Sitting of 6 December 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Dental Services
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service patients have been deregistered by dentists in the last year.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Some 177,752 adult and 1,154 child patients were deregistered by dentists in the year ending 18 November 1994, but 1 million more patients were registered at 30 September 1994 than at 30 June 1992.
    Ms Anderson: What advice would the Minister offer to my constituents in Haslingden, who have been told by their dentist, Gillian Burn, that, as a direct result of the Government's Green Paper, she is no longer able to treat them under the NHS?
    Mr. Malone: Where dental services cannot be found from a local dentist, they are available through family health services authorities. Haslingden, which has a population of 14,000, is served by three dental practices, but NHS dental services are available in neighbouring villages. Service are available and we are monitoring the position closely.
    Mr. Shersby: What proposals do the Government have for strengthening the provision of NHS dentistry, for improving the quality of the service and for providing fairer remuneration for dentists?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will be well aware that we published the Bloomfield report and the Green Paper that followed thereafter and that there have been consultations with the dental profession. Dentists have provided constructive opinions about moving towards a purchaser-provider relationship in the longer term. We are now dealing with other issues raised in the Green Paper and I hope that we can make some progress on that. We sent officials around the country to garner opinion from dental practitioners. It was a comprehensive and proper survey and we are now considering the results of that comprehensive test of dentists' opinion.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister realise that he, the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Welsh Office are talking absolute nonsense on this matter? They claim that
    126
    salaried dentists are available, but in my area, which has an establishment of four dentists, only one has been recruited. That is hardly surprising when the salary being offered is £15,000 a year. When will the hon. Gentleman open his eyes to the crisis facing people looking for dental treatment?
    Mr. Malone: The fact that the hon. Gentleman must recognise is that, since 1992, adult registrations have risen substantially and the number of dentists practising within the NHS has also risen. He cannot say that a service where expenditure has risen by some 53 per cent. in real terms since 1979 is in decline; it is not. Of course there are concerns that must be dealt with—that is why we looked at Bloomfield, that is why we published the Green Paper and that is why we have had the most significant consultation exercise for dentists that has been undertaken in recent years.
    Mr. Illsley: Is there not now a real crisis in NHS dentistry, with a rising number of areas in which NHS dentistry is not available even to existing registered patients? Bearing in mind that the proposals to which the Minister referred will take some years to come to fruition, how will he ensure that NHS dentistry is restored to those areas now?
    Mr. Malone: The Government undertook, in discussions on the Green Paper and during the consultation period, to underpin the provision of NHS dentistry, and the profession as a whole has welcomed that. I hope that we can make progress so that we can get the total provision of dentistry back on to the stable footing that we all want.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong—NHS provision is made by dentists who give NHS cover, by family health services authorities directly employed dentists or by community dental services in other areas. The service exists and it is working. Everyone who needs dental treatment under the NHS gets it.
    Mr. Allason: Does the Department have a policy on deregistration? Is my hon. Friend aware of the suspicion that a large number of dentists are making any excuse to deregister their patients because of the lack of NHS remuneration? One constituent of mine was refused further treatment by a dentist when he failed to keep an appointment. Although that was obviously an expensive inconvenience for the dentist, it appears that no other dentist in the same FHSA is willing to take on that constituent.
    Mr. Malone: If my hon. Friend will write to me with details of that particular case, I will be happy to consider it. The system of continuing care payments ensures that somebody remains registered for two years. I am not sure whether the case that my hon. Friend raised falls into the category of someone rolling out after the two-year period, which happens frequently.

    Audit Commission
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations of the Audit Commission.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Government extended the remit of the Audit Commission to the national health service as part

    127
    of our health reforms. That is a further demonstration of our commitment to ensuring the proper stewardship, and the effective use, of NHS resources. Both my Department and the NHS always take the commission's reports seriously and ensure that, where necessary, improvements in practice result.
    Mrs. Campbell: Has the Secretary of State taken any notice of the representations made to her by Councillor Janet Jones of Cambridgeshire county council about the underfunding of community care? Would the right hon. Lady like to follow her advice to Cambridgeshire county council and get her act together in respect of underfunding of community care? Will she make sure that Government policies are properly funded?
    Mrs. Bottomley: One difficulty faced by local government is the regrettable change of political control of many social service departments. The responsible stewardship to which we had become accustomed from Conservative county councils is sadly lacking among many hung or Labour-controlled councils. The county councillor in question has failed to point out that Cambridgeshire had a 20 per cent. increase in funding for personal social services this year—an extra £10 million. Next year, it will increase by another 13 per cent. If Labour-controlled councils are unable to exercise responsible stewardship, it looks bad for the future of local government, and that is the message of the Audit Commission.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, thanks to Government reforms, NHS expenditure is now subject to the careful scrutiny of the Audit Commission's external auditors? Is that not particularly important, given the substantial extra money that the Government are giving the NHS? When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to detail how that money will be allocated between different health regions next year?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. The substantial increase in NHS funding is recognition of the priority that we attach to the service. A £1.3 billion cash boost will be available, and much better value for money will be achieved because of the measures in hand. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I am placing in the Library and in the Vote Office today details of allocations to regions of next year's extra funding. Her region of North Thames will receive an additional £153 million.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Secretary of State recall that the Audit Commission report "Finding a Place" made specific reference to problems arising in the allocation of resources for community care? Is she aware that at least 12 local authorities controlled by various political parties have run out of care funding, with four months still left before the end of the current financial year? Is it not a disgrace that pensioners are having to go to court to obtain basic care services? Should not the Secretary of State, rather than local councils, be in the dock?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is extremely irresponsible to exploit old and vulnerable people's fears about the discharge of the responsibilities that, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, local government wanted to take on. This year, local government has an extra £1.2 billion for community care. Those are very substantial sums indeed. Next year, the increase will be 10 per cent.
    128
    So, overall, local government spending on social services will have doubled in four years. Every local authority in the country has extra money for personal social services this year, but all of them must learn the message that the health service had to learn—that each year contains 12 months, not nine. Running out of money after nine months and frightening old and vulnerable people is irresponsible. Good stewardship is the only way in which to get the trust of the public.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Audit Commission estimated that some £50 million could be saved if general practitioners prescribed just 20 generic drugs? Will she take further steps to encourage generic substitution, and in particular, measures such as the institution of a tick-in system on the prescription form?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a further suggestion on how we can curb the rising costs of prescribing. A particularly succesful measure has been the introduction of GP fundholding. The prescribing increases of GP fundholders are going up by 3 or 4 per cent. less than those of non-fundholding GPs. There are many measures to be considered. It is quite clear that, with the extra money that the taxpayer has made available to the health service, we have a duty to ensure that we root out waste and use the money saved in that way as effectively as possible for the benefit of patients.

    Asthma
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she has taken to stem the increases in the incidence of asthma.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): We have put in place a range of measures on research into the causes and triggers of asthma, and on the care and education of asthmatics, including the chronic disease management programme run by general practitioners.
    Dr. Howells: Given that there is no cure as such for asthma and that many people who suffer from that illness must take expensive cocktails of drugs for the rest of their lives to stay alive, will the Minister take the advice of the Select Committee on Health and undertake a review of prescription charge exemptions?
    Mr. Bowis: We always look at the cases for prescriptions. We provide the inhalers and drugs for nebulisers on GP prescription, and the nebulisers come on prescription from hospitals. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that there is, as yet, no cure. Research shows that the causes are probably of a genetic predisposition, followed by triggers which start off asthma attacks. It is important to put money into research. The good news is that, this year, we have been able to put an additional £5 million into research into respiratory and related diseases.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the dangers that asthma presents, does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that 90 per cent. of GPs are now signed up to the chronic disease management programme? Is he aware that, if that is to be a success, he will have to ensure proper liaison with the Department for

    129
    Education, to ensure that teachers participate, and co-operate fully, in allowing children to use their inhalers in school?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes two important points. Some 90 per cent. of GPs are signed up and participating in the chronic disease management programme. That is an enormous step forward, but it is no less important that schools work alongside school nurses and take their advice, because it is given not only to the children who unfortunately suffer from this condition, but to the teachers who can help them.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the Minister aware that a survey of children's health carried out in Sheffield three years ago showed that no fewer than 26 per cent. of school children in the area had suffered from asthma at some time in their lives? Does he accept that a major cause of that worrying increase is the rundown of good-quality public transport in Sheffield and elsewhere, and the consequent increase in private car use? What is the Minister doing—in consultation with his colleagues in the Department of Transport—to ensure that urgent action is taken to upgrade public transport?
    Mr. Bowis: As the hon. Lady may know, I am the first to advocate good public transport. Traffic does not cause asthma, although it may well be one of the factors that exacerbate it. It is interesting to note that New Zealand—where pollution and traffic jams are not a problem—has high asthma levels.
    We need to look more widely, and to take account of all the household effects: central heating and double glazing, for instance, have produced more dust mites. We should also consider working conditions. Some people work in a dusty environment. Above all, we should try, between us, to send a message to pregnant mothers begging them not to smoke; smoking by pregnant mothers is one of the main causes of asthma in very young children.

    General Practitioner Targets, North Thames
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the progress of general practitioners in meeting their targets under the general practitioner contract in the North Thames region.
    Mr. Malone: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, as at April 1993, 88 per cent. of general practitioners in North Thames achieved targets for childhood immunisation, 83 per cent. for pre-school booster and 93 per cent. for cervical cytology. This represents an improvement since 1990 of more than 10 per cent. for childhood immunisation and the pre-school booster, and 25 per cent. for cervical cytology—an excellent record.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, which shows a most impressive record against the targets. One of the problems facing general practice in west London, however, is the large number of single-doctor surgeries. Will my hon. Friend take measures to enable doctors to come together, so that they can become fundholders as a group?
    Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of the successful figures. I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will pass on
    130
    to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, the fact that, when we set them, he said that the targets would never be attainable. General practitioners are now attaining them all over the country.
    I can tell my hon. Friend that we encourage single practitioners to combine to form fundholding practices where we are able to do so. We give them other benefits such as allowances specifically geared to ensure that they can manage their practices more easily and co-operate. We have also announced a range of measures to encourage fundholding, not least a community fundholding threshold for lists of 3,000. The position will improve, as my hon. Friend will discover when he visits the Library and finds that his region has an additional allocation of £153,385,000 this year.
    Mr. Purchase: Is the Minister aware that, in my authority, the targets for cervical testing have been missed by 40 per cent.—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates specifically to the North Thames region. I have tried to tell hon. Members that they must read the Order Paper.
    Mr. Purchase: I am trying, Madam Speaker, to make a comparison between my authority and the one referred to in the question.
    Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should table a substantive question. I expect him to do so next month.

    Mentally III People
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she has in place to ensure that money saved from the closure of mental hospitals is spent on the needs of the mentally ill; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The NHS executive has written to regional general managers to make it clear that the resources released from the closure of a long-stay hospital should be reinvested in community-based services for the same client group. The number of beds available for mentally ill people has remained at about 80,000 for the past 10 years, but there is now a wider range of accommodation in the community.
    Mr. Miller: Twice this afternoon, the Secretary of State has referred to stewardship of moneys by local authorities. In that context, does she agree that—in the light of her answer—it would be inappropriate for the Tory-Liberal alliance in Cheshire county council to continue its policy of charging for mental health day-care places?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Conservative group on Cheshire county council will be wanting to point out that Cheshire has 15 per cent. more money this year—£13 million more. I hope that it will also welcome the increases in the mental illness specific grant, particularly the recent allocation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It may be that, on charging, it will have considered the report of the Commission on Social Justice, which made it clear that there is a distinction between health care and social care and that it is reasonable to expect a contribution towards social care from those who can afford it if we are to

    131
    extend the quality and quantity of care for all who need it. I suspect that, in that respect, the Commission on Social Justice had much to offer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I want brisk questions and answers today.
    Sir Giles Shaw: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to the fact that the consequences of selling or closing large mental institutions will result in ploughing back money into health funding. Will she confirm that she is satisfied that there are adequate facilities for care in the community for those discharged from mental hospitals and that there is proper doctor control for those who are having to be transferred?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a vital point. We need to tighten up the care of those who are discharged from hospital and are severely mentally ill. Unless or until it is safe to discharge people from hospital, they should not be discharged and for those in the community who have severe problems we have introduced supervision registers and new guidance. I hope that all hon. Members will support the new power of supervised discharge to ensure that the minority who get into difficulties have better support and better care and are better watched over in the community. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: How can the Secretary of State be satisfied with a situation in which people discharged from mental hospitals are finding themselves in inadequate accommodation with inadequately funded social services support and without the necessary housing provision? What are the Government going to do to improve that?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is extremely important that health and social services give the necessary priority to mental health. There has been a dramatic increase in resources for mental health services with about £2.5 billion being spent. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not be aware of the new £10 million mental illness specific grant, let alone the £1.3 billion for the NHS next year which will allow health authorities to give mental health services the priority that they deserve. Report after report suggests that better co-ordination, better management and better monitoring are also required.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the valuable work of those who run halfway hostels for the discharged mentally ill? Does she agree that there are still insufficient numbers of such hostels to make community care for the mentally ill a reality? Will she encourage social services authorities to use their ring-fenced grants more for that purpose?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can affirm my hon. Friend's comments. We need comprehensive and coherent mental health services. There is much good practice and we have to ensure that there is greater coherence in every community and that it is targeted on the severely mentally ill.

    NHS Contracts
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the financial value of NHS contracts placed with the private sector in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1988–89.
    Mr. Malone: The total financial value of all contracts placed by the national health service with the private sector is not known. The NHS has been a substantial purchaser from external suppliers since its inception.
    Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that he is at least being consistent? In answer to a written question that I tabled last week, the Under-Secretary also said that Ministers did not know the number of patients being treated in the private sector, the costs or even how many were involved. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition have perhaps been a little unfair in accusing Ministers of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and that Ministers in the Department of Health know neither?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman obviously seeks an answer, and if he had tabled the right question, he would have got one. If he is interested in the private health care that is purchased from the NHS, I can tell him that in the South Birmingham health authority in 1993–94, the total was £2.3 million. The national figure for 1992–93 was £267 million. I wonder whether we are seeing part of the dinosaur Labour party—the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly content to break down policy boundaries and use grant-aided schools. Are we seeing some sort of division between health care in the public sector and in the private sector? If the hon. Gentleman looks at the glossy brochure published by the Labour council in Hammersmith and Fulham, he will find private health care advertised there. Clearly, people in Hammersmith and Fulham are well ahead of the hon. Gentleman.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not matter whether NHS contracts are placed with the private sector so long as patients are being treated? Will he deplore the blind dogma of the Labour party that it does not matter whether patients wait a long time for treatment or are a long time being treated, but a partnership between the NHS and the private sector must not happen?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with her. She highlights the dogma of the Opposition, who are more interested in who treats patients than in whether patients are treated. I thought that as the Labour party's clause IV on nationalisation of the means of production was being reviewed there might be less infatuation with who was treating whom in the health service and that whether people received better care might be the main issue.
    Mrs. Beckett: How can the Minister agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and, indeed, how can she assert that it does not matter whether patients are treated in the public sector or the private sector when we know from the Government's waiting lists initiative that it costs five times as much to treat patients in the private sector? The Secretary of State is always bleating about value for money. Surely that means, ultimately, that fewer patients will be treated for the same money because the

    133
    Government are dogmatically insisting on sending them into the private sector. Is that not a waste of money and a denial of care?
    Mr. Malone: No, it is not. I am aware of the figures from which the right hon. Lady selectively quotes. If she considers the figures procedure by procedure, she will find that people who were treated in the private sector were treated at a far better cost. Would she say to her constituents that they should wait for treatment rather than be treated in the private sector? I suppose that she is endorsing that sort of dogma today.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that competitive tendering has saved the NHS many tens of millions of pounds and provided the resources to treat more and not fewer patients?
    Mr. Malone: Yes. The whole point about health service reforms—not just those involving competitive tendering—is that the benefits and savings go directly back into patient care.That is why there has been a substantial increase in activity for given amounts of taxpayers' money since the reforms were put in place.

    Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set up an inquiry into recent events at the Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): No. The trust must be allowed to concentrate on treating patients under the leadership of its new chairman, Dr. J. F. Archer.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister appreciate that people will be dismayed by that answer? in saying that, I speak not only for my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), but for the community health council, the Royal College of Nursing and many others. Was not what happened at Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust an utter fiasco, with macho management, no accountability and no transparency? Is it not clear that an independent inquiry is needed to prove that what happened there is not symptomatic of the new market-driven NHS, where the first duty of doctors is, allegedly, to the organisation and not to their patients?
    Mr. Sackville: I agree that there have been uniquely regrettable incidents, but a new chairman and a new chief executive are in post. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the welfare of patients and staff, which I sometimes doubt, he will want to ensure that the trust returns to a period of stability, with no further allegations or counter-allegations.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shameful for Opposition Members to try to play politics with this issue? Burnley has had a local difficulty, but recognition should be given to the fine record that the Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust achieved in 12 months, with nine five-star and five four-star ratings in the summer performance league tables. It was the first trust in the north-west to have no patients waiting more than 12
    134
    months for treatment. Opposition Members should concentrate on those things and not just rubbish the NHS trusts.
    Mr. Sackville: I congratulate the trust on maintaining its excellent standards during these difficult times. I hope that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and his hon. Friends will help the trust to get back to normal.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am sure that the Minister will accept that rows of this sort are debilitating for health care workers. Will he also accept that they are turning out to be increasingly expensive for the NHS? The latest £250,000 pay-off will be seen by many people as an inappropriate use of public funds, particularly when set alongside criticisms of the Minister's Department from the district auditor, the Audit Commission and the Public Accounts Committee in investigating similar incidents. Has it occurred to the Minister that the source of misuse of public money might be the reforms themselves, which are turning out to be more expensive and less efficient and, are in fact, encouraging conflict and corruption?
    Mr. Sackville: The performance of the trust—what it has done for patients—speaks for itself. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the payment made was in accordance with the former chief executive's contract.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that I stood as a candidate in Burnley almost a decade ago, when there was a great deal of disquiet about the length of time that people were waiting for treatment. Will he confirm that many more patients are being treated now, due to the adoption of trust status, than when I stood in Burnley?
    Mr. Sackville: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend made a very strong impression on Burnley. I can confirm that there have been enormous benefits for the people of Burnley from trust status.

    Departmental Statistics
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances one patient's treatment in hospital can be counted under Department of Health statistical rules as more than one finished consultant episode.
    Mr. Sackville: A patient's treatment in hospital may comprise more than one consultant episode if a hospital patient is transferred from the care of one consultant to that of another, or if a patient is discharged and then subsequently readmitted.
    Mr. Jones: In other words, there is double and triple counting. When do the Government intend to use reliable and accurate figures for patient numbers rather than inaccurate and inflated figures? Or do they prefer to use fiddled figures rather than the real values?
    Mr. Sackville: What the hon. Gentleman has said is an insult to all the people who work in the national health service, including the statisticians. They agree with Dr. Edith Korner who, in the 1980s, chaired a committee which concluded that patient activity was best measured by the numbers of consultant episodes and that the

    135
    number of deaths and discharges, which had been used previously, was not the correct way to measured hospital activity.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that some patients do not wish to be treated in mixed wards and are determined to stay in single-sex wards? Can he give a guarantee that if a patient chooses to be treated in a single-sex ward he or she will be placed in one?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. There is a question on the Order Paper—No. 18—about single-sex wards, if we ever get to it. Let us have a quick answer.
    Mr. Sackville: This is a matter with which we shall deal with great urgency.

    Herbal Medicine
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reassurance he can offer to practitioners in herbal medicine and their clients about the impact on them of changes to the Medicines Act 1968 consequent on European directive 93/39.
    Mr. Sackville: I am glad to reassure the House that the position of herbal medicines under United Kingdom law is not affected by directive 93/39.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister seeks to reassure people, but does he accept that his reassurances are meaningless because they can be challenged in the European Court and shown to be worthless? Why is it that, although Ministers tell us that they are not willing to be pushed around by Europe, we are rushing headlong into this legislation while Germany is delaying it by 10 years? Would it not be better to withdraw the statutory instrument and introduce one that gives specific assurances in respect of herbal medicines?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman has chosen wholly to misunderstand the situation. On 20 October, I made it clear in a series of interviews that we would not be pushed by the Commission or anyone else into clearing the shelves of medicines or anything else. By 11 November, I was able to announce that the herbal medicines which were currently exempt would continue to enjoy that exemption under the directive; and on 16 November I wrote to all hon. Members to confirm that. I am glad to be able to say that only yesterday the British Herbal Medicine Association confirmed that it was happy to support the Government's conclusions.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the continuing belief of many hon. Members and their constituents that stronger protection is required in respect of herbal medicines, stronger than that which he has identified and which he has accepted could be overturned by the European Court? Will he therefore refrain from introducing the statutory instrument until the European Commission can give the guaranteed protection that herbalists and their patients demand?
    Mr. Sackville: There can be no clearer protection than the fact that those exemptions will continue under both United Kingdom and European law. What more does my hon. Friend want?

    Brinnington Health Centre
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects funds to be available to extend the Brinnington health centre.
    Mr. Bowis: That is a matter for local decision. However, I understand that discussions are taking place locally to identify the most appropriate type of development and funding arrangement, and that negotiations to acquire additional land are in hand.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he share my nausea at the number of health service officials and medical experts in Stockport who are prepared to produce survey after survey to demonstrate how much poor health and ill health there is in Brinnington, but who, when asked to provide practical help by enlarging the health centre so that poor health can be prevented or treated, seem totally incapable of taking action? Will the hon. Gentleman urge those people to get a move on and to enlarge the health centre as soon as possible?
    Mr. Bowis: I understand that representatives of the Stockport trust are talking to the general practitioners in the two practices concerned, and that progress is being made. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for progress. He will know that the North West region has been developing its programme of primary care resource centres, and I understand why he wants his local service to be on a par with that excellent health advance for the area. The good news is that for the coming year the general medical service allocation for the North West region is to increase by 8 per cent. to £86 million, so perhaps good news for the hon. Gentleman will follow.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If the Brinnington health centre is to be extended, will my hon. Friend confirm that its patients, like my constituents, will be able to use the excellent herbal remedies that have been saved by his fellow Under-Secretary of State as such remedies are efficacious against eczema and asthma while ordinary medicine is not?
    Mr. Bowis: I can think of no better place for people to go—although they could, of course, also go to the local shop.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people currently serve on the boards of NHS trusts as lay appointees; and what is the total cost of their emoluments.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: There are currently nearly 2,500 non-executives and chairmen serving in 419 trusts in England. The latest provisional figures for 1993-94 give the cost of their remuneration as about £12,500,000 just one penny for every £11 of the trusts' turnover.
    Mr. Hardy: In the light of that answer, which should be taken more seriously than the Secretary of State appeared to present it, will the right hon. Lady examine the claim that some trusts made inquiries about the political affiliations of those aspiring to be directors? Will she comment on the fact that a large proportion of directors of trusts have political affiliations with the

    137
    Conservative party or are associated with businesses which give substantial support to that party? Does that not merit investigation in the public interest?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Again, the hon. Gentleman chooses to make a rather vindictive point rather than heralding the dramatic improvements in his local trust, such as new endoscopy suites, out-patient departments, dermatology departments and physiotherapy departments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall indeed answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that it is wrong to sack NHS chairmen because of their political persuasion, wrong to appoint people to health authorities simply because they are prospective political candidates and wrong to appoint people who are unable to be good stewards of the public purse. As for the Labour party, David Ennals sacked 32 chairmen because he thought that they were Conservative, and the Labour party appointed three people in Greenwich because they were prospective Labour candidates, and it appointed a disqualified Lambeth councillor to the health authority. We want people of good intent who mind about the health service. I do riot think that the Labour party should throw stones.

    Administration Costs
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the national health service to administer (a) a general practitioner fundholding practice and (b) a non-fundholding practice.
    Mr. Malone: General practitioner fundholding practices receive additional allowances for directly managing their funds and purchasing care on their patients' behalf. These amount to around 2 per cent. of budgets set and are excellent value. It is not possible to disaggregate other administration costs from total costs.
    Mr. Hoon: The Minister has conspicuously failed to answer my question. Does he agree with the results of a survey into fundholding in Oxfordshire, which shows that the administration costs of fundholding practices are more than four times the administration costs of non-fundholding practices? Does that not show that the taxpayer is being asked to pay over the odds for a discriminatory, two-tier service?
    Mr. Malone: I am sorry that it has not occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the reason is that fundholding practices do things in addition to those done by non-fundholding practices. The administrative costs that apply to a lot of the work of non-fundholding practices are borne by family health services authorities. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand much about the matter. I hope that he will go back to his constituency and ask three of the fundholding practices there, all of them in extended, purpose-built premises, what their transaction costs are and what their administrative costs are. I bet that he will find that they are giving exceptionally good value for money and that, in addition to that, they are providing even more patient care.
    Mr. Hoon indicated dissent.
    Mr. Malone: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head and does not like it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been attending the Budapest summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
    Mrs. Prentice: What advice would the Leader of the House give to his hon. Friends who have made public commitments to vote against any rise in VAT on fuel? Should they stand by their principles and their constituents or should they abandon those principles, ditch their constituents and toe the Tory party line?
    Mr. Newton: My advice to my hon. Friends would be to recognise the importance of the vote tonight and the fact that it will be incumbent on those who wish to vote as the hon. Lady suggests—as she will, no doubt, vote herself—to show a credible alternative and not some cop-out like a windfall tax. The alternatives are other taxes, cuts in expenditure or additional borrowing, with all that that might mean for interest rates.
    Q2. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the British people are opposed to any fundamental constitutional change? They do not wish to see a Scandinavian-style monarchy and they do not wish to see a socialist republic. They believe that any such changes would be highly expensive and totally unnecessary. They believe, "If it works, don't fix it."
    Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the large majority of people in this country in finding it almost unbelievable that the Labour party apparently thinks that its first priority should be to have a year of constitutional upheaval, involving all British institutions, including Parliament, and threatening the Union. I believe that Labour has greatly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy.
    Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in tonight's vote on VAT there will be two types of Tory Member: those who will abide by their specific promise made at the general election not to extend VAT on fuel and those who will make any promise to get elected with no intention of keeping to it even when some of the poorest people in our country will be affected?
    Mr. Newton: From what the right hon. Gentleman says, I suppose that we can assume that there will be only one kind of Labour Member—one who votes for an irresponsible cop-out.
    Mr. Blair: Is the Leader of the House really saying that there is no other way to restore the nation's finances than

    139
    through this most hated and unpopular tax? Why does he not look first at the executive share options, the abuses of inheritance tax and the windfall profits made by utilities rather than taxing families and pensioners?
    Mr. Newton: I have already described the windfall tax as a cop-out; by definition, a windfall must be a one-off and cannot replace a continuing stream of revenue. As for the right hon. Gentleman's loopholes, I remind him of the words of the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that this
    "is not a loophole-closing exercise at all, rather a massive increase in business taxation".
    That is the clue to the Opposition's position. They prattle all the time about their desire to encourage employment, but every time they are pushed, they want to put up business taxes, raise social costs and damage investment and jobs.
    Mr. Blair: Is it really the nation's finances that concern the right hon. Gentleman, or the Conservative party's pre-election tax cuts? May I summarise the strategy for which Tory Members of Parliament will vote tonight? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House. [Interruption.] Order—from all of you.
    Mr. Blair: May I summarise the strategy of Tory Members of Parliament for next year? The price of tax cuts next winter will be some of Britain's pensioners freezing in their own homes this week.
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman would have done better to stick to his recent practice of asking rather fewer questions. My priority and the priority of Her Majesty's Government is to sustain an economic recovery, which is now giving us some of the strongest growth in Europe, low inflation, rapidly falling unemployment and the prospect of improving living standards. That is what we intend to maintain, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman would throw away.
    Q3. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that any decision regarding the Royal Air Force's future requirement for transport aircraft will not be taken until the spring, when all the alternatives, including the future large aircraft and British Aerospace's commitment to maintain the existing Hercules fleet at 20 per cent. below the present cost, will have been fully evaluated?
    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made it clear that we hope to be able to make an announcement on tranche 3 of the Hercules rolling
    140
    replacement programme shortly. All relevant factors will be taken into account and, I am sure, will include my hon. Friend's representations on behalf of his constituents.
    Q4. Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Leader of the House recall a question asked during Business Question Time about the provision of a copy of the report of the marine accident investigation branch into the recent research done on the MV Derbyshire? Obviously, the Leader of the House made no impression on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because, in fact, the report is not in the Library. I was also surprised today to see a letter telling the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which had asked for a copy of the report, that the report was a matter for the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House not think that the bereaved families, the House and the country are entitled to know what that report says about the investigation carried out and financed by an international union and the RMT?
    Mr. Newton: I well understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter and the continuing c0ncern of bereaved families about the loss of the Derbyshire. The position is that the chief inspector of marine accidents submitted his assessment of the sonar and video material provided by the International Transport Workers Federation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 30 November—less than a week ago. My right hon. Friend is currently considering whether further action needs to taken. I shall, of course, bring to his attention the request that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend think that when a Member of this House makes proposals concerning the constitution it is grown-up politics or intelligent politics for Ministers to hunt him like a pack of demented corgis? How does my right hon. Friend think that we as a party can hope to reconcile the encouragement of indiscriminate deference towards well-born nonentities with our policy of encouraging and promoting social talent in this country?
    Mr. Newton: I would say to my hon. Friends what I said in answer to a previous question. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and some of his colleagues have significantly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy, which is not the same as saying that there will not be continued evolution, as there has been during the past couple of years. More important than that, however, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have gravely overestimated the public's desire to see

    141
    constitutional upheaval, including the monarchy, all over the scene. I do not believe that that is what the British public want.
    Q5. Dr. Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Leader of the House agree that British troops in UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia are doing a superb job in difficult and dangerous circumstances, and that the attacks on General Mike Rose and on British troops by American Congressmen and Bosnian politicians are completely unwarranted and seem designed more to promote further bloodshed than to reach a peaceful situation in the area?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the way in which he put it. It is clear that it is widely supported in the House. For my part, and on behalf of the Government, I can say straightforwardly that we do not accept the criticism of General Rose. He and his small, courageous force are doing an excellent job in the most difficult and trying circumstances and they will continue to have our full support. I might add—I know that there is some concern in the House about the matter—that I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has been much involved with the contact group over the weekend, will wish to make a statement tomorrow.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and that of the several hundred people who have contacted me about the case of one of my constituents, the elderly pensioner Mr. Ted Newbery? Is he aware that Mr. Newbery was acquitted by a jury of the action that he took in self-defence against a burglar? The burglar was gaoled. Yet the cleared Mr. Newbery has been asked to compensate the guilty burglar. Does my right hon. Friend agree that justice has not been done, that Mr. Newbery's case should be re-heard and that the law that is applied in such circumstances must be reviewed?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is present on the Government Front Bench and will have heard what she said. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand—she may even have anticipated what I am about to say—that I must make the point that the judiciary is entirely independent of Government and that it is not the practice for Ministers to comment on its decisions in quite the way that she invites me to do. On the other hand, she will have gauged, as no doubt others have also done, the reaction in the House generally to the events that she has described.
    Q6. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Leader of the House aware that Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein claims to have no semtex in his hands? Will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not be misled by such blandishments? In the light of the Hamas parallel in Israel, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the guard will not be lowered, nor the entry requirement for talks?
    Mr. Newton: The handing over of arms and explosives is, as I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, an important issue to be addressed in the exploratory dialogue which begins on Friday. I can give the hon. Gentleman a clear-cut assurance on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends that Her Majesty's Government will not leave the people of Northern Ireland—or, indeed, of Great Britain—exposed.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party will always seek to protect those parents who rightly put the interests of their children first in making a choice about where to send their children to school, even if that means defending the Leader of the Opposition from the policies of his own party?
    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not only to defend the right of choice of parents in these and other circumstances, but, so far as possible, to enhance and increase them. What I would really like to hear from Opposition Front-Bench Members—I can see several who have opposed this in the past—is a clear-cut commitment to call off their local authorities, which are trying to frustrate that choice throughout the country.
    Q7. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: As the chair of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has stated, the Student Loans Company Ltd. is in such chaos that students are being denied the resources which the Government say they require in order to live. What do the Government intend to do about that?
    Mr. Newton: What I will do on this occasion is to make the point that the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has just made appears inconsistent with the fact that, during this Government's period in office, participation in higher education has risen from one in eight of the relevant group to one in three.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland. Copies of my statement and the table accompanying it will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.
In his Budget statement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's overall expenditure plans. I am now able to announce how I propose to allocate the resources available for my programmes in Scotland. Full details will be included in my departmental report, which will be published in March.
We have been successful in controlling inflation. Inflation this year will be around 2 per cent.—half the level predicted a year ago. Low inflation will continue. Thanks to that, spending power in 1995–96 will be 2.5 per cent. higher than we expected when making provisional spending plans last year. We cannot let that feed through into a higher level of real spending, without jeopardising our broader objectives of sustained growth free from inflation. Firm control over public expenditure is therefore an essential discipline and one that we are determined to maintain.
Against that background, the resources available to me for allocation next year at over £14.25 billion represent a very fair settlement. In cash terms, there is an increase of about £250 million over this year's planned spending. The total budget will be more than 1 per cent. higher in terms of spending power than the previous, provisional plans for that year. My allocation is equivalent to spending of over £6,200 for every home in Scotland—nearly £120 a week.
In order to increase the cash available to meet my top priorities, my plans release resources by reining back on the cost of government, and by taking advantage of the increasing scope for private investment in capital projects.
In line with our general policy outlined in the White Paper on the civil service, I am pursuing substantial efficiency savings in my Departments. The Scottish prison service is a special case and will receive extra cash while being set demanding efficiency targets. The cost of running my other Departments will reduce over the next three years by more than 10 per cent. in real terms. Increases in pay will be fully funded by efficiency savings, allowing services to the public to be maintained.
I look to local government to follow central Government's lead. Support of local authorities' current and capital expenditure accounts for 47 per cent. of all Scottish Office expenditure. Local government has benefited equally from the fall in inflation. It must play its full part in reducing the cost of government and in the drive for efficiency improvement. With local authority staffing levels having increased by over 2,000 in the year to June 1994, with an increase of no less than 9 per cent. in central services staff, there is clearly scope to do so.
On Budget day, I announced my decisions for local authority spending in 1995–96—both Government-supported expenditure and aggregate external finance. Within that, I have made provision for a range of new burdens and for the financial effects of local government reform, including specific provision next year for local
144
authority elections. I shall make separate provision for the operating costs of the new authorities in their shadow year.
My plans for local authority capital spending are contained within the relevant programme totals. They assume that local authorities will take full advantage of the private finance initiative. At this time of transition in local government, it is important to limit the burdens that the new councils will inherit. I am therefore tightening up aspects of the capital control regime. From 1 April 1995, notional receipts created by the lease of assets to third parties will no longer entitle authorities to incur extra capital expenditure. In addition, with immediate effect, the cost of assets funded under what are known as covenant schemes will score in full against capital allocations in the first year.
In other respects, the capital control arrangements are unchanged. Scottish local authorities retain the significant benefit of being able to augment allocations by the full amount of actual receipts generated in the same year. With aggregate capital provision of £880 million a year, and capital spending from all sources likely to exceed £1.2 billion next year, the resources available to local authorities for investment remain substantial.
I also announced on Budget day the introduction of a unified business rate poundage for Scotland at the same level as in England, thus successfully completing our objective of harmonisation. The continuation of poundages at the English level will ensure a level playing field. That has been welcomed by Scottish business. Maintaining harmonisation after future revaluations will not be a burden on Scottish expenditure programmes. I also announced transitional arrangements to phase in the effect for businesses faced with significant changes in their rates bills. The Exchequer will provide £72 million in support, of those arrangements.
I now refer to individual programmes. Public investment in Scotland's roads and transport infrastructure will exceed £1.2 billion over the next three years, bringing the total public investment since 1988–89 to nearly £2.3 billion. As a result of the high investment in the national roads programme in recent years, the central Scotland motorway network is almost complete. The dualling of the road between Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen is now complete, and exceptional progress has been made on upgrading the A74. At present, there are £370 million worth of national schemes under construction in Scotland. Public spending on that programme will be nearly 6 per cent. higher in real terms next year than it was in 1988–89. Work will proceed on improving the major routes such as the A74, the M8 and the Al. My plans also maintain my commitment to shipping services to the west and north of Scotland.
At more than £2,850 million over the next three years, the gross resources available for housing allow me to meet the resource planning assumptions for capital expenditure by local authorities and to recognise their funding requirements for care in the community projects. They also maintain high investment in house condition through improvement grants, and enable Scottish Homes to maintain the development programme in 1995–96 at about the current level. Provided that local authorities and Scottish Homes target their resources on key national priorities, ensure maximum value for money, and are

