, they are no less costly to prepare. Therefore, if BSI standards were to be run on a purely commercial basis, such projects would be seriously affected. It would mean that the institution would not be able to fulfil its major role of benefiting the public interest.
It cannot be said that BSI is a "begging bowl" organisation. I believe that its record demonstrates that fact. I welcome the recent statement by the institution's energetic and dedicated chairman, Vivian Thomas. He said:
"Given the lower sales income resulting from the growing proportion of European and internationally derived standards, we intend to minimise operational cost and maximise efficiency in order to maintain our position and advance our global reputation as the preferred supplier for all of our services."
I suspect that there are words in that quotation which, again, particularly appeal to the philosophy and practice of the Government.
I am sure that BSI will demonstrate that the aforementioned are not idle words, especially when one looks at the record over the past two years or so. The time to edit and publish standards has been greatly reduced. At the same time, actual output was increased by some 80 per cent., so that it is now running at 1,200 publications a year. That is a quite remarkable achievement.
BSI does not itself write or create standards. I mentioned earlier that 26,000 representatives are involved. They are on 3,000 BSI committees and come from manufacturers, user and consumer groups, central and local government, professional bodies, trade unions and other interested parties. I mention those details because all of them arise from voluntary work. The Government and the nation benefit from a wonderful bargain. It would be entirely proper and necessary for the Government to bear that in mind when grant is being considered. However, I believe that the overall picture gives some cause for concern. I hope that the Government will look very carefully at the financial position with a view to increasing the grant-in-aid.
The 1982 White Paper remains the basis of the relationship of the Government with the BSI; but the role and effectiveness of the BSI has been reviewed by Parliament on a number of occasions since the publication of that White Paper—after all, the latter is now 13 years old. I shall mention three of those examinations. In 1984, your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade inquired into the causes and implications of the deficit in the UK's balance of trade in manufactures. The committee said it was clear that there was a considerable increase in international standardisation activity and that increased government funding was necessary if the Government's policy of maintaining and strengthening international standardisation was to be met.
Somewhat later, in 1990, the National Audit Office published a report entitled, Department of Trade and Industry: Promotion of Quality and Standards. When that report was examined by the Committee of Public Accounts, members of the committee raised what they saw to be a failure to increase in real terms the financial support available to BSI standards through the DTI grant-in-aid.
As recently as May 1993, the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade with Europe (in its second report) examined the position and made two recommendation relating, first, to the slow production of European standards and the consequential backlog of work; and, secondly, to the need for increased participation in European standards work, which it stated is the key to achieve standards acceptable to the UK. On both matters the Select Committee said that financial support was required.
The Government are fully aware of the reports to which I have briefly referred (and of other instances relating to grant-in-aid) but they do not appear to have acted upon any of the comments or recommendations made. I hope that the Minister will—indeed, I am sure that he will—refer to such matters, including grant-in-aid, in his reply.
Perhaps I should make it clear at this point that I have no personal connection in any way with BSI. My Question today, and all the remarks that I have made, arise from a conviction that the successful working of such an organisation is of the utmost importance to the country. I am simply an innocent bystander—that is, a simple but enthusiastic bystander—who wishes to see its high standards maintained and improved in fulfilling its objectives. Let us just imagine the position if there was no BSI—indeed, it really does not bear thinking about.
I hope that BSI will be able to continue its splendid work. If there appears to be a little hesitation in that remark—and there is—it is because of the ever-increasing range and workload of the organisation. I have in mind, for example, the implications of the single European market, the special problems of small businesses and the sheer size of the operation. That is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that there are now more than 3,500 firms registered which range from small businesses to multinational companies. I think, too, of the vast changes which have taken place since the publication of the White Paper in 1982. Perhaps it is time for another White Paper. In this connection, I feel that the DTI's consultation paper of June 1993 is timely and is to be welcomed. I hope the Minister will agree that the BSI's response of 24th September—I am sure he has read that—could not be more comprehensive and relevant.