145
imaginative in attracting private investment, we shall continue to make good progress in tackling Scotland's housing needs.
There will be extra cash available next year for priority public services. I am able again to meet fully our commitment to provide for an increase in real terms in the public expenditure devoted to the national health service in Scotland, year on year. In 1995–96, net expenditure on health in Scotland will exceed £4.1 billion, which is £13 million or 3.6 per cent. more cash than our plans for the current year.
That will mean that, over this year and next, spending on the health service will have increased by 3.2 per cent. over and above inflation. At that level, expenditure on the NHS in Scotland next year will be at an all-time record high of nearly £800 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Furthermore, I am increasing the allowance for community care within the local government settlement next year to around £180 million. Taken together with the growth in expenditure on the health programme, that should enable the needs of the Scottish people for care in the community to be fully met.
The maintenance of law and order and the protection of the public continue to be prime concerns for the Government. We have invested substantial public expenditure in the law and order programme, increasing spending by 25 per cent. in real terms over the past five years. Measures taken to improve value for money and to target resources on the essentials—such as civilianisation to release police officers for operational duties—are now bearing fruit. To keep up the momentum, I have maintained previous spending plans and allocated an extra £20 million over the next three years. That will ensure that we can build on the progress already made.
Most expenditure on social work in Scotland is the responsibility of the local authorities, and I have provided some £16 million in the local government settlement in recognition of new burdens. With regard to the social work expenditure within my own direct control, I have been able to provide for an increase in 1995-96 of some £1.2 million over planned spending for the present year. In addition to providing for all on-going services, the increase will allow me to provide for the initial set-up costs of the new children's reporter administration and also to give additional support to voluntary organisations.
Rural Scotland will continue to benefit from further substantial increases in support for agriculture, which will increase by £63 million next year— nearly 10 per cent. after allowing for inflation. The rural environment will also be a priority, with Scottish Natural Heritage receiving a budget of more than £120 million over the next three years.
Provision for historic buildings repair grants will be increased to £12 million a year. To complement support for the natural and built heritage, funding for the arts will exceed £220 million over three years, allowing a start next year to the main construction phase of the new museum of Scotland. There will be an increase of nearly 3 per cent. in the budget of the Scottish Arts Council.
Education and training are priorities for the Government and for me personally. The education budget of the Scottish Office Education Department will exceed £1.35 billion next year. In a tight survey for local authority capital, I have chosen to maintain capital provision for school-building at more than £70 million in
146
all three years. Numbers of students in higher and further education will continue to rise next year in line with the Government's objectives.
Earlier this year, I assumed policy responsibility for training in Scotland and am now able to plan training and vocational education on an integrated basis. I recently published the consultation paper, "Training for the Future". I am happy to announce that my plans make provision for training and vocational education expenditure of around £30 million over the next three years to fund the new measures proposed in that document. Detailed decisions will be announced in the new year in the light of the responses to the consultation paper.
My plans once again give high priority to enterprise development. In total, I have allocated more than £1.8 billion for expenditure on industry, enterprise and training over the next three years. Within that total, I have allocated £467 million to the Scottish Enterprise network for 1995–96. Those resources will allow the enterprise network to invest in training as well as to promote its other key objectives of enterprise development and environmental improvement.
The environmental budget of Scottish Enterprise will include specific provision of £3 million a year to improve brownfield land in Glasgow for housing development. For Highlands and Islands Enterprise, I have allocated a budget of £77.3 million. I am making ample provision for continued encouragement of inward investment, and I shall support the development of a new strategy for tourism with an additional £1.5 million, an increase of nearly 10 per cent., for marketing Scotland as a tourist destination.
The Government are determined to keep a firm grip on public expenditure so that the economy continues to improve. Improving the efficiency of delivering services is a policy that should apply throughout the public service—in my own Departments, in local government, in the national health service and in other public bodies. In that way we shall give good value to the people of Scotland for the £14.25 billion that this Scottish Office budget represents. We shall protect key public services and, by strengthening the business environment and our skills base in particular, we shall lay secure foundations for Scotland's future prosperity.
Mr. George Robertson: So far do the figures of the Secretary of State for Scotland depart from reality, I am tempted to think that it is almost a conjuring show—Tommy Cooper without the laughs—with horrible consequences for the people of Scotland. The public expenditure statement is nothing short of a personal humiliation for the Secretary of State for Scotland and it is a hammer blow for Scotland, which will mean fewer jobs and much worse service provision. The right hon. Gentleman lost in Cabinet the argument about the second increase in VAT on fuel—perhaps to be saved by his hon. Friends tonight. Now he has been subjected to what can be described only as a public expenditure mugging by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
The Secretary of State described the settlement as fair. If it is fair, why is total Scottish spending over the next three years to fall by more than 4 per cent. in real terms, according to the Government's Red Book, while spending in Wales will fall by only 3 per cent., overall United Kingdom spending will fall by less than 1 per cent. and

147
spending in Northern Ireland will stay the same? Why is Scotland being short-changed yet again? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain that?
Even this Government, who have elevated duplicity and fiddling the figures almost to a management science, cannot conceal the true extent of their economic failure and waste. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that even the Treasury's figures show that total public spending in Scotland will fall by £600 million in real terms over the next three years? Does he acknowledge that when the figures are adjusted for inflation, spending on housing, for example, will be cut by £125 million—almost 20 per cent., one fifth, of the housing budget—over the next three years?
How can the right hon. Gentleman avoid being aware of the devastating impact of cutting housing budgets at a time of record homelessness? Since 1978, 400,000 homeless applications have been made. Even the Government's house condition survey shows that more than half a million Scottish houses suffer from damp and condensation. In those circumstances, how can he possibly defend such massive cuts in housing finance?
Let us look at where else the axe will fall over the next three years. The right hon. Gentleman intends to hack £50 million in real terms-3.5 per cent.—from the education budget, which is already sorely pressed. What price the value of our schools, education and training, never mind the nursery education to which we are told the Government are now committed?
The right hon. Gentleman intends to cut a huge hole in the roads budget. He has not itemised where the cuts will be, so perhaps he will now tell the House which road programmes will be lost through a cut of 13.5 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. There are to be cuts in the arts, in law and order and in training. All those programmes will be cut in real terms over the next three years. Is not it true that social work services also will be cut by 5 per cent. in real terms over the next three years? Yet local authorities now have the increased burden of community care and the new children's legislation. Thousands of old people will be coming out of hospital and back into the community. In addition, the problems of drugs and alcoholism will have to be met from the fast-diminishing budget.
How on earth can the Secretary of State boast with a straight face about increases in health service cash? There is a mounting health problem in Scotland, including the tide of drugs and all that that brings. Yet today he proposed a real terms increase over three years of only 0.6 per cent.—less than 1 per cent. in real terms for Scotland's health budget. Next year, the real increase in health service spending in Scotland will be only £14 million—less than half the £30 million poured down the Health Care International drain, and that is on one failed private hospital alone.
Those are swingeing cuts by any standard and they will mean even more misery for Scots on top of the seven new Tory taxes imposed in the last two Budgets. If that were not bad enough, today's cuts in council cash mean that Scottish taxpayers can expect savage cuts in local services as well as increases in council tax bills. The figures for council spending which the Secretary of State has just announced will deepen the cash crisis already hitting Scottish local government. Is not it true that Government
148
support next year will be cut by £133 million in real terms, at a time when councils must pick up a huge tab for reorganisation that is unwanted, unnecessary and has been foisted on them, and are facing additional responsibilities for care in the community?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Strathclyde regional council alone has calculated that the cuts plus capping will mean a drop in its budget of £107 million this year and a 25 per cent. increase in council tax? We can expect the same story all over Scotland—more broken promises, more taxes and worse services.
Ministers tell us that money must be saved, so why are they prepared to waste more than £700 million on reorganisation that nobody wants, that is completely unnecessary and that was designed only for Tory party self-interest? Ministers say that they are strapped for cash, so why did they waste £30 million of taxpayers' money on a private hospital that went bust fewer than 112 days after the Secretary of State officially opened it?
Ministers bleat unconvincingly about sound public finance. Do they not remember that they squandered more than £14 billion of taxpayers' money on the poll tax? If an elected council wasted money on such a monumental scale, the Secretary of State for Scotland would be calling for surcharging.
The statement offers precious little hope to the 220,000 unemployed people in Scotland or to the 75,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year. Neither will it do anything to enhance business confidence or to boost the already ailing recovery. Scotland will pay dearly for the economic failure and waste of this lame-duck Government.
The Scottish people have been lied to by a Government who promised them lower taxes and higher spending, but who gave them higher taxes and lower spending. They are sick and tired of the Government's incompetence. This is in no way a fair settlement. It is a bad deal for Scottish business and short change for the Scottish people.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talked about a conjuring show, but it is he who is up to tricks—the same tricks as he tried to play on the House a year ago, when, in response to my public expenditure statement, he said:
"The cost of living in Scotland will rise sharply and all our public services … will be cut substantially."—[Official Report, 8 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 316.]
The reality is that inflation is 2 per cent. and not the 4 per cent. that the hon. Gentleman assumed. The increase in cash terms for all our programmes—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like the facts, but I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with his conjuring tricks. It is the hon. Gentleman who is facing humiliation.
The cash increase was 3.8 per cent, and the real terms increase across the whole Scottish Office expenditure programme, after allowing for the rise in the cost of living, was 1.8 per cent. Under this year's formula, the Scottish Office block remains as it was, with Scotland receiving 10.66 per cent. of spending in England under comparable headings. That formula was introduced by a Labour Government and has been updated in the light of population changes.
The hon. Gentleman made comparisons with Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but they bear no relation to reality. If he will examine the table in the Budget day announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, he will find that Scotland is placed well

149
in the middle of the various spending Departments. Moreover, the spending programme that I announced today, far from embodying the cuts that the hon. Gentleman tried to portray, will be more than 1 per cent. higher in terms of spending power than previous spending plans this year.
I told the House that over the next three years, spending on roads and the transport infrastructure will be no less than £1.2 billion, which will lead to a total of £2.3 billion since 1988–89. A whole range of roads is under construction at present, and more are about to start. In the summer of 1995, the Eaglesfield-Kilpatrick-Fleming section of the M6 will be completed; in December this year, the Cleuchbrae-Dinwoodie Green section; in December 1995, the Eaglesfield phase; in February 1996, the Newbridge-Edinburgh road; in the autumn of 1995, the Skye bridge, built with private sector money; and so on. When one reflects on the Labour party's plans to cut road spending, it is, to put it mildly, misleading to the country for it to pretend that we should be increasing it further.
Last year, there was a cash increase of 3.9 per cent. in the housing programme. Over the next three years, £2.8 billion will be available for housing. That will enable very considerable progress to be made, including in the next year some £300 million towards dampness and condensation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about education. He might like to reflect on the fact that, in the current expenditure year, resources have increased over the 1993-94 outturn by no less than 9.9 per cent. in cash terms and by 7.8 per cent. in real terms, on top of which our plans for next year allow for an increase of 3.7 per cent. in cash terms—a very substantial commitment to education, which would enable higher education to continue to expand.
The hon. Gentleman raised social work, and referred particularly to community care. He might like to know that the resources in housing authorities for community care will rise next year, from £25 million this year to some £45 million to £50 million, that the spending for Scottish Homes on community care will rise from some £78 million in 1993–94 to £82.5 million in 1994–95, that the budget for social work, providing inter atia for community care, will rise from £345 million to £390 million, and that the total new resources for local authorities for community care will rise from £170 million to £241 million—a rise of some 40 per cent. So the hon. Gentleman had better have another look at his figures and come back into the real world.
As for the arts programme, let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have plans to increase spending for the Arts Council by some £700,000, and spending for the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland is up by some £300,000, enabling both those important bodies to make considerable progress.
The spending power of local authorities will be 1.5 per cent. higher than was planned a year ago—an increase in cash terms of £103 million in Government support and expenditure. If local authorities paid the same attention to efficiency in the way in which they deliver services, as my staff in the Scottish Office are doing, their numbers having reduced by some 35 per cent. in the past 15 years compared with a 5 per cent. increase in local authority staff—indeed, local authorities have had a staff increase of 2,100 in the past year alone—they would find that greater resources were available to apply to local services.
150
This is a good settlement in a difficult year, during which it has been necessary to control public expenditure. I look to all Departments that spend the public's money to spend it in the most efficient way that they can.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will welcome his comments on efficiency saving, law and order, business rates, agriculture and tourism? They will, of course, be concerned that he did not find in his proposals a method of looking at a flood prevention scheme for the Tay valley, or, indeed, the upgrading of the single carriageway parts of the A9, which have been prone to accidents. Other than that, my constituents will feel that it is a good proposal in difficult economic circumstances world wide.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and take note of his concern about flood prevention, which is a matter to which my Department is giving attention.
My hon. Friend particularly welcomed the progress that has been made in business rates. He was right to do so, because as a result of contributions from both the Scottish Office block and the Treasury in recent years, rising to £440 million, we have now eliminated the discrepancy in business rates that has arisen from the high spending of Labour-controlled authorities in the past, and have brought the average Scottish poundage down from 58.1p in 1991–92 to 43.2p, and it will now remain harmonised with the uniform business rate in England. That is a major achievement. The average poundage this coming year alone will be down by 11 per cent. or 5.3p. That will have a major benefit for Scottish business.
Mr. James Wallace: Is not it a rule of thumb that when the Secretary of State compares next year's expenditure with spending on some arbitrary date in the past, he really means that spending will be less than it has been in the current year?
How much of the increase in local authority staff to which the Secretary of State referred is due to local authorities' having engaged part-time non-manual staff to clear up the poll tax mess and introduce the council tax? Is not it the case that, after 18 years of cutting back the fat, local authorities are now being asked to hack into the backbone of public services and put up council tax? In short, the message that the right hon. Gentleman's statement sends to the people of Scotland is, "Pay more, get less."
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, as he will realise if he looks at the figures. Local authorities have continued year by year to increase staff numbers, which are now higher by several thousand than they were when the Government took office. Authorities constantly tell us that we are taking powers and responsibilities away from them; but the number of Scottish Office staff has fallen by more than 30 per cent. in the past 15 years, while the provision of local government services has continued to rise.
In the past year alone, the increase in the provision of central services was no less than 9 per cent. I look to local authorities to use the substantial resources that they are being given, which account for no less than 47 per cent. of the total Scottish Office block of £14.25 billion. That

151
is more in cash terms than authorities have ever had before, and I look to them to spend it efficiently and responsibly.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that until the Labour party comes clean about how much it will spend, where it will find the money and what it will spend the money on, its media whingeing will continue to have more than a whiff of insincerity about it? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite a very tight public expenditure round, he has been able to increase resources to help the fight against crime in Scotland while at the same time maintaining our manifesto commitment to the national health service in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can confirm both those points. The law and order and protective services budget will have increased by 25 per cent. in real terms over a five-year period, and spending next year will increase by £11 million as compared with last year. That will enable the fight against crime to continue—a fight that the figures now show to be increasingly succesful.
I can also reassure my hon. Friend that spending on the national health service next year will be 53.2 per cent. higher, in real terms, than the level that we inherited from the Labour party. Last year's increase was 2.9 per cent. in real terms, and we anticipate a cash increase of 3.6 per cent. next year—substantially above the likely rate of inflation.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Is not the Secretary of State simply engaged in a conjuring trick with the roads figures? Does not he appreciate the importance of transport infrastructure to west central Scotland, where we are trying to secure inward investment to sustain jobs? In that context, will he say something about the proposals for the M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs? When will all the planning procedures and so forth be completed, and when can we expect the road to be constructed?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know better than many hon. Members how much progress has been made in road building in central Scotland. He will appreciate that the planning procedures and other details are not matters entirely for me; let me point out, however, that the 1994-95 programme was increased, in cash terms, by 5.6 per cent. on the outtum for the previous year. That is a real terms increase of 3.6 per cent., and represents a substantial commitment. The programme that we are now implementing will provide for 10 new trunk road starts over the next three years.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend consider the words of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—who suggested in a whining, whingeing way that there should be more public expenditure in Scotland—consistent with the hon. Gentleman's intention of entering the Lobby tonight to vote against a tax measure whose aim is to support and sustain existing public expenditure levels?
Mr. Lang: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, Labour Members—who constantly cry out for higher expenditure—never offer us a suggestion of where
152
that expenditure should come from. If they were being honest with the House today, they would either explain how they would raise the money through more taxation or higher borrowing, or explain where they would make cuts to make the increases that they demand.
Mr. David Marshall: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite the best efforts of Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council, Glasgow on its own cannot solve the serious problems facing the city, having as it does eight of the 10 constituencies with the highest unemployment in Scotland? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how this settlement—the worst for 20 years—can possibly benefit the people of Glasgow?
Mr. Lang: Apart from anything else, I announced in my statement over £9 million over the next three years for brownfield sites in Glasgow for the benefit of housing. Also, I am committing substantial resources to the industry, enterprise and training budget, much of which will find its way to Glasgow. In the current year, the increase was no less than 12.9 per cent. in cash terms over the previous year's outturn and we shall continue to commit £1.8 billion over the next three years to that important programme. Glasgow will undoubtedly benefit from some of that.
Mr. George Kynoch: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents in Kincardine and Deeside will recognise that he has made a fair settlement in a tight expenditure round and will welcome his emphasis on the efficient delivery of services—something that the Labour party does not seem to understand? In that context, and in view of the welcome 3.6 per cent. increase in health spending, will he be willing to review the funding arrangements by region to take account of efficient delivery of services and growth in population?
Mr. Lang: I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the distribution of resources, great care will be taken to reflect the needs of the different parts of Scotland. Not only is the overall health budget increasing by the figure repeated by my hon. Friend, but he might like to know that the programme for hospital and community health services will increase substantially next year. A figure of £201.9 million is scheduled for that, compared with an outturn in 1993-94 of £160 million. Family health services are budgeted to increase by 15.6 per cent. in cash terms during the next financial year.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State will recall that I have had considerable support from his junior Ministers on the problem of toxic waste dumping in my constituency. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), has said that the Scottish Office will play a role in clearing up the sites. Despite that, when it came to the Secretary of State's turn to do something about it, he maintained a bureaucratic attitude and has allocated no extra money for the problem. Does he feel no shame that his uncaring attitude is putting at risk the health of my constituents?
Mr. Lang: If that were my attitude, I would feel shame, but as it is not my attitude, I must rebut the hon. Gentleman's charge. I have already told him about the £3 million per annum for brownfield sites in Glasgow. I can also assure him that the environment budget of Scottish

153
Enterprise will be nearly £83 million in 1995-96 and from that substantial resources will be used for the sort of dereliction and contamination to which he referred.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Secretary of State possibly justify misspending £30 million of public money on a private hospital in Clydebank while there are proposals for the closure of thousands of beds for frail elderly patients throughout Scotland, including the proposed closure of Lochgreen hospital in my constituency and the loss of 155 beds at Bellsdyke hospital? Is not the Government's hidden agenda to shift more and more frail elderly patients out of NHS hospitals and into the private sector where they can be exploited, even to the extent of their homes being sold over their heads?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. The Health Care International hospital was funded out of the regional selective assistance budget at a time when it was not part of the Scottish Office block. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's intervention on that is irrelevant to today's decisions. It did riot come out of the health service budget and we need no lessons on health expenditure from the Labour party since we have increased health expenditure over and above the rate of inflation by no less than 53 per cent. in the past 15 years.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is difficult for hon. Members to consider the percentages that he has given us unless we get an analysis? Does he further agree that his Government have created the problems in housing and crime and that that is why we have the extra expenditure? I noticed that he never said how many jobs would be created when he spent his money on trade and industry.
Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, in each of the past two years, crime has fallen by substantial percentages. We are determined to give authorities the resources to ensure that that continues. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect that, in the past five years, some 47,000 jobs have been either created or protected by our inward investment programme, largely funded by regional selective assistance, for which the budget next year will be substantial.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I offer my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State for his continuing commitment to the mental illness specific grant? I should like more, but them it is. Why is it, however, that he and his officials continue to ignore in such a disgraceful way the housing needs of disabled people? May I remind him that many of those people, particularly wheelchair users, are unable to enter the housing market because of their low incomes? Why do he and his officials continue to ignore those people's needs?
Mr. Lang: We have not ignored the needs of disabled people when it comes to housing. The hon. Gentleman will know about the large number of small urban renewal initiatives to which we have committed resources. I understand that he has a Margaret Blackwood housing association arrangement in his constituency. I am grateful to him, however, for his remarks of appreciation on the mental illness specific grant. He might like to know that, having increased that grant from £10 million to £14
154
million last year, we shall increase it to £18 million next year—a 28 per cent. increase. That will mean that, over a four-year period, the grant will have increased sixfold.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Secretary of State concede that the budget increase is less than the inflation rate and that it comes as part of a three-year plan of cuts that amount to £600 million? At a time of greater demands through care in the community, local government reorganisation and the Children (Scotland) Bill, which will be soon, something must give if cuts are made. What is that something? Will he state whether the Highlands and Islands Enterprise money is in addition to, rather than a replacement for, objective 1 cash? Is the Scottish prison service settlement simply a prelude to privatisation?
Mr. Lang: The answer is no to the last question and yes to the question before that. On the other questions, the figures that we announced today are more than 1 per cent. higher in terms of what that spending can buy than the provisional spending plans of a year ago.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reference to the Al road, but we shall keep an eye on that one. The rest of the news, however, seems to be an unmitigated disaster. Will he deal specifically with housing? As 40,000 Scots are becoming homeless every year, is there anything in the package that will add to the supply of affordable rented housing in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: Yes, and as for disasters, let me remind the hon. Gentleman, since he is involved in farming, of the announcement of substantial increases, amounting to some £63 million, to the farming sector next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about housing?"] I am coming to housing. The hon. Gentleman said that it was an unmitigated disaster, but he might like to reflect on his farming constituents' interests, about which, presumably, he knows a little. The programme should generate about £170 million in private finance for housing, in addition to the resources going into it. Scottish Homes will have enough to produce about 8,300 housing units overall-300 more than its target for this year.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: How can the Secretary of State possibly justify the fact that, although tens of thousands of Scottish families live in damp, decaying and cold houses, he intends to cut the housing budget by 19.4 per cent. over three years? Will he confirm that, on one and the same day, he intends to lead at least most of his Scottish colleagues into the Division Lobby to impose VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. while taking away the resources to give people in Scotland warm, comfortable and dry houses?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me announce the figure of £300 million for dampness and condensation. On VAT on fuel, he will have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce substantial further increases in benefit for pensioners, for people on other benefits and for people in need. The increases include those in severe weather payments and the substantial increases in tax allowances. If the hon. Gentleman takes account of all those resources, set against a background of falling fuel

155
prices as a result of privatisation, he will recognise that the needs of the people to whom he referred will be well met.
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Will the Secretary of State refer back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about funding for housing in Glasgow? Recently, the Minister with responsibility for housing—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—toured my constituency. He was so dismayed by the condition of the houses that he immediately awarded £1.1 million to Pollok. He agreed that it was insufficient and thought that Pollok should receive far more, but he was, unfortunately, unable to deliver. What has the Secretary of State to say about that?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's constituency received a supplementary allocation and his figures wholly disregard the fact that, under the housing revenue account, housing resources between last year and the current year increased in cash terms by no less than 6.8 per cent. and that the non-HRA housing figures increased by 7.8 per cent. in the same period, which is a real-terms increase of 5.7 per cent. The figures that I announced today will enable the housing gross provision to be maintained.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Too many of our children are educated in rundown and crumbling schools. Is the Secretary of State aware that the £70 million that he announced today for capital building this year is in real terms half of what it was in 1979? Does he agree that that is a confession of failure?
Mr. Lang: No, I certainly do not agree. If I examine the spending figures under the previous Labour Government and recall the 30 per cent. cuts that were imposed right across the board, not even by Labour Chancellors but by the International Monetary Fund acting on behalf of common sense and responsibility in place of the then Labour Government, I reflect that I need no lessons from the Labour party.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the Secretary of State agree that aggregate external finance to local authorities is to increase by only 0.64 per cent. and that, once transferred community care money is stripped out, the minuscule cash increase disappears altogether? Given that the Government's GDP deflator is 3.25 per cent., does he admit that it is, in fact, a massive cut and will he state publicly that any cuts in council services and any increases in council tax beyond 3.25 per cent. are entirely due to the Government?
Mr. Lang: No. I will not admit that that is a massive cut. The hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake as
156
his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Last year, the GDP deflator at this time was around 4 per cent. and the inflation rate was around 2 per cent. This year, the GDP deflator is 3.25 per cent. and the inflation rate at present is running at 2 per cent. Provided that inflation does not rise to the levels that the hon. Gentleman is assuming, the figures that he cited are incorrect. The hon. Gentleman should also reflect on the fact that aggregate external finance is 45 per cent. higher per head in Scotland than in England.
Mr. Thomas Graham: The Secretary of State will be aware that in all our constituencies there are growing queues of people looking for homes. In the latest payment round, the Secretary of State allocated Renfrew district four houses for the homeless. Today's announcement means that thousands of people will continue to be homeless. When will the misery queue end? When will the Government act to ensure that the people of Scotland have a future, a home and the right to live in comfort?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. Gross expenditure on housing in 1995–96 will be maintained at 1994–95 planned levels in cash terms. Expenditure per house continues to rise in cash terms—from £667 per house in the current year to no less than £717 at the end of the three-year survey.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: How much has been made this year from the sale of the assets of the industrial sites in the five new towns? How much does he intend to get from such sales next year and what does he intend to do with the money?
Mr. Lang: The figures do not form part of the public expenditure announcement that I am making today, but I have made substantial provision for the new towns to enable them to complete their task as they approach wind-up.
Dr. John Reid: The biggest concern of the people of Scotland, and the greatest blight on Scotland, remains unemployment. Far from helping to reduce unemployment, today's statement will increase it. When the Secretary of State says that wage increases will be fully funded out of efficiency savings, does not that mean that by definition there will be fewer services, or the same level of services with fewer people providing them? In other words, one person's wage increase will be another person's redundancy notice. Given the present level of unemployment in Scotland, does the Secretary of State think that that is a sensible policy to follow?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is wrong; I am talking about the more efficient delivery of services. However, he may like to know that the enterprise budget of Scottish Enterprise—£155 million for the forthcoming year—will allow it to assist many companies and to help to create or safeguard about 42,000 jobs.

Points of Order
4.20 pm
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In connection with the Council's own resources decision and the European Communities (Finance) Bill, which we shall consider tomorrow, I thought that you would be interested in the following account.
In April 1994 the Select Committee on European Legislation considered the own resources decision that was about to be made, and, against the background of the Government's explanatory memorandum as provided by the Paymaster General of the day, in paragraph 10.5 of our report we wrote:
"In the light of the Paymaster General's account of the Government's position and the conclusions already reached in the Council, we do not feel that there is practical advantage in further consideration of this proposal. We take it that, as unanimity is required, this amended proposal cannot be proceeded with in the face of the Government's opposition. If this amended proposal were to be further changed, we would expect a further round of Scrutiny to be initiated. Were the Government to change its view on the present unamended proposal we would expect to be informed before any decision were taken in the Council."
As you will know, Madam Speaker, a resolution of the House dated October 1990 clearly says that there would not in any reasonable circumstances be any removal of a reserve imposed by resolution of the House through the Select Committee on European Legislation, if a matter of such importance were to be considered in the Council of Ministers.
I believe that there was no such reference back to the Select Committee before the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Brussels and agreed to what had been decided by other member states on the own resources decision. I should therefore be glad if you, Madam Speaker, considered that point. It seems to me that there has been a prima facie breach of the resolution of the House of October 1990.
Madam Speaker: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but it seems to me to be a matter of interest rather than material for a point of order. It is something that the hon. Gentleman might raise in debate—tomorrow perhaps—to extract a reply from the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today the Government announced the single regeneration budget, which I believe is about £4 billion over the next three years. The Department of the Environment has written to every hon. Member—either to all 651 of us or at least to all those affected—to tell us the good news, but, unfortunately, because of the volume of the document, the House authorities have not been able to distribute the information through the Members' notice board, and most hon. Members do not know that the document is tucked away near the office of the Liberal Democrats.
I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, could look into the matter. I have already spoken to the Deputy Serjeant at Arms and asked him to ensure that the material is
158
distributed, so that in future we can all be given such good news. It must be good news when £2.7 million is to come to Portland, in my constituency, to help regenerate jobs.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appears to be behaving like Pat the Post. I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms, who normally takes care of such matters, will ensure that the document is distributed as soon as possible. Copies for 651 Members represent a great volume of mail for our board to deal with, and I am sure that it will all be distributed as speedily as possible.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming debate on Question [29 November].