One of the main requirements of government is to ensure that standards are prepared in the national interest. That national interest has three aspects: in relation to domestic policies; in support of UK firms' competitiveness in European and international markets, and last but by no means least, in the safeguarding of UK users and consumers. In asking this Question today, I believe that the BSI's objectives are largely being met; but it appears to me that the European and world
524
situation in such matters may be changing. In such circumstances, it seems that a reappraisal of the Government's role is not only necessary but of some urgency. I hope that view will be reflected in the Minister's reply today.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has chosen a particularly unique time at which to table this Question. He does so, of course, against the background of the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation paper to which he has just referred, and against the background of what I can only call some internal differences of opinion about the operation of the British Standards Institution. I wish to touch on both those points this evening.
I do not quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, as regards his general survey of the work being done by the BSI. I, like him, pay tribute to the 22,000 to 25,000 volunteers who create, make and write the standards for no financial reward whatsoever. It is against this background that one should look at the finances of the BSI. I shall come to that in just a moment. The noble Lord also mentioned the matter of the BSI's standing both in European and in international affairs. He mentioned the French (AFNOR) and the German (DIN) standards institutions. He will agree with me that they have been created more to favour national industries than to subscribe to a heightening of general standards, particularly in engineering terms. I do not believe the noble Lord would disagree that our own standards, particularly those accepted by industry, are in the main considerably higher than those obtaining on the main Continent of Europe.
It is important that our BSI should maintain those standards. There is a problem here, in that it has a dual role. The dual role is that provided under the Royal Charter; namely, that of being the body which shall, with government funding—the grant in aid—set standards, issue and sell them. The institution has in more recent years taken another route of providing financing—although it claims that the two are kept separate—which is that of commercial activities in selling what I would have called service quality assurances.
When I was in the Department of Trade and Industry in the mid-eighties, my honourable friend Mr. John Butcher was the Minister responsible for quality in manufacturing industry and I suggest that he did a good job at that time. The department not only provides grant in aid to the BSI but also subscribes actively to the raising of standards whether in manufacturing or service industry and I do not criticise the Government for their endeavours in the area of standards and the raising of them.
The Department of Trade and Industry, on behalf of the taxpayer, subscribes about £4 million to the BSI and the institution's commercial activities contribute perhaps another £4.5 to £4.7 million. I can see no difficulty in the paymaster having a good searching look to see whether the DTI's money is being well spent and whether the department should, or indeed needs to,

525
make further contribution. I suggest that it might need to in terms of our international responsibilities on standards setting boards. I would like to see that element of the activity of the BSI kept quite separate from its run-of-the-mill commercial activity. The present position has led to the current problems—I put it no higher than that—that now rage through the higher echelons of the BSI. I absolve my noble friend Lord Keith of Castleacre, the president of the BSI, from those ragings because of course they are not the responsibility of the president but of others.
I find it extraordinarily sad that these differences should have led the chief executive to resign and that many of the members who provide the real funding should have been prevailed upon as regards expressing the view that the commercial activities should be run not as a plc organisation but more as a standard setting institution. Until that position is resolved, I would find it difficult, were I in the position of my noble friend the Minister, to give a firm decision on what stance the department should take. I hope he will resist the temptation tonight to provide a complete answer.
If the BSI is to be an institution reflecting governmental domestic policies, and indeed international policies, it should have a say in the way the organisation is run. If the BSI is to be the Government's chosen tool for setting international standards, it should take a more positive role than hitherto. If, however, the institution is to be run purely on commercial lines, subject to the vagaries of the market, the sale of its products and other such matters, then the Government need not provide it with taxpayers' money.
I refer to one example in this connection. It is the example I know best. BS 5750 is a standard of quality assurance. In the retail motor industry it was hailed as the great new standard that would improve everyone's competitiveness and profitability and would deliver better goods to the consumer. In rushed a number of organisations, not least the BSI, to teach everyone how this was to be achieved. It was suggested that costs of anything between £2,000 to £4,000 and £10,000 to £15,000 should be charged for the accreditation system for BS 5750. At the end of the day it is a self-assessment exercise. There are forms to fill in. You fill in your answers and monitor yourself against the answers that you put down. It is now not seen to be the real answer to enhancing standards within the industry.
I therefore wonder whether some of the commercial activities of BSI are in the public interest, in the taxpayers' interest or in its own interest in deriving funds to expand its own operation. There has to be a division of responsibility as regards its different activities. A Chinese wall will not do.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give due consideration to those thoughts which I have put before your Lordships this evening.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I come to this debate with experience in an industry which many years ago was criticised for not having any standards, for poor quality and poor delivery. The
526
situation has changed considerably, thank goodness. I remember clearly the encouragement I derived when I visited factories or mills which had achieved BS 5750.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that those factories and mills did not see BS 5750 as a simple matter of assessing themselves against a check-list in order to achieve BS 5750. It was a painful process, usually taking anything up to a year, involving a great many internal resources within the company and also the introduction of strong disciplines which probably had not previously existed. When a company gained BS 5750 that gave a feeling of achievement, not merely among the management but also among the whole workforce, because one cannot achieve accreditation unless the whole of the company has played its part. Whether it is the waste at the end of the process—as we have just heard—or simply sending goods to the customer, the standards apply right the way through from production to the administrative process.
In 1982, when the Government brought forward their initiative which was the beginning of BS 5750, no one expected that it would be the runaway success that it has proved to be. There is no doubt that it has been a success. Some 22,000 organisations now have accreditation. Woe betide any individual organisation if within one year its standards, processes and methods slip to the point at which it loses its accreditation. That will have a profound effect upon that company's ability to keep its customers.
I suggest from my own experience that BS 5750 has been a success. I do not believe that that view is challenged. In marketing terms one could say that BS 5750 is the brand leader in this field.
My noble friend Lord Dormand mentioned that in 1982 the Government matched BSI funding pound for pound. That figure has now dropped to about 15 per cent. Approximately 81 per cent. of BSI's standards turnover is provided by sales and membership subscriptions. Because of BSI's role in the development of BS 5750 and because of the general impression that it is the brand leader, the lay person could be forgiven for thinking that BSI has a monopoly. It does not. There are competitors in the field. One of the strongest is a company called Lloyds, which has a long and honourable record in the certification of standards. There is also a relative newcomer. As a curtain-raiser we can see what may happen if we change our present structures fundamentally when we consider that relative newcomer, which is SGS Yardley. I wondered what SGS stood for. It was a small British company which was bought out by Société Général de Surveillance, which is a Swiss-owned company. Therefore there is competition in the field and there is an external influence within our own market. The fact that BSI is an international organisation is not unique in this field.
I suggest that BSI is a success story. It does not shout that loudly enough. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for some of its present problems. Yet no one would disagree that it has problems today. Like any business it needs to review where it is, to change its structures and to listen to what its members have to say. However, that is an insufficient argument for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it has to be more outward looking and

527
market oriented. It probably needs better business management, although I have no personal knowledge of that aspect.
Some 84 per cent. of BSI's work is undertaken overseas. I can recall business people—usually businessmen, because business in Britain is run mainly by men at the moment—continually saying to me that when they went to a committee a particular country, usually Germany, was trying to set the standards. Part of the success of BS 5750 is that it does not relate solely to UK standards; it was adopted largely unchanged as the European standard (EN 29000) and the international standard (ISO 9000). There we have a British success. It is an achievement which has been regarded by industry as a major step forward.