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

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

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

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

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  Madam Speaker: I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the first Ways and Means motion. It may be convenient if, at this stage, I also announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the motion on public expenditure, which is being debated together with the Budget resolutions.
  4.24 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The economic policies of the Chancellor, of which this Budget is an essential part, are long term. The first priority for a successful industrial and commercial policy is to establish economic conditions within which enterprise can flourish. The single most important part Government can play in fostering growth and improving competitiveness is to provide a stable macro-economic background.
  The Government's' overall economic objective is to promote sustained economic growth and higher living standards. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor presented the Government's taxation and spending plans for the next three years, enshrining those guiding principles. This was a Budget that concentrated on securing a healthy, lasting recovery. This was a Budget to reduce long-term unemployment and to get us out of debt. It offers the best prospect that the British people have faced for decades to enjoy the benefits of growth which does not pass through illusory boom to painful bust.
  Overhauling the tax system every year can often make good newspaper headlines, but it can also have an unfortunate effect on the economy. Our priority is, as it must be, to ensure sustained, low-inflationary growth, which is our best chance of delivering the higher living standards that our people expect and deserve. Low inflation and sound public finances are an essential prerequisite for a successful and expanding economy. They are not optional extras.
  160
  A stable macro-economic environment is vital to give business the confidence it needs to invest in the future. Inflation is the enemy of investment; it erodes profits and encourages safety-first, short-term attitudes. That is why the Chancellor set a target for underlying inflation of 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. and aimed for the bottom half of that range. Underlying inflation is, at 2 per cent., at its lowest level for a generation. It has been below 3 per cent. for 13 consecutive months, the longest run since 1964.
  Our public finances are firmly on track to be in balance by 1998 and in surplus by the end of the decade. Total Government spending is set to fall by £28 billion over the next three years. That is not just the effect of low inflation, welcome though that is. It involves real spending cuts to reduce further the amount of national income taken by the state.
  Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gas and fuel tax is being imposed largely because the time that we spent in the exchange rate mechanism when we should have got out led to a massive increase in our public sector borrowing requirement? It went up to £50 billion with the accumulated social security and other costs. In fact, this new tax, which amounts to a breaking of our tax pledges in the manifesto in terms of both tax and public expenditure, is being imposed simply to retrieve the mistakes made as a result of remaining stubbornly in the exchange rate mechanism when we should have come out.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am afraid that I must say that many of my hon. Friend's speeches are fairly repetitious. One would think that the whole of human history started and ended with our leaving the exchange rate mechanism.
  The Chancellor has explained clearly the overall balance that his judgment in the Budget is intended to achieve. I am now setting out what I believe to be the important background to that. That background, coupled with the continued flow of good economic forecasts, provides one of the most optimistic scenarios for industry and commerce that many of us can remember.
  The House is all too familiar with obligatory attempts by the Opposition to undermine any announcement or statement that portrays this country in a favourable light. What the Opposition cannot ignore is the massive vote of confidence from the outside world when it confirms its judgments about what is actually happening in the British domestic economy. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that the UK economy will be the fastest-growing major economy in the European Union this year. Our exports have soared to all-time record levels, inward investment is transforming our older, more traditional, workplaces and nation after nation is copying the ideas developed here to privatise our industries and deregulate our practices. It is this that gives the lie to the Leader of the Opposition's assertion in his opening speech on the Budget that we have no long-term strategy.
  It is clear for all who want to see that we are delivering a strong and prosperous economy. What is more, we are putting in place the conditions to ensure that it remains that way. The Labour party simply cannot understand that the UK's economy has been transformed over the past decade.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: In Strathclyde, since the Tories came to

  161
  power, we have lost more than half our manufacturing jobs—more than 166,000 jobs. In the first half of 1990, we lost 30 per cent. of manufacturing investment. In 1994, we have lost 30 per cent. of manufacturing investment in Britain. Is the Minister saying that the glory hole is round the corner? We have heard that, yet the Tories are going on and on with their mismanagement of our manufacturing base.
  Mr. Heseltine: The way in which the hon. Member seeks constantly to run down the achievements of the Scottish people is immensely dispiriting. The Scottish people are attracting massive inward investment from some of the world's most advanced high-technology companies. Anybody who goes to Scotland and sees what is happening in Glasgow and Edinburgh, to the central belt and to silicon glen, knows perfectly well that the Scotland depicted by Labour Members is far divorced from the reality of what is being achieved north of the border.
  It is clear, for all who have their eyes open enough to see, that we are delivering a strong and prosperous economy. What is more, we are putting in place the conditions to ensure that we keep it that way. The hard reality is that the Labour party simply cannot understand the way in which we have brought about that remarkable transformation and improvement.
  Mr. Graham: We are not strong and prosperous in Scotland.
  Mr. Heseltine: Let me explain—
  Mr. Graham: Go on, explain.
  Mr. Heseltine: Let me explain, for the benefit of Labour Members, exactly what it is that has so—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) must restrain himself. He has made one intervention.
  Mr. Heseltine: Let me explain to the Labour party exactly what has so transformed our economy over the past decade and a half.
  In the 1980s, productivity grew faster in this country than in any other major industrialised country. Investment in plant and machinery has risen by 54 per cent. since 1979. Business investment has risen by 35 per cent. over the same period. Wherever one travels outside the country, people pay tribute to the transformation that has taken place in British economic performance. Our industrial and commercial managers know just how exciting a prospect that is for their products and their services out there in the world markets. Here in the United Kingdom, the Opposition, day after day, undermine and underplay our achievements and our resolve to build on them.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The Engineering Employers Federation report before the Budget showed that manufacturing investment by volume had fallen by 24 per cent. since 1990 and that engineering investment had fallen in every quarter since the last quarter of 1989. In fact, Mr. Tim Melville Ross of the Institute of Directors said that the Budget was a missed
  162
  opportunity, that it merely tinkered at the edges of business and that it did not deal with the fundamental long-term growth needs of our manufacturing industry.
  Mr. Heseltine: It is obvious that the hon. Member has not followed the latest surveys of industrial confidence, which tell a totally different story. We have, in fact, a fast-growing, low-inflation economy with a competitive currency. The challenge for the Chancellor is to keep in place the disciplines that have brought that about. The Budget has been widely praised precisely because he has achieved that objective.
  The Chancellor has added to the comprehensive improvements in our export credit arrangements in a further set of changes to enable our companies to compete overseas. He has announced changes in our insolvency law which will encourage a rescue culture in the United Kingdom. At the same time he has made some constructive improvements to help with incentives that will encourage the availability of finance for small businesses. He has raised the value added tax threshold for small businesses and helped them also by reducing employers' national insurance contributions for low earners. He has eased administrative burdens on 100,000 small businesses by increasing the threshold for making quarterly returns to the Inland Revenue. In addition, he has introduced a £600 million package of transitional relief for uniform business rates, which again will be of special benefit to smaller companies.
  Perhaps the most unexpected and particularly welcome development in economic policy has been the growing awareness that, unlike all earlier economic revivals in this country, we are now enjoying an improvement that is based on export growth. We can add to that the latest CBI forecast of investment intentions, which shows that companies expect to see a growth of over 11 per cent. in manufacturing investment next year. The House will recognise why we have the economic background for which we have so long striven but hitherto failed to achieve and good grounds for believing that the exciting trends that are now under way will continue.
  Perhaps the most interesting example is that a year ago commentators were confidently predicting a widening trade deficit as imports were sucked in as a result of a consumer-led surge in activity. Consumer demand has risen by 2.3 per cent. over the past 12 months. But while total imports have increased by 4 per cent., exports have risen by 11 per cent. The current account deficit is expected to halve this year and to continue falling next year. Our underlying exports to the European Union are up 17 per cent. on a year ago, although the European economies have grown by only 5 per cent. in nominal terms. The upturn in economic activity in Europe means expanding markets and opportunities for our exports. Consequently, as the recovery has strengthened, growth has come increasingly from exports.
  The markets of the Pacific include many with consistently high economic growth rates. It is especially encouraging to see that our exports to China grew by 47 per cent. between 1992 and 1993. More recently, our exports to Malaysia in the year so far have grown by 42 per cent., to South Korea by 31 per cent. and to Singapore by 22 per cent. It is in competition with others that we can really see whether we are making progress. For decades, our world share of manufactured exports by

  163
  volume fell back. We halted that decline by the mid-1980s. Since then our share of manufactured exports has broadly held.
  Recently our exporters have been able to take advantage of the pick-up in activity. Our market share for manufactured exports is set to increase this year, and it is expected to do so again the year after. Manufactured exports are expected to rise by nearly 10 per cent. in 1994 and by 8 per cent. in 1995.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend referred to exports to China. Does he agree that the measures taken in the Budget to strengthen ECGD support to China, Indonesia and other countries will assist exports in that direction?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extremely helpful to our exporters by consistently improving the competitive terms of ECGD. That is a fact that has been widely admired and praised by the companies on which our exports depend.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that many of us recently met representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation from Yorkshire. They are not entirely critical of the Government, but they are extremely concerned that the Budget did not deliver much help to those engaged in the engineering world. They are extremely worried that a rather neutral Budget will be coupled with an increase in interest rates, which would be damaging to what they might see as any improvement.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman makes a selective point. He fails to reflect on the confidence that is being indicated. I mentioned the CBI's survey and quoted figures that appear in it. Confidence is felt by British exporters across a wide area. If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the record that is being achieved by British exporters in manufacturing and engineering, he will see that that is one of the most exciting backgrounds that we have had for many a long year.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed to the expansion in manufacturing in this country and to our exports. However, that is only part of the picture. If we consider the most successful economies of Japan and America, it is clear that the number of people employed in manufacturing industry is shrinking rapidly. They are being replaced by people in knowledge-based services and industries which are related to manufacturing. If we look only at investment in manufacturing, we do not look at the whole picture. The strength of our economy is that we have knowledge-based industries coming through.
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly right and that is why I referred to business investment. As anyone who studies these matters is fully aware, the reclassification that is taking place as manufacturing companies out-source their procurement into the service industries is making a mockery of much of the historical figure base. The important aspect is to consider the overall position in the economy.
  164
  The Hong Kong economy, one of the most dynamic economies in the world, is now down to 15 per cent. manufacturing because the whole basis of manufacturing has shifted to the southern province of China. No one would question the vibrancy of the Hong Kong economy. We must take the broad view. There is no doubt that in our economy today we are losing jobs in manufacturing, but a very exciting future is on offer to us as we attract throughout the United Kingdom a larger and larger proportion of the investment into the European Union.
  Our manufacturing exports are rising and are on a rising trend which is likely to improve our position in world trade. Our exporters have earned that success by keeping their costs down and by raising their productivity. Over the past year, manufacturing productivity has risen by 6 per cent., far outstripping the growth in earnings. As a result, unit wage costs have actually fallen by nearly 1.5 per cent. That is the biggest fall since records began in 1970.
  Our manufacturers have also succeeded in improving their performance in domestic markets so that while exports continue to rise, imports are little changed. Our current account deficit has fallen sharply this year. In the last quarter, it stood at less than £0.7 billion compared with £3.1 billion for the same period a year ago. An improving balance of payments is remarkable at a time when the economy is growing so strongly.
  In support of that, the Government have put in place the most comprehensive export support strategy that we have ever seen in this country. That has been done in partnership with the private sector. There are now 108 middle managers seconded by Britain's leading companies into my Department to support our exporters across our 80 principal markets. We are now recruiting another 70 experienced exporters to bring the rapidly growing chain of Business Links into direct contact with our overseas markets.
  It is no wonder that today the commentators are talking of closing the balance of payments gap. It is particularly satisfying that all those trends that I have described are now feeding through into the employment market.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The President said that all the trends are in the right direction. Why, then, do we need the extra percentage of VAT on fuel?
  Mr. Heseltine: Because the Government are determined to maintain the disciplines that have enabled the Chancellor to produce a Budget which has gained the confidence of the markets and which are essential prerequisites to maintaining the growth upon which future prosperity depends. That is in stark contrast to the policies that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has advocated and supported all his life.
  The clearest sign that things are beginning to work as the whole House would wish is that unemployment has been falling for nine successive months and is now more than 300,000 lower than a year ago. It is nearly 500,000 lower than two years ago. The United Kingdom is the only major economy in Europe where unemployment has fallen over the past year. The welcome measures that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget last week to help the long-term unemployed back to work will ensure that that rapidly improving picture continues to improve further.

  165
  There has been much debate over the past few days about energy prices. I should like to set the debate in context. The Opposition have always said that there was no way of freeing the utilities from state control. They said that they were "natural monopolies" and that there was no alternative to public ownership. As usual, they were wrong.
  We have introduced competition wherever possible. There are now 36 companies supplying electricity—twice the number before privatisation. Forty companies now supply natural gas. There was only British Gas before privatisation. Where competition was not possible, we introduced tough and transparent regulation to replicate market pressures.
  Let us consider the results. Productivity in the industries has leapt. The electricity generators have increased their labour productivity by more than 50 per cent. since 1990. Improved efficiency has led to higher rates of return. Before privatisation, the regional electricity companies were accustomed to rates of return on their capital employed as low as 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. Last year, they earned a rate of return of 20 per cent. As a result, investment has shot ahead.
  Real investment in the electricity industry has increased by more than 10 per cent. since privatisation. That can be compared with the record of the last Labour Government when the investment programmes were cut by 25 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.
  No one has any doubt about the fact that they would rather not see price increases, but let us get the issue into perspective. Under the Labour Government, electricity prices in real terms rose by 22 per cent. in five years. Under the Conservatives, and allowing for the full impact of VAT, the equivalent figure today would be about 17.5 per cent. in 15 years.
  The improvements are not restricted to electricity. Between 1974 and 1979, real industrial coal prices rose by 30 per cent. Between 1979 and 1994, they fell by nearly 50 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, domestic coal prices increased by 18 per cent. Since we came to power, they have been held broadly stable in real terms.
  British Gas has increased its level of investment by 200 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. Customers, too, have seen major improvements, with falling prices and improved service quality. The average gas consumer has benefited from a fall in real prices since privatisation of 23 per cent. before VAT.
  Let me demonstrate what that means. A rough calculation shows that the average domestic gas bill in the last year before privatisation was £422 in today's money. Including the full effects of VAT, today that average bill would be £382 and that is before any discount under the new direct debit proposal.
  Industrial customers have also benefited. Their real gas prices have fallen by 35 per cent. since privatisation. Between 1974 and 1979, far from falling by 35 per cent., their prices rose by 75 per cent. What does that mean? It means that faced with the increased prices under a Labour Government with a nationalised industry, Labour tried to hide the fact that prices were going up by making the industries bear the heaviest burden and pass the price increases on to their customers. Industry took the blame as opposed to the Labour Government. However, that did not make the slightest difference because the prices had
  166
  to be paid by the consumer. That is the stark difference between what has happened under this Government and what happened under the previous Labour Government.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: While the President is taking us on this tour of the public utilities which have been privatised, will he respond to his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—Tarzan's monkey—who, a few nights ago in the Chamber, criticised the greed of the East Surrey water company for its high profits and high prices? Will the right hon. Gentleman note that his own Parliamentary Private Secretary criticised the greed of privatised water companies and their excessive charges, and that he criticised Ofwat for doing nothing? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about those excessive charges for water, gas and electricity?
  Mr. Heseltine: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why we have seen increases in water prices. It is because, from 1976 to 1979, the Labour party slaughtered the capital investment programmes of the water industry, not because it wanted to but because it got the economy into such a mess that international bankers did it. In the same way, it cut electricity capital investments, because it had no choice. They were public sector programmes, and they were cut to ribbons. I am fascinated to see that Opposition Members think that that is funny. We are now seeing expanding investment programmes in the water industry to make good the deficiencies left behind by the Labour party.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the decision of the chairman of British Gas to bring forward the direct debit discount scheme, which makes gas even cheaper for my constituents? Will he call on the chairman of British Gas to extend that discount scheme to all prompt payers, not just those who pay by direct debit?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings me precisely to the point that I now make. British Gas is shortly, as the House knows, to be affected by legislation which has been promised in the Gracious Speech, and we are going to introduce yet further competitive pressures into that industry. In fact, the private sector, which of course will seek the opportunities that that will make available, is talking not about price increases in a few years but about price reductions, and in terms of prices 10 per cent. lower than we would otherwise see. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but British Gas has already said that, some time toward the middle of next year, it intends to extend the direct debit benefits for prompt payers into a much wider category of people. Once again, we can see that gains are being distributed between customers, shareholders and taxpayers and, in the case of water and electricity, among those who care about the quality of the environment as well.
  Having listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition last week, I was amazed at the lack of integrity that underlay the case that he put forward. At no stage were his standards lower than when he spoke about regenerating economic activity in our inner cities, coal communities and steel communities. I remember Labour's inner-city policies of 1979. They consisted of a slush fund at the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Environment which was used to add to the public