Turning now from those global markets and standards, we must not forget our own back garden. Small businesses have been complaining that BS 5750 does not relate to them. Some argue that large companies adopting the standard and being accredited are saying to them as small suppliers that they too must comply and if they do not they cannot tender for their work. That is an issue which BSI itself has taken on board. It needs to do so. However, I suggest that we should not always worship at the shrine of small business. We have many large and medium-sized businesses in Britain which are very successful and which themselves have a right to succeed and to be listened to. Therefore, I hope that when the BSI board considers the justified criticisms of small companies it does not go overboard and move from one extreme to the other but bears in mind the relative success of BS 5750.
In addition, we have to be careful in any review. In any organisation everything comes at once. We see that when governments have difficulties; they do not come in ones but several at a time. BSI is subject to the DTI review. It is right that that should take place. It also has its own internal review. I hope that the good and progressive aspects, together with the deficiencies which the organisation itself has recognised, are allowed to be dealt with internally using its own procedures. I hope that the organisation's commercial success will not be held against it. I hope that it will not be told that it can no longer do this, and that it will not be penalised for its commercial success as an organisation.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of those points. No one would say that we live in a perfect world, and BSI is certainly not perfect. But it is the best we have and, as an earlier speaker asked, if we did not have it, what would we do? We have an organisation of long-standing, with good standards which are recognised internationally. I hope that what is recognised internationally as good quality will not be denigrated and changed in such a way here in Britain that the organisation itself becomes merely a skeleton and cannot function in the constructive way that it has so far.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who is unable to be present. I have learned
528
a great deal from this important debate. We hope that the Minister will clear up a number of points. Perhaps it will be possible to have a further debate at a later date after having listened to the information that we shall receive from the Minister.
As my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington pointed out, in a world of multinational companies, with goods arriving from many countries, protection of the public cannot be achieved cheaply. Noble Lords who have spoken have an expert knowledge of the British Standards Institution. I used to be more familiar with that body; in the engineering industry its standards were considered the absolute bible. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has far more up-to-date knowledge on the subject than I have.
What is the standing of the BSI in Europe today? Does it have the same standing as before, or has there been a reduction in standing because of engineering and other advances made in other countries? Does the old British standard still have a high recognition of quality?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made an interesting point when he said that there is a decision to he made on this question which bedevils much of modern business. Is the BSI a standards institution or should it operate as a plc? That is one of the issues that we should discuss with great care.
I have received information from the Consumers' Association. It has serious concerns about the function of BS 5750. That body accepts that product standards should be a positive guide to safety and specific performance rather than "quality", which is a subjective term. Introducing subjective criteria to standards is potentially damaging. In the role of the Consumers' Association as a testing organisation, it is difficult to identify the practical contribution of BS 5750 to product quality because the standard relates only to the quality of the systems employed by a company. That is not necessarily an indication of the quality of the product. There may be a system, but what are the checks which follow from that? Such a judgment is further hampered by there being no requirement for certification bodies to be registered with the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies nor any apparent uniformity among certification bodies as to the interpretation of certain aspects of the certification process. For example, there would appear to be no agreement on what proportion of a company has to pass the assessment before it can advertise itself as a BS 5750 company. That issue will need clarification from the Minister. I am not being critical of the Minister; I am seeking information.
There is also worry about the use by some companies of the certification in their advertising materials. Some imply that the standard is a mark of product safety or performance. That is not helped by the confusion created by the use of "BS" in the standard—for many years it has been associated with safety and performance of products—and the use of a symbol similar to the Kitemark to denote a "BSI registered firm", meaning that it is certified to the BS 5750 standard by BSI.
Other points may appear to noble Lords to be a little distant from the debate. I refer to the question of financing consumer associations and the BSI. How do

529
British standards equate with those in Europe? Are we being over-protective? The journal of the Consumers' Association of December 1993 raises the question of seat-belts on vehicles, an issue which is tragically current. Is there a European standard? I understand that the European Community has been slow to act as a result of disagreement among member states. Yet last year 16 passengers were killed in the UK alone in bus and coach accidents. Ten days ago there was the tragedy involving a school coach in which no seat belts were fitted. These points may seem small until a tragedy occurs. They then become front page news in our national newspapers and perhaps become over-sensationalised.
The subject of children's high chairs has been raised. The British standard is quite different from the European standard. Babies and young children are particularly vulnerable to accidents. It is especially important that they are adequately protected. Yet the new European proposals on high-chair safety will mean that they are left in greater danger because some of the UK's stringent rules will be replaced by much weaker safeguards.
Under the current draft European regulations for many types of gardening tools, in particular power tools, some European standards are higher than ours. However, I understand that others are much below the standards that we hope to attain. An important standard relates to garden hedge shears, where the stopping time for blades after the power is cut is far too long; they could still inflict damage.
We should consider such issues with considerable care. We recognise that such standards cost the Government and/or industry money. When one considers the end product, with the security that such standards can give when items are made to the standards of the British Standards Institution, the amounts are not so large that we should be unwilling to pay them.
I hope that the Government will clear up some of the points made by noble Lords who are far better versed in the subject than I am. Listening to the debate, I have become interested in some of the points raised. I hope that the subject will raise interest outside this House.
5.29 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this important subject today.
The British Standards Institution—commonly known as BSI —is an independent and unique body and it is not part of Government. Its prime purpose is to facilitate the preparation of standards and there are now more than 12,000 British Standards. It is a non-profit distributing organisation, formed by subscribing members and committee members, and was incorporporated by Royal Charter in 1929. There are more than 29,000 subscribing members of BSI, and over 26,000 individuals contribute to the work of over 3,000 committees, of which about 1,000 may be active at any one time. It provides the gateway for United Kingdom representation in European and international standards organisations, and I believe it is important to address
530
those points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the BSI is the United Kingdom's main representation on the determination of European and international standards.
BSI has the role of facilitating the preparation of standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, stressed, to enable it to perform that role it has to rely on the considerable and sustained effort of the vast number of volunteers from industry and elsewhere who give their time and the resources of their companies and trade associations to serving on committees both in this country and overseas. We are well-served in this country, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the army of volunteers who play such a vital role in ensuring that suitable and appropriate standards are produced.
Standards are in essence simply technical descriptions of what things are, how to do things or how to make things. Standards are developed by their prospective users and others with an interest on a voluntary part-time basis. The preparation of appropriate standards is therefore very much a partnership between BSI on the one hand and industry and other interested bodies on the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, both raised the point that one standard which has attracted particular comment recently is the standard for quality management systems, BS 5750, which was drawn up by industry and published as a British standard by BSI in 1979. When used in appropriate circumstances and for the correct reasons, BS 5750 is a useful and progressive step towards quality. Indeed, it was a world first for the United Kingdom and it has become a successful international standard. Certification of United Kingdom firms has had a beneficial impact on the overall quality process.
Indeed, feedback from businesses of all sizes that have adopted BS 5750 indicates that the cost-benefits of improved internal efficiency and of not having continually to meet differing quality requirements generally more than compensates for the initial costs.
The Government are aware, however, of anxieties about the accessibility of the standard and the need for care in implementation, as has been raised by your Lordships this evening, particularly in the case of smaller businesses. The Government, BSI and the certification bodies themselves are treating those worries seriously. BSI has set up a policy committee for small businesses whose first priority task has been to consider those matters and to recommend ways in which the benefits of BS 5750 can be made as accessible and attainable as possible to all organisations, irrespective of size.
In addition, the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies, in conjunction with the Association of British Certification Bodies, has set up a working party to consider problems identified by small firms. The two groups have been working closely together and the Government will look closely at the recommendations of both committees, when they are available, to determine whether action is required on our part.