  167
  expenditure programmes that were already in place—a little more on this road scheme, a little more on that school programme or on a minor environmental project.
  The long-term decline that characterised our older inner cities or industrial areas had been completely ignored by the Labour party. The tinkering at the edges of the programmes that I have mentioned was actually tinkering with programmes which themselves were part of the reason for the long-term decline of urban areas.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Almost by accident, the right hon. Gentleman has stumbled on one of the issues of the debate, which is integrity. What about the integrity of himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends—the promise of the Prime Minister in the House, the promise of the Prime Minister to the British people in the general election campaign, and the promise of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), not to increase VAT or to extend its scope? Was there any integrity in those promises?
  Mr. Heseltine: I shall come to the question of integrity—(Interruption.] I shall refer, three pages on, to integrity, and then we will have a few questions to ask about the Leader of the Opposition, what he believes in and what he stands for.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that more than one third of the national health service budget goes on pensioners and that the increase in VAT almost exactly mirrors the increased spending on the national health service? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, taking also into account the fact that pensioners will receive substantial assistance with the payment of bills, pensioners, above all, will benefit from the increase in VAT, regardless of what they have been led to believe by the Labour party?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to express concern. The whole House will be preoccupied to make sure that we have the most successful and fastest-growing economy that we can afford, because that is the only way in which we will be able to enhance the living standards of our pensioners.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No.
  The Leader of the Opposition sought to suggest that, in some way, the Labour Government were preoccupied with the regeneration of our inner cities. The truth is that, within our inner cities today, a transformation of historic proportions is under way.
  London's east end is home to one of the biggest urban regeneration projects to be found anywhere in the world. The banks of the Mersey, the Tyne and the Tees, and the centres of Birmingham, Leeds, Salford, Manchester and many other cities are being transformed as the Government's philosophy of creating partnerships between the public and private sectors brings new life and new investment into our most hard-pressed areas. All the ideas that have made that transformation possible have been introduced by Conservative Governments—for example, the derelict land grant, urban development
  168
  corporations, enterprise zones, city challenge, regional challenge, housing action trusts or English partnerships. All of them and more are replacing the inertia and inadequacy of Labour councils with a new dynamism and new hope.
  The Leader of the Opposition was at his most revealing when he said that people are fed up with privatisation. What an extraordinary admission. He is the man who is trying to persuade his party to repeal clause 4, all for a cause with which he now concludes that the people are fed up. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: if people are so fed up, why does he not stick to the principles that he has espoused all his life, and take those industries back into state ownership?
  If there is a great yearning for the triumphant recapture of the commanding heights of the economy, why is the right hon. Gentleman burning the text books, hauling down the flags and preparing his own children for the heady world of competitive selection? Dreary egalitarianism may be good enough to feed the boyos in Bolsover, but the closer the leaders of the left get to the pinnacles of power, the more they yearn to turn their children into tiny Tory tots.
  Anyway, just suppose for one instant that the people are fed up, which I wholly reject: does that constitute the standard by which political leadership should be judged? Have the fearless leaders of yesterday's socialism now been replaced by a leader so much reduced by their failures that he casts about to determine which way the crowd is running so that he can dash in front and shout, "Follow me"? It certainly looks like it. The Leader of the Opposition is so ashamed that he denies that he ever was a member of CND. He spent the 1980s arguing that we should get out of Europe. By the 1990s, he has become so mesmerised by the social chapter and the minimum wage that he cannot sell out to Europe fast enough. What a story. On privatisation, grant-maintained schools and clause 4—a veritable Henry V. Yesterday, he was urging his dear friends once more into the breach. Today, he is stuffing the holes in the wall with all that is left of his dumped convictions.
  I tell the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party that privatisation has brought about one of the most successful industrial revolutions in the country's history. It has turned producer-dominated monopolies into world-class companies. It has opened up competition, created choice, brought down prices and stimulated investment. It has broken up London-dominated monopolies and restored power to the provinces. It has led to vast improvements in productivity. It has played a part in leading British exports to the highest levels that we have ever known. It has led to a worldwide revolution in attitudes in virtually every significant country in the world. But all that the Leader of the Opposition can say is that "people are fed up".
  The truth is that the only people with cause to be fed up with the success of privatisation are the trade unions, which have seen their power base destroyed as the prop of taxpayers' money was pulled from under them. The only people with cause to be fed up with privatisation are Opposition Members, because they have lost the industrial playthings which they manipulated and mismanaged so grossly. In the process, they have sat for 16 years where they naturally belong—on the Opposition Benches. This Budget will play its part in keeping them there.
  5 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 4, after 'tax' insert
  `other than in respect of value added tax on fuel and power for domestic or charity use'.
  It is quite clear that, whatever the President of the Board of Trade came to the Chamber to do today, he did not come to defend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision to impose 17.5 per cent. value added tax on people's fuel bills. Indeed, had it not been for my intervention, he probably would not have touched on the subject at all.
  Claims about the impact of Tory Budgets often look forlorn, if not foolhardy, in retrospect. This year's Budget looked tawdry from the start. We have had enough Tory Budgets—17 in 16 years—to make a long-term judgment on that score.
  Last week the Chancellor set out his priorities: keeping the economy on track, job creation and greater prosperity, and the prevention of the emergence of a deprived underclass—I wonder where he has been for the past 16 years—in order to strengthen the economy in the longer term. Fairness was not one of his priorities; clearly, self-delusion was.
  We have heard those claims before. In 1983, Lord Howe said:
  "This is a Budget for that recovery".—[Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 157.]
  In 1986 Lord Lawson said:
  "these are…routes to more jobs, and jobs that last." —[Official Report, 18 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 166.]
  However, they did not. The President's claim in his speech this afternoon that the British economy has been "transformed" has a rather jaded ring because that is exactly what Lord Lawson said in his Budget speech in 1988. He said:
  "The plain fact is that the British economy has been transformed."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 993.]
  He went on to claim an economic miracle, and of course then came the crash. The right hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake.
  In 1992, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) claimed:
  "This year's Budget is a Budget for recovery".
  He went on to say:
  "Over the past decade our belief in low taxation has brought unparalleled growth".—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 745–61.]
  They were bogus claims of economic miracles by false prophets which, in reality, did not stand the test of time.
  Far from lowering taxes, the Tories have literally created a tax mountain out of a molehill. From last week's Budget we know that in 1996–97, taxes will take up a record 36.3 per cent. of the average earnings of a couple with two children. That is how far the Government have got with lowering taxes. When Labour left office, the comparable figure was 32.2 per cent.
  Having created their tax mountain, Tory Budgets have devastated manufacturing industry—indeed, here Tory policies have made a molehill from a mountain. Their bust-boom-bust policies have reduced the contribution of manufacturing to gross domestic product by a staggering seven percentage points since 1979. The manufacturing contribution has decreased from 28.5 to 21.7 per cent. of
  170
  GDP—a 25 per cent. reduction. Manufacturing output is barely above what it was 20 years ago. So much for the President's "transformation".
  Manufacturing investment fell by 30 per cent. between the first half of 1990 and the first half of this year. Manufacturing investment was at an all-time low as a proportion of GDP in the first half of this year according to Professor Godley, one of the Chancellor's seven wise men. Even the most optimistic Tory Members must face reality some time—or, as their party vice-chairman, Mr. John Maples, would have it, "face the killer facts".
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: How can I refuse the star of Ally Pally?
  Mr. Brandreth: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: no party is complete without me. I am grateful to him for giving way. He spoke about reality. In my part of the world, the reality is yearly growth of 4 per cent., productivity up by 6 per cent. and exports up by 8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman obviously deplores the increases in taxation. Before he leaves that subject, will he explain to the House, if it were his Budget, which taxes and which elements of public expenditure he would cut or increase? Can he be specific about that?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is so amusing that if I live long enough to celebrate my 25 years in the House next year perhaps I will invite him to do a star turn at that party, too. I assure him that I do not intend to leave the subject of taxation for a considerable time.
  The hon. Gentleman must know that his constituents' living standards are falling. As for alternatives, and since he has asked me, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made it quite clear that we advocate a number of steps which would cover the cost of abandoning VAT. The money can come from tightening up the treatment of executive share options. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that? It can come from part of the proceeds of a windfall levy on privatised utilities similar to that which Lady Thatcher charged the banks. The money can come from the proceeds of ending tax relief for private medical insurance. It can come from steps to end commercial avoidance of stamp duty.
  In future years, the money can come from the decision to draw on some of the gains of retaining the stamp duty charge on share transactions, which the Red Book says will be dropped. Let us not forget about dropping the VAT increase, which would reduce slightly our contribution to the European Union. In this Budget, the Chancellor is reducing the duty on champagne. Why does he feel that that is so essential to the well-being of the British economy at the same time as he imposes VAT on the fuel bills of pensioners?
  Taxes are higher under the Tories. Total social security payments are higher, not because of greater generosity but because of the huge increase in the number of claimants. The public sector borrowing requirement is higher at £46 billion—7 per cent. of GDP. Government expenditure as a share of GDP is higher. All the Tory party's old

  171
  shibboleths and their claims about the effectiveness of their economic policies are as dust when set beside the "killer facts", as Mr. Maples would have it.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I know that the hon. Gentleman is nervous, but that is a little presumptuous.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am very confused today. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor made it quite clear that he cut the tax on champagne and sparkling wine only because he was obliged to do so under an international agreement— and the hon. Gentleman knows where that agreement came from. In order to avoid all this nonsense, will he tell the people the score? If Labour is returned to power, will he give a commitment to cut VAT on fuel and power from 17.5 per cent. to the present level? Would that not clarify the situation?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman asks a fatuous question. He knows that we do not know what the Chancellor will have in his Budget next year, so why should we announce now what we will do in a Budget in two or three years' time? I am happy to have the hon. Gentleman's comforting support in assuming that there will be a Labour Government after the next general election. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I do not agree that the tax on champagne was cut because of the dreadful European Union. It occurred because of an international agreement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted voluntarily, but it was not because of the European Union.
  The boastfulness of the President's speech was reminiscent of the boastfulness of the Thatcher-Lawson-Major-Lamont years, which have been exposed as so much waste, so much unfairness and so much failure. What of Britain in the world? The President is fond of talking about the need for world-class performance. He is correct in that at least, but has that happened as the result of 17 Tory Budgets? No—indeed, the reverse is true. Britain is falling behind. Our country has been undermined by Tory incompetence, as comparisons make only too clear. While Britain's manufacturing base has shrunk, those of Germany, Japan and the United States of America have grown.
  Our country has gone down the league table of the seven largest economies in the world and has been overtaken by Italy. In output per capita, Britain has been overtaken by Hong Kong and Singapore. Britain had a £4 billion trade deficit with the European Union last year. We have trade deficits with 10 of the richest nations in the world and trade surpluses with 10 of the poorest.
  The President boasts of export-led growth, but our performance, even now, is no better than that of the United States of America or than that of the European Union average. No matter how he presents the figures, the fact remains that Britain's share of world trade fell from 5.4 per cent. in 1979 to 5.1 per cent. in 1993.
  Mr. James Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I will not give way for the moment.
  172
  Between 1979 and 1993, despite the benefits of North sea oil, Britain's average annual growth rate lagged behind that of every member of the G7 and every member of the European Union except Denmark and Greece. Inequalities have grown after the Tory Budgets. By 1990, 11.5 million people had an income less than half the national average. In the 1970s, the figure was half that. Similarly, the number—
  Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not giving way for the moment.
  The number of children living in families with incomes below the poverty line has trebled from 1.4 million to 4.1 million. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, as many as 4 million women—more than one third of the female work force in Britain—earn less than two thirds of the median of male weekly earnings. Those are some of the international comparisons, some of the indicators and some of the killer facts about the record on 17 Tory Budgets.
  The record is no better on training. The United Kingdom ranks 21st out of 22 countries in the OECD skills league tables—second bottom. We have the second-lowest proportion of 18-year-olds in full-time education, yet Government investment in training is to be cut by 5.1 per cent. next year, following cuts of £400 million since 1990–91.
  After such an unprecedented period in office—16 Tory years and 17 Tory Budgets—the Prime Minister claims to want to create a nation at ease with itself, yet the rich get richer and the gap between top earners and the rest widen year by year. Do not take my word for that. Hon. Members should listen to Mr. John Maples, vice-chairman of the Conservative party, who said:
  "The reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest who are getting poorer. The gap between the highest and the lowest paid worker is larger now than at any time since records began in 1886."
  It is no good the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor protesting. As Mr. Maples said in his candid memorandum:
  "What we are saying is at odds with their experience which leads them to conclude we are 'out of touch', 'lying', 'don't care'."
  Of course, I could not possibly say that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government are lying, but Mr. Maples could— [Interruption.] Oh yes he did. That is what he implied.
  It is no wonder that people are angry when chairmen, chief executives and directors make free with company cash, bonuses, share options and incredible salary increases. There is no control, no accountability, no shame and no justification—except, apparently, from the President. None of his Cabinet colleagues have supported him in that. He talks of world-class companies, yet such abuse and greed are not seen or thought necessary in Germany or Japan—which, in truth, do have world-class

  173
  economies. Nor are domestic private sector monopolies comparable with truly international companies, which inevitably have to compete in global markets.
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not giving way.
  We all know that in water, electricity arid gas companies, grotesque personal rewards—based not on merit or performance but on self-interest—in shares, bonuses and salaries have been commonplace. Where are the Government's checks, where are the regulators? For example, the chairman of Midland Electricity was earning £68,000 a year before privatisation. He now earns more than £231,000. Of course, on top of that he is estimated to have had more than £900,000 total share option profits. Profits and salaries are just as lucrative for the chairmen of the other 11 regional electricity companies that the President was so keen to praise in his speech.
  Inevitably, the chief executive of British Gas took his turn. Observing the free-for-all, he did not just say, "Me too", he said, "Me two hundred thousand." The President agreed, approved and supported the £4,000 a week rise. He did nothing to prevent it, just as he has done nothing in other cases.
  Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is contemptible for the President to defend the chief executive of British Gas getting a £4,000 a week rise, while at the same time he denounces the proposition that a low-paid worker should have a wage of £150 a week? Is that not disgraceful and contemptible?
  Dr. Cunningham: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
  Why did the President proclaim his support for such extravagant and unmerited pay awards? Well, they are his friends, his appointees and supporters of the Tory party. We might say that they are all the President's men. Why does he believe that chief executives, part-time chairmen and directors need world-class salaries and perks to make them perform well, when he imposes third-class pay and conditions on the vast majority of men and women in Britain to encourage them to work well? He is denying the social chapter benefits to our people while allowing his friends and supporters carte blanche to rip off consumers and make themselves rich.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services, at least, deserves one cheer. He, if no one else in Government, has recognised—here I quote from his speech in Belfast a few days ago—that there has been a "widening of earnings differentials" during the last 16 years in Britain. He acknowledged that inequalities had increased. He said:
  "This lies behind many of our social problems…It may play a major part in the break-up of families…and a growing welfare dependency…It may even play a part in explaining delinquency and crime."
  The right hon. Gentleman said all that in his speech, but typically he claimed that none of it has anything to do with the Government and Government policies. He dismisses the minimum wage as a contribution to a solution and instead presses on with policies that increase dependency on social security and subsidise bad employers and poverty pay. He says that more
  174
  skills are the answer, yet the Budget slashes the training programme by several hundred million pounds. Is it any wonder, to quote again John Maples on the Tory party, that the electorate "think we are stupid"?
  There is nothing in the Budget to promote and sustain significant long-term investment in the British economy. There is nothing to encourage and direct more profit away from dividends and into capital investment. The Heritage Secretary wanted change and, so we were told, did the Chancellor—but Lord Hanson did not. He leant on the Prime Minister who, predictably, caved in and the industrial finance initiative was dead.
  The Budget has cut Government investment by 17.7 per cent. in real terms; it contains a 16.6 per cent. real cut in local authority investment and next year there will be a 10.8 per cent. cut in public investment. There is no long-term strategy—simply vague claims of private finance making up the difference, and we are entitled to doubt that given previous performances. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) pointed out that the Government said some time ago that they needed to prevent a hiatus in railway investment pending privatisation, yet the. Budget contradicts Government statements and announces a cut in such investment. Nothing could be more bizarre than the Government contradicting their own objectives for their own privatisation—which is not necessary anyway—and damaging the future of the railways in the process.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of straying back to the subject of this year's Budget, to which he has made passing reference. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman touched on the Budget, he mentioned his desire to reduce taxation. He has also spoken, on a number of programmes, of his desire to increase expenditure. As no Labour Front-Bench spokesman has put a figure on those aspirations, will the right hon. Gentleman say by how much overall taxation would be reduced in a Labour shadow Budget, and by how much overall spending would be increased, and give his view of the correct level of public borrowing and the impact that that would have on the industrial recovery? Will the right hon. Gentleman move to the point instead of meandering through bits of the Red Book?
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, because the Red Book is full of very odd bits. I will not respond to that rambling intervention. I remind the Chancellor of something that he once said:
  "Only the Conservatives believe in keeping taxation down, to give incentives to enterprise and investment. Only the Conservatives will keep the country's finances on a sound footing."
  That, with a £46 billion borrowing requirement. The Chancellor said also:
  "Public borrowing under the Conservatives has averaged 2 per cent. of GDP."
  It is 7 per cent. now.
  The Government are also half-hearted about help for the long-term unemployed, even though each such person costs the country £9,000 per annum in income

  175
  support and lost revenue. A self-financing scheme was spelt out by hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No.
  Mr. Clarke: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give way, if he is not afraid of losing his place.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman flatters himself if he thinks that I have lost my place. He knows as well as anyone in the House—no more so than other Ministers—that asking me to spell out the contents of a future Labour Budget two and a half years from now is a fatuous intervention. The Chancellor will not tell us the contents of his Budget for next year, so that is the best answer to his intervention.
  The Chancellor has given us another Budget for the short-term benefit of the Tory party, but to the long-term disadvantage of Britain and the British people. Burdens are heaped on those least able to bear them. Value added tax is a classic example. On 28 January 1992, the Prime Minister said:
  "We have no plans to increase value-added tax… There will be no VAT increase." —[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 308.]
  On 27 March 1992, the Prime Minister said:
  "I have made it clear, we have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT."
  When the Prime Minister gives his word to the European Union, his word must be kept, even to the point of a vote of confidence—but when he gives his word to the House and to the British people, he is apparently not concerned about keeping it. It seems that that does not matter.
  The President of the Board of Trade mentioned integrity. Where is the integrity in that behaviour? We are told that the Government must keep their word because they have an international obligation to do so—but that the Government do not have to keep their word when their obligation is to the British people. That sums up the hypocrisy resident on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman quoted my election address commitment to healthy public finances. He fought the last election on a policy of increasing taxes and public spending. Of course the right hon. Gentleman cannot spell out a shadow Budget, but will he give a sign of his commitment to health public finances? Does he believe that we should be reducing taxes, increasing public spending and allowing borrowing to rise—or does he, in the midst of all this blather, have no view of those critical issues?
  Dr. Cunningham: The blather is all coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This debate is about not a Budget in three years' time but his Budget now. It is also a debate about the Prime Minister's promises to the British people. The Government do not want to answer. They do not want to face the fact that they have ratted on their promises about VAT. That is the reality of the position in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues find themselves.
  176
  The public and Parliament were given clear, unambiguous promises, and those promises have been broken. Many Conservative Members made similar promises in speeches, interviews and personal election addresses during the 1992 campaign. A few of them, to their credit, have announced their intention to abstain or to vote with us tonight, to prevent the VAT abuse contained in the Budget. Those Conservative Members know that they made a commitment to their constituents and believe that they should keep their promises—unlike the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but perhaps I may ask him a simple question. Does he think that public expenditure now is too high or too low?
  Dr. Cunningham: Public expenditure is too high and all in the wrong direction. A sum of £40 billion is being spent on social security and the hon. Gentleman asks for our views. Public expenditure is paying the price of the failure of 17 Tory Budgets. There is too little investment, too much social security, too much consumption and not enough for the long term.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way again for the moment.
  In arguing about their responsibilities and commitments, Conservative Members have an unusual ally—none other than the President of the Board of Trade, who made his position clear in Bournemouth on 13 October. Reflecting on 16 years of Tory Government, he entitled his speech "Tomorrow's Yesterday". That was really forward looking. He clearly anticipated another Budget similar to the previous 16—unfair, long on the short term and short on the long term, and devoid of any coherent strategy. The Chancellor did not let him down.
  Value added tax at 17.5 per cent. is to be imposed on pensioners, people with disabilities, the housebound, and people with low pay or no pay. It is to be imposed on all those for whom heating costs account for a much higher proportion of household expenditure than those who are better off. This winter, thanks to the Budget, many thousands of people in Britain will be cold, hungry and afraid to use their heating.
  Is the Tory party proud of that? Are Conservative Members proud of offering a pensioner 25p and a pensioner couple 30p above the statutory uprating to cope with VAT on their energy bills? Are they content to support that squalid unfairness at a time when Cabinet Ministers give their approval to rises of £4,000 per week to executives?
  In "Tomorrow's Yesterday", the President of the Board of Trade told us, prophetically:
  "There is more to Conservative thought than just free markets. Laissez-faire economies expose a risk of cruelty and social extremes that no Tory could countenance. So once again for tomorrow's journey we look back to traditional Tory faith in duty and obligation. It is at the heart of Tory tradition. Back to Shaftesbury and Disraeli, to share a concern for those less fortunate than ourselves…The success and dynamism of a confident society will be led and determined by those who are

  177
  strong and self reliant. But we have never lost sight of those in society to whom such opportunities are for whatever reason denied."
  Well he certainly seems to have gone blind between 13 October and Budget day. Or is he is suffering from convenient amnesia? Did he mean what he said in Bournemouth? Does he stand by what he said then? We shall see. Today, he will be put to the test. If he stands by his views and commitments, he will vote with us. If he does not—[Interruption.] Of course he will not stand by what he said in Bournemouth, just as the Conservatives are not prepared to stand by what they said in the general election campaign. We know, of course, that he will not stand by what he said and therefore he will very well merit the description of that other Disraeli quotation:
  "A Tory Government is an organised hypocrisy."
  Mr. Mike Hall: What the President of the Board of Trade said at the Tory party conference in October and what he does today demonstrates quite clearly the gap between the rhetoric and practice of Tory Cabinet Ministers.
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  In his Budget speech., the Chancellor said that the present conditions have to be sustained if they are to deliver higher living standards and secure jobs. But as the record shows, Tory Governments have never sustained those conditions. They have never been consistent. They have never looked to the long term in 16 years and 17 Budgets. Last night, the Governor of the Bank of England is reported to have said in Frankfurt:
  "The economy is growing faster than can be sustained."
  Stripped of all their grandiose claims, the fabrications about their record and intentions, the Government's policy for Britain is clear: cut taxes before elections and put them up again much more afterwards. Reward the strong, the highly paid, the powerful, at the expense of those least able to help themselves.
  That is why Conservatives will never be trusted on tax again. That is why the House should vote for the amendment tonight. It gives us an opportunity to reject this unjust proposal and to oblige the Chancellor to think again.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: As one who for 15 years sat on the Front Bench listening to speeches from hon. Members on the Back Benches, I know how selective one must be in the issues that one raises and the points that one makes. I shall therefore not repeat the many points made in the debate and outside.
  I begin by stating my total support for the general strategy in the Budget and the measures contained in it, and especially the concentration on controlling public expenditure and getting public sector borrowing down. Those of us who are connoisseurs of Budget speeches know that the key point of the Budget is always there in the peroration, and I thought that it was right for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to put the emphasis this year on those two points in his peroration, and how important they are. I should just say in parentheses, and perhaps rather quietly and modestly, that the Budget brief which has been circulated to all of us
  178
  contains a table showing public borrowing since 1971–72 as a percentage of money gross domestic product. I note that one of the lowest levels of public borrowing as a proportion of money GDP was in the two years during which I had the great privilege of being Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the plans that I hope that we laid then came through even more in the years afterwards.
  That also means that I know how difficult it is to control public expenditure, and I pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the current Chief Secretary for the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities through the year—in stark contrast with the Opposition, who are now attacking us for the level of taxation generally. They claim that they are not now a party of high public expenditure, but their amendment to today's public expenditure motion, particularly the last six lines, is absolutely riddled with new commitments to public expenditure as it condemns the current levels in so many important areas of Government expenditure.
  During the exchanges on the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, just about every Opposition Member who spoke violently attacked the statement for not announcing enough public expenditure—every one of them, right across the board, in all the different areas. It really is not good enough for the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) —
  Dr. Cunningham: Right honourable.
  Mr. MacGregor: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon—I frequently get that wrong.
  It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we must wait two years to know his party's position on these matters; he can state it today. All that we have to go by is the statement that he makes in the amendment and the statements that we hear so often from Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the Opposition spokesman for Scotland, whom we heard today. We must therefore conclude that they would substantially increase expenditure in many areas.
  Nor is it good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will make savings on the social security budget. He attacked it and said that it was the one area in which the Labour party might make compensating savings. He knows perfectly well that it contains substantial increases for the disabled—something of which I am particularly proud—and a whole range of worthy groups who have nothing to do with the levels of unemployment. He also knows perfectly well that under his policies unemployment would rise, so it is totally false for him to suggest that savings can be made there, unless he intends to cut some of the areas of social service expenditure. If that is the case, we should be interested to know where those areas are. On public expenditure, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and his party have demonstrated once again that theirs is a high-spending party, although it claims not to be.
  I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to save taxes. I notice that he has not quantified them. I have a great deal of doubt about a number of those proposals. I will take the example that he started with—the one so often mentioned by the Labour party—about share option schemes. I am puzzled as to just what he expects to do about them and where he expects to get a revenue saving, as he must be well aware that the gain on those schemes is already taxed at 40 per cent. in virtually

  179
  every case, or at least in very many cases. I believe that there is a great yawning gap in the policy position of Labour Members in relation to the Budget: they would spend a great deal more, but they cannot find tax savings to compensate for the tax proposals to which they object.
  I do not want to repeat all the points that were made about the underlying strength of the economy, which were so well put by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, although I totally agree with them. In particular, the many illustrations that he gave and the impressive figures about the benefits brought about by privatisation really demonstrated the strength of that case. They were met, however, by incomprehension and lack of interest on the faces of Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I well understand now why the Labour party has not yet committed itself to reversing any of the privatisations, because at heart it recognises the benefits. I do not think that it is yet fully aware of the real benefits that have come through. I particularly welcome the fact that we now have low inflation, which I believe can be sustained, as well as export-led and now investment-led recovery.
  Mr. Fabricant: Before privatisation, were not those industries costing the Exchequer £50 million a week? Since privatisation, the Exchequer—and that means hospitals and schools, for instance—has benefited, through corporation tax, by £60 million a week.
  Mr. MacGregor: Indeed, the Exchequer is now benefiting considerably from the revenue generated by corporation tax. I will go a step further The right hon. Member for Copeland said that some privatisations had "ripped off' consumers, but he must know very well that that has not happened. Prices have fallen in real terms—a great benefit that has resulted from privatisation.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to give way too often, because others wish to speak, but I will give way briefly.
  Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  If the benefits of privatisation are as massive as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) suggested, why do we have to raise taxes so much?
  Mr. MacGregor: That has nothing to do with privatisation as such. Privatisation has resulted in a great improvement in the performance of businesses, which is very much to the advantage of the economy generally.
  If there is indeed an underlying strength in the economy, why is the feelgood factor not yet in evidence? I shall make two points about the feelgood factor, but in so doing I want to move away from immediate issues.
  As both my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have recently said in the House, the impact of technological change on employment—when combined with increasing international competition—is undoubtedly an issue that will face all Governments for some time. When I was Secretary of State for Education, at the prize-givings at which I had to speak I constantly used as a theme the
  180
  need for pupils to realise that from now on they would have to change not just jobs three or four times in their lifetime, but careers—hence the importance of securing a strong education and skills base before setting out in the job market.
  We are seeing that clearly now in many industries. The privatised utilities, for example, have undoubtedly been able to make themselves much more efficient—egged on by the spur of being in the private sector—as a result of technological advance. They have taken the opportunity to gain from it. The same is evident in the financial sector—in banks and building societies, for instance. Technological change must be undertaken, or businesses will become uncompetitive; but the impact on jobs, including what used to be regarded as traditionally secure jobs, is often considerable.
  We are seeing the same effect in central Government. One of the figures in the Red Book relates to the Department of Transport's running costs. I am having to pay a good deal of attention to those running costs; they are to fall from £423 million this year to £374 million by 1996–97. Taken across the board, that means substantial savings in central Government which can then be applied at the "front end".
  Those savings will be achieved partly because we can now take advantage of the effects of technological change, but partly because Government and Ministers must be driven by the same impulse as those in the private sector to ensure that they are as efficient as possible, and that both the activities and the people involved add value. I think it reasonable for those in the private sector who have been through the process of becoming much more efficient and competitive in the past few years to expect Government to do the same. I also think that there is a message for large local authorities: if we can demonstrate that we have recently been through that process, they can be expected to do the same, and to review their administration and other activities.
  In both the public and private sectors, that will introduce an underlying element of uncertainty about what used to be regarded as totally secure jobs. All political parties must now recognise such uncertainty as a permanent feature of our economic life, driven by technical change and international competition. The question for the electorate is which party is most likely to gain the benefits of technological change for the country and to meet the demands of the international competition. Nothing in Labour's policy and approach—the minimum wage, the social chapter and a raft of other measures—suggests that they understand that.
  I am thinking not least of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who suggested recently that one way of dealing with employment was to keep jobs in the public sector which are not really required and not efficient, simply to avoid unemployment. That is not a sensible suggestion and it is no way of continuing to achieve a competitive economy. Nothing in Labour's approach indicates that it can offer a better alternative.
  The second point about the feelgood factor is the need to become accustomed again to inflation between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. As I go around the country, I note that when inflation is at between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. but salary increases are at 3 per cent. —in some instances, interest rates are lower because interest rate payments are falling—people do not understand that they are in a better position in real terms with a 3 per cent. pay

  181
  increase and 2 per cent. inflation, or interest rate payments at 5 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. inflation. The cash figure looked bigger before. It is vital for us to overcome that problem and ensure that the low-inflation culture is properly established.
  During the 1980s, we made considerable progress in that respect—massive progress compared with the general level of inflation under the last Labour Government, when the average was about 15 per cent. and the level went as high as 27 per cent. In the 1980s we came a long way, but not far enough. I remember engaging in debates in 1986–87 and trying to get across the point that, given the tax reductions that average earners were receiving and the current low inflation, it was better to have a 3 per cent. salary increase and keep costs down. That meant a real gain, but the message still had not got through. During the period when house prices rose substantially—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a serious point. During that period, many people felt that they were better off although in fact it was a paper gain.
  It is important for us to establish that. I believe that as a result of a strategy which has been pursued for a long time, but particularly now, we are achieving those "mind set" adjustments to inflation. It is vital that we maintain the downward pressure and persuade people—people at work, pensioners, home owners and employers—of the "feelgood" benefits of a low-inflation era. If we persist, I believe that we can do that and that it will greatly benefit our competitiveness.
  Mr. William McKelvey: When travelling through the country, does the right hon. Gentleman never come across people who are discontented because they are getting a 2 per cent. pay increase—or a nil increase—while inflation is running at 2.7 per cent. and others are awarding themselves increases of 300 per cent.? Does that not cause the right hon. Gentleman any unhappiness?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have always made clear my belief that salary increases of that kind, which are not directly earned through improvements in the performance of companies or productivity improvements, are unjustified and unrealistic at present and give the wrong signals. I also believe, however, that it is important for people to be able to gain the benefits of the productivity improvements that they have undertaken and that they should receive performance bonuses, provided that the performance targets are good and realistic.
  That brings me to the question of VAT on fuel. I shall make just two points, as so much has already been said. First, I believe that public comment—this may be our own fault to some extent—has not made enough of one of the two elements which led to the original introduction of VAT on fuel. I refer to the environmental aspects of the proposal. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) laughs, but it is a hollow laugh from a member of one of the parties which argue for a carbon tax.
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I should like to develop my point. In all letters to my constituents and in all my remarks, I have always stressed the importance of that aspect. We have the Rio targets to meet; if we are to meet them and to secure energy conservation at the same time, all sectors of the economy—including households—must play their
  182
  part in conserving fuel and using less of it. Given the real reduction in fuel prices since privatisation, that is at least a modest contribution to our goal.
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind if I do not give way. I am anxious not to speak for too long.
  I should be happy to elaborate my point about the environment, but I have time to speak only very briefly.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is absolutely right to warn about the consequences of the measure not going through. It would not be easy to find £1 billion plus of further expenditure saving. It would be difficult and painful in some areas and the Labour party would almost certainly oppose each and every suggestion. It would therefore have to be done with other tax measures which would involve many difficulties. Given that pensioners and other vulnerable groups are protected by the additional Government commitments and given the environmental aspects, where is the sense in that? Above all, it must not be done by adding to public sector borrowing. That could only have, an upward effect on interest rates and I have found no support for that in the building industry or in small businesses or from anyone to whom I have talked.
  Had there been time, I would have said more about interest rates. It is worth pointing out—it is in the Red Book—that Government gross debt interest next year will be £24.5 billion and rising. That is the consequence of high public sector borrowing and it would be added to if interest rates rose. That figure is exceeded by only four Government spending Departments. It is another reason why it is so important to bear down on inflation, interest rates and public sector borrowing.
  I strongly support the Chancellor in what he said overnight and what he is doing in the Budget and I beg the minority of my hon. Friends who are still considering the matter to consider carefully the consequences that would follow their actions.
  I want to raise three specific points about the future. Inevitably, I have had to be very selective. The Budget contains a number of measures to promote saving. In the past, I have played my part in the development of a number of schemes such as the business expansion scheme and schemes to encourage saving and investment. Each succeeding Chancellor wants to have a scheme that is attached to one Budget and I think that there is a danger of a proliferation of such schemes. Having watched them all during the past 15 years and analysed their effect, I doubt whether in the long run it is the best way to create a climate of encouragement for savings and investment and a savings-owning democracy.
  We must look carefully at how much additionality in savings is provided by each scheme, and we must be mindful of the administrative and other costs. Therefore, one of the Budget measures about which I am a little doubtful is the proposal to continue the £9,000 investment in the tax-exempt special savings accounts. It will not add much in terms of additional saving and I doubt whether it will affect the amount of saving going into the institutions that currently have TESSAs.
  There is perhaps a case for looking overall at how to encourage savings and whether the schemes are the best way of doing it, and perhaps concentrating instead on a

  183
  low-tax regime and a change in capital gains tax to encourage longer-term saving. I have always felt that the tapering of capital gains tax, leading eventually to no tax being paid after a number of years, is the best way forward.
  A Bill dealing with agricultural tenancy was announced in the Queen's Speech. I took through the House the last Bill dealing with that matter and I felt then that it was a fairly modest measure which would not achieve the result that we all seek of encouraging more agricultural tenancies. We now have agreement in the agricultural community for a much stronger measure, but I am concerned that it will not achieve its possibilities unless it is accompanied in due course by changes in taxation. I have in mind in particular the inheritance tax rules, which allow only 50 per cent. relief on land that the owner does not take in hand within a 12-month period, and also capital gains tax. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will keep a careful watch on that and be prepared to bring the treatment of let land into line with that of occupied land for inheritance tax and allow capital gains tax roll-over relief on let land. That is the way to make sure that the new Bill will work.
  With regard to spending on transport and the road programme, as Secretary of State for Transport I was keen to switch as much traffic as possible from road to rail, although I was well aware of the difficulties of doing so and of the limitations of the likely ultimate effect. I believe that I did as much as anyone to promote the private finance initiative, which I strongly support. However, I am concerned at the considerable reduction in public spending on roads in the next three years. I do not believe that it will be possible to achieve a substantial switch to public transport without a cost level that we cannot contemplate. My right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Transport said that the
  £140 million spent on the Manchester metrolink has resulted in a reduction in traffic in Manchester of around 0.3 per cent. —[Official Report, 31 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1287.]
  On the basis of that and other research, it appears that on those figures a transfer of just 10 per cent. of car journeys nationally from road to rail would require an investment of £140 billion. Even if that is too much, it would require a massive investment to achieve a switch to public transport which would not quickly be taken up by two, three or four years' growth on roads.
  However much we want to encourage the transfer to rail and public transport, it is important to continue a substantial road programme. The design, build, finance and operate schemes will take some time to come into effect. Five or 10 years from now we would regret it if we had allowed the road programme to run down because it would result in increased congestion and frustrating delays.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has returned to the subject of investment in road and rail. Far from making any improvement, the Government have cut investment for Railtrack. Not only that, they are cutting investment in such a way as to threaten jobs at ABB York carriage works and the Hunslet, Leeds-based rolling stock manufacturers. Those manufacturers are running out of
  184
  orders and laying people off. There is no sense of improving investment in the rail network: the Government are cutting it.
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the Government are cutting investment in Railtrack. There is the private finance initiative on the Northern line, which will lead to considerable investment in rolling stock. The right hon. Gentleman should take account of the fact that there has been substantial investment in rolling stock in the past eight to 10 years and much of it is very modern. Much of the investment in railways is now needed in the track and infrastructure, which is where the bulk of it is going.
  I do not want to elaborate on the roads programme now as there will be other opportunities to do so: I just wanted to put down a marker.
  Overall, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was absolutely right to take a cautious, tough and courageous line in the Budget. I totally support the strategy and I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will support him on the issue of VAT on fuel.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and many others talked about the possible dangers if the Government were to lose the vote on VAT on fuel. The right hon. Gentleman will recall, as I do, a Labour Government who were defeated on a tax amendment involving a much larger sum than this. I hope to show the consequences of that and to explain how these matters can be dealt with.
  I want to make some general points. I had hoped that, belatedly, the Government might address some of the real problems. Over the past 15 years of this Administration we have seen a terrible catalogue of errors. I shall select about four of them to show some of the ways in which they went wrong and how they might have done things better and might yet be able to make amends in some of those areas.
  First, we know that the Government started off with a belief in theoretical monetarism—the intellectual nonsense that devastated my constituency and that led to the loss of one third of the companies in my region. They were the small, medium-sized and medium-tech firms that exist in every country in the world, including Germany, Japan and the United States of America. That particular dedication to a dogma caused immense damage, not only to my constituency, but to many others.
  Secondly, the Government set up an uncontrollable boom—the housing and spending explosion, the consequences of which are still with us. At that time a few years ago, people felt that it made sense to sell their houses and to buy more expensive ones. Trading up was seen as an investment rather than as a consumption. With the rise in prices, people felt a spurious prosperity that encouraged further indebtedness. That was a major scandal and we are still suffering from it, with a number of people having negative equity in their homes.
  The Government's third serious error involved bringing about the second major recession of our time, when industry suffered once again. It led to us leaving the exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday. We seem to forget that that probably cost this country about £5 billion—an immense amount of money that was in foreign

  185
  exchange, which we could have used in many other ways. Those events led to the industrial recovery, of a sort, that has arisen since.
  The fourth indictment has been the waste of North sea oil, which hon. Members know about. Who is there in the House who believes that that accretion of sudden wealth has been handled for the good of our country? No one believes it. It was a disgraceful episode. We could have used that great resource to modernise our industry, to prepare us for the difficult times ahead, to revive our cities and to invest in infrastructure. Instead, we squandered it.
  We are coming out of recession.
  Mr. John Evans: My right hon. Friend has mentioned four points in relation to waste in the 15 years of Tory Government. Will he mention the fifth one: the £14 billion wasted on the poll tax?
  Mr. Sheldon: No one can doubt that. The matter involves not only waste of money, although that is extremely serious. Local government finance has been ruined. Today, local government is different from what it was 15 years ago. It has never had sufficient finance to deal with the problems that it has faced, but it was able to contain the problems. The large proportion of money that it needs from central Government has distorted local government decisions. It cannot decide to spend money in a certain way because it costs so much more than it used to in the reduction of Government grants.
  We are coming out of recession, but we still have a balance of payments deficit and a public sector deficit. At any rate, a chance exists to make some amends. The Government's main task is to create investment in both industry and people. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has put that at the forefront of the Labour party's aims—it should be there and he is right to do that.
  There is a difference in the time scale involving investment in training and the time scale involving investment in plant and machinery. Investment in plant and machinery can often get a return in months. In education and training, investment success needs a number of years. There was one exception to that. The wartime training scheme created engineers for the war effort who produced large numbers of trainees ready for the factories. The difference between then and now is that jobs existed that could immediately be filled. The Government could, therefore, undertake training but they need to find ways of making use of it. The lesson from that is that training is best undertaken when demand is higher than it is now. Further investment in training and education is essential, but the results will be long term.
  To achieve necessary investment in industry, incentives must be given. As I say again and again, a 25 per cent. investment incentive is not an incentive at all. It is a disincentive because so many items of plant and machinery are not worth 75 per cent. of their value at the end of the first year and they are not worth the amount by which they are allowed to depreciate over succeeding years. Already, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England are telling us of their worries about an overheating economy. It is clear that severe capacity constraints exist due to the failure to invest.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that investment incentives will "distort investment decisions." Of course they will. That is what they are all about. Such
  186
  incentives are needed when investment is inadequate. The Chancellor distorted tax allowances to provide up to £290 million for venture capital trusts. He distorted them to produce a development that is far less important than investment. Venture capital trusts will receive £290 million, but the amount of incentive for plant and machinery will not change. Far more important than those trusts is the need to encourage investment in manufacturing industry.
  Investment in manufacturing industry will not produce all that many jobs. Efficiency will translate into higher production rather than much higher employment. The whole purpose of investment in manufacturing industry is to provide wealth. That is what we need from industry. It allows us to export more and to reduce imports. That wealth is required and it will translate into higher expenditure and more jobs in other parts of the economy.
  Another reason exists for the low level of investment: the way our corporation tax system works. The maintenance of dividends in bad times as well as good is a peculiarity and it makes it difficult to invest. The Secretary of State for National Heritage began an examination of short-termism and dividend excesses. It is wrong that outside influences, or whatever influences there were, have cut short that necessary examination. We are entitled to know the circumstances and the reasons behind the cancellation of that valuable initiative.
  Retentions of profits are the most frequent and most reliable source of finance for investment. Of course, the use of outside capital is sensible, but, for many firms, the cost is high and uncertain. As well as that, a difficulty exists in convincing lenders where their technical understanding is fairly low. There are limitations, therefore, in going to the market for money. Those limitations do not apply if one is able to reinvest from one's own resources. After all, most investment comes from that source. Capital allowances should have been changed to allow for that.
  There is a certain irony in saying that the failure to obtain £1.5 billion from VAT on heating will mean that the Budget will be "holed below the waterline." The Government predict that, if the amendment is carried, there will be dire consequences. That is nonsense; it is all rubbish. The Government scorned fine tuning, but this is fine tuning to the amount of 0.5 per cent., or even less, of Government spending. Why should the Budget judgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer be sacrosanct? Iain Macleod used to scorn that view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day used to say, "This is my Budget judgment and this is all set." Iain Macleod would say "nonsense" to that, and he was right.
  I had the advantage of taking part in the consideration of many Finance Bills with lain Macleod. It was a great privilege to sign, with, I think, only one other hon. Member now present, a plate that commemorated Iain Macleod on his life's work. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) was the other signee. It was a privilege to have been recognised in that way. Iain Macleod scorned that fine tuning and he was right to do so.
  The interesting thing is that the Red Book states that, in the past 10 years, the average error in spending has been £10.5 billion. We are talking about £1 billion now. Who do the Government think they are? They have such

  187
  certainty about the future when the average error in the past 10 years—not the error for just one year—has been so great.
  I, like the right hon. Members for Norfolk, South and for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), remember when the Rooker-Wise amendment to index personal allowances was moved. It was supported by Nigel Lawson and cost about £1 billion in 1977. At the time, the Chancellor claimed—as all Chancellors claim—that the Budget judgment cannot be altered because it hangs together so well; it is so perfectly constructed that to take away one brick would mean the collapse of the whole thing. That, of course, is rubbish.
  In 1977, the £1 billion was readily absorbed within the margins of error, but it is now claimed that the amendment would introduce such a fundamental change that everything would collapse if it were accepted. The present margins of error have become much greater and the cost is lower.
  Chancellors of the Exchequer have a touch of the confidence trickster about them—they do not inform their Cabinet colleagues about the Budget until it is too late for them to do anything about it. The secrecy surrounding the Budget was because certain information could be used to enable those in the know to make large fortunes, but much of that has gone. The abolition of purchase tax and the introduction of value added tax mean that advance notice must be given and, in any event, the Chancellor himself leaks so many details that much secrecy is no longer possible.
  The Budget is about raising money in taxation; it is not about the course of the economy but about how much the Chancellor can give away in income tax reductions the following year. However, I am not sure that it will have the same effect in 1996 as it did in the past because VAT is becoming ever more unpopular, and for very good reason.
  VAT is a regressive tax which hits the worst off hardest. It used to be only a slightly regressive tax. Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Worthing introduced it, it was claimed that it was broadly neutral. I always believed that it was slightly regressive but recent changes have altered that, none more so than the latest.
  Today, income tax is our only progressive tax. It is a major tragedy that we have lost what was once common ground between our parties. We believed in the need for "progressivity" in the tax system. We may have argued about the scale of progressivity—we wanted more progressivity than the Conservatives—but progressivity itself was taken to be a good thing. Now, however, we no longer have that general accord, which is a great pity because it was an advantage when dealing with such matters.
  Conservatives Members should not be fooled into believing in the sacred nature of Budget totals. They should not deny themselves the opportunity to go through the sensible Lobby this evening. The Treasury can easily rewrite the figures, just as the Chancellor can easily rewrite his speeches following a wet night in Dudley. It is the House that must decide supply, now every bit as much as it has in the past.
  6.12 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton—under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) as I have done so many times. I wish immediately to take up his point about this evening's Division although I shall deal with it in more detail later. We are not considering whether the Budget is sacrosanct or the sum of money involved—although even these days £1.5 billion can scarcely be regarded as peanuts—but whether the Government can get their business through. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not know what the effect on markets would be tomorrow morning if the Opposition amendment were carried.
  I shall concentrate on three main points: value added tax on fuel; what I regard as the myth of the unified Budget; and the question of a single currency and whether we should have a referendum on it. All three points in different ways form part of what one might call the "Lamont legacy". I shall comment on each in turn, but I have a further issue to raise.
  It is not usual to examine the nitty-gritty of the Budget resolutions but I seek clarification on one. I must declare an interest in that I am the chairman of a company pension fund. Although I do not quite follow the argument, there seems to be a discrepancy between the resolutions—especially No. 35—and what appears on the Order Paper today. Is it merely a misprint? I should appreciate some clarification.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): I commend my right hon. Friend on his observation. He is right to point out that since the resolution was published last week the text has been amended so that it more closely reflects the text of the clause to which it relates. In a nutshell, it will ensure that tax relief for pension contributions is correctly applied.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We shall no doubt try to work out later what that means and whether it is a good or bad thing. At any rate, it certainly seemed odd that the two texts did not tie up.
  The Opposition's amendment to the resolution to amend the law relates to a procedure that I introduced 20 years ago and which has stood the test of time. I am, therefore, not keen for the Opposition to muck around with it. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will remember that one year we debated whether every possible item—from sanitary towels to antiques—should be zero-rated or exempt. Amendment after amendment was debated but, clearly, we could not continue in that way every year, so I devised the current form of words.
  The Opposition, for the first time in 20 years, are seeking to amend that form of words in one specific case, namely VAT on fuel, so that it can be debated. I resent my form of words being mucked around and I shall certainly support the Government this evening. In one sense, I have perhaps more reason to object to VAT on fuel than anyone else because, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, I and the late lain Macleod had the task of devising VAT in Opposition and I steered it through the nitty-gritty of the Finance Bill.
  We believed that two main factors should form the basis of VAT in this country, which would make it fairer than anything in Europe. First, we took the view that the most essential items of consumer expenditure of

  189
  importance to those on low incomes should be zero-rated and, secondly, that there should be only a single positive rate of tax. By way of mitigation, I should point out that we abolished at the same time the selective employment tax, which was incredibly unpopular, and purchase tax. The disadvantage of the purchase tax was that there were huge gradations between what were luxury items, semi-luxury items and those which were not quite so luxurious. We decided to scrub that system and introduced zero-rating for the largest items of consumer expenditure of importance to low-income families. Other than that, it was left up to people to decide on what they spent their money. The single rate of tax was 10 per cent., which is lower than it is now.
  If the Opposition were to succeed this evening, and if it were subsequently decided to leave the rate of VAT on fuel where it is, we would effectively have a multiple-rate system and I do not doubt that before long many more multiple rates would be introduced. That would be a retrograde step and, for that reason, I am not inclined to support the Opposition.
  Let us consider the effect of VAT on fuel on pensioners and those on low incomes. We are in an extraordinary position. If we go ahead and raise VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. and continue with the compensation arrangements, the gross yield from the tax—something like £2.9 billion—will give a net yield of only £1.6 billion while the relief will amount to £1.3 billion. To put it in simpler terms, more than 44 per cent. of the yield of this tax, which is imposed on the country as a whole, will be used to offer relief to pensioners, the disabled and those on income support. One might reasonably claim that that, as it has now been developed, is rather a socialist measure, and I am puzzled as to why the Opposition are not supporting it.
  However, what I said when the idea was first mooted two years ago is still true: if we were to compensate people 10 times over they still would not believe us. That is the political reality. But the economic reality is that compensation is now very great.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who spoke for the Opposition, suggested alternative forms of tax that he would impose, but he made no attempt whatever to quantify them in relation to the revenue that would be lost if VAT on fuel were not increased to 17.5 per cent.
  As the Prime Minister said the other day, since the tax was first mooted electricity and gas prices have fallen, so even allowing for VAT as it is now to be imposed, gas and electricity prices have still declined. Again, that effect is very different from that presented—even, alas, by some of my hon. Friends who have not studied the matter as closely as they might have done. I hope that the Government will succeed in rejecting the Opposition amendment, and anyone who has really studied the subject will hope so, too.
  My next point is about another part of the Lamont legacy—the so-called unified Budget. From the Committees that examined the idea before it was announced, it was clear that we should not adopt it without carefully examining the procedural implications. That warning should have been heeded. I have spelt out both in an article in The Times and last week in The House Magazine the fact that instead of having three annual opportunities for debate—we have always debated both
  190
  sides of the equation, expenditure and taxation—the whole thing is concertinaed into the period between the State Opening and the Christmas recess.
  Of course, there will be a Finance Bill later, which will have a Second Reading, but that is about it. Last year, for