531
Since 1982, BSI's relationship with the Government has been governed by a memorandum of understanding, drawn up following the White Paper: Standards, Quality and International Competitiveness. BSI is recognised as the national standards body and for some years now the Government have supported its standards writing operations with a grant-in-aid. However, the main direct funding for BSI's standards activities comes from the subscriptions paid by its members and the sales of standards and other information services provided by the organisation.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth raised the point that BSI also has separate divisions for testing and certification activities which operate in a commercial environment. Those activities receive no government funding and are not subsidised in any way by BSI's standards-writing activities. Although the Government are not responsible for the corporate structure of BSI as a Royal Charter body, we take note of the anxieties expressed on the issue.
The Government recognise the importance of the work of standards writing and its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of competitiveness. It is for that reason that we are providing substantial funds towards the preparation of standards. For 1993–94 the Government are contributing a grant-in-aid of £4.5 million to the income of BSI standards, and a further £2.8 million in support for standards-making purposes.
As raised by many noble Lords in the debate this evening, the grant-in-aid has declined as a proportion of total income to about 15 per cent., as sales income and subscriptions have grown. The Government are only one contributor among many to BSI and there may be more effective ways of channelling public funds into the overall process of preparing standards. As I mentioned, the Government have decided as part of their review to look at the arrangements for funding. To address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, I should add that the income which BSI received from its quality assurance businesses has grown significantly. But in deciding upon the future arrangements for government funding, we shall be taking careful note of the view that it would be inappropriate to use this as a support for the standards-making activities.
As I have mentioned, industry is the largest contributor to the preparation of standards, both directly to the income of BSI through subscriptions and purchases of standards and related services, and through the very important provision of committee members. That is only right, as industry is the prime beneficiary of standards. The contribution of industry cannot be underestimated and we are happy to acknowledge that.
As has been stated, much has changed since the Government's memorandum of understanding with BSI in 1982. First, the standards published by BSI are now predominantly European and international; secondly, BSI's income from its quality assurance and testing businesses is now substantial. In 1982, BSI's work predominantly related to national standards work; by 1987 this had fallen to just below 50 per cent.; but today it is down to about 15 per cent. That trend is expected
532
to continue. Thus, about 85 per cent. of the work of BSI is directed in support of European and other international standards work.
To address further points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on his anxiety about British standards being overtaken by European and international standards, it is worth adding that the UK participates in the European standards-writing committees, as well as the EC Council decisions and has every opportunity to ensure that the standards are not disadvantageous to industrial interests, particularly within the UK.
It is widely recognised that differing national standards can impede the free movement of goods between member states. The development of common European standards has consequently become an essential part of the removal of technical barriers to trade. Common standards throughout Europe will help our industry to compete more effectively. They will make it easier to sell products in other European markets and will reduce costs, since. it will be necessary to manufacture to only one agreed standard rather than numerous different national standards.
The changing role of BSI in the world of standards-making made it appropriate that the Government should review the contribution they make to the process and to initiate a wider debate on the value of standards. In June this year, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a consultation exercise on future United Kingdom resourcing of the preparation of standards.
The review sought views on the way in which standards should be prepared in the United Kingdom, Europe and internationally; the type of standards needed to enhance competitiveness; the link between quality systems standards, product standards and quality; and the need for government funding and the form that such funding should take.
We invited comments from a wide range of industry and other interested parties. As a result, the Government have received over 400 responses to the consultation from a wide range of companies—from blue chip companies to small and medium-sized ones; from trade and professional associations; and from other interested bodies and individuals. The overwhelming message from the responses was one of support for the continued role of BSI as the national standards body. The funding which government provide to BSI was seen by many as important in maintaining BSI's independence, as well as being a necessary recognition of the contribution of standards to the wider public interest. Those views will of course be taken into account when we consider whether, how and to what extent the Government should make a financial contribution in the future.
While supporting BSI's continued role, industry responses in particular have provided some useful insights into areas where BSI can further improve its service to its members. Industry has commented that economic pressures clearly require a sharper focus on the management of programmes and on decisions about priorities and resource planning by BSI and by the European and international standards organisations. That also suggests a need to target Financial support—especially perhaps towards standards required

533
for the single market—and a possible need for more direct support to industrial participants in overseas committees. Indeed, it is only right to acknowledge that BSI constantly keeps under review the scope to enhance its efficiency. Furthermore, it is already taking steps to improve its efficiency and its service to its members. It is undertaking a major reorganisation of its internal management, as described by my noble friend Lord Lucas, with the prime aim of ensuring that it can provide an efficient and effective service to represent the needs of the United Kingdom in negotiations towards European and other international standards. As part of that reorganisation it is also streamlining the higher level committee structure better to enable it to deliver the kind of programme management which industry and others expect.
We are aware that some concern has been expressed about the effect of these changes and whether they indicate an organisation which, rather than consulting its members, is becoming more centralised. However, that is not BSI's intention and the new committee structure is intended to facilitate and improve real and effective input from industry and others to the programme management and priority setting which are so essential. The department naturally supports those aims and sees no reason why BSI's organisational changes should not be a significant step forward.
All organisations need to adapt to changing demands. I should like to take this opportunity to encourage industry and others to work with BSI to ensure that, as the organisation moves into the 21st century, it is well equipped to meet the challenges ahead.
The Government are now considering carefully the results of their consultation and discussions with BSI. One area for particular attention will be to ensure that there is as much input as possible from industry when decisions are made on priorities and resources, including the use of any future government funds. We shall of course announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
Finally, may I say that BSI is a national asset of which we can rightly be proud. It is already recognised
534
as a world leader among national standards-making bodies, and many other countries around the world consult it for its expertise. To maintain that position it must constantly be ready to adapt and develop. By managing change well it can enjoy continuing success and contribute significant benefits to the wealth of the nation. It is a key component in the United Kingdom's competitiveness.
Like many organisations and businesses, BSI has had to look long and hard at its activities and how best it can deliver the needs of its members and the country as a whole. We are confident that it is rising to the challenge of providing an efficient and cost-effective service which can best meet the needs of industry and others. With the continued assistance and good will of industry in particular it will continue to have the resources to carry out its important role of ensuring that the appropriate standards which are required in today's world are available.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he be kind enough to try to give some more accurate information on the Government's statement on the result of the consultations? He very properly placed importance, as I did, on that consultation, and we are grateful for the information that he has given. But he said that he would give us the information on the Government's decision "as soon as possible". Can he tell us whether that is likely to be in one month, two months or six months, and also in what form the Government's decision and findings will be made known to the House?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments, but I cannot go any further to satisfy him than to say that we shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible. I do not believe that I can be any more specific either about the form that the publication of those conclusions will take or about the timing.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.

  EAST TIMOR: MILITARY ATTACHES' VISIT
  EAST TIMOR: MILITARY ATTACHES' VISIT
  CHINA: ALLEGED COERCIVE ABORTION
  CHINA: ALLEGED COERCIVE ABORTION
  SALMON AND SEA TROUT NET LICENCES
  SALMON AND SEA TROUT NET LICENCES
  FISHERY PRODUCTS: PROPOSED EC REGULATION
  FISHERY PRODUCTS: PROPOSED EC REGULATION
  WINE SECTOR SUPPORT: COMPLIANCE WITH EC REGULATION
  WINE SECTOR SUPPORT: COMPLIANCE WITH EC REGULATION
  WINE SECTOR: POLICY
  WINE SECTOR: POLICY
  NHS: DUTY OF CARE
  NHS: DUTY OF CARE
  MR. JOHN GIBSON
  MR. JOHN GIBSON
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  NHS STAFF NUMBERS
  NHS STAFF NUMBERS
  NUCLEAR INSTALLATION SAFETY: ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
  NUCLEAR INSTALLATION SAFETY: ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
  GATT AGREEMENT: BENEFITS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  GATT AGREEMENT: BENEFITS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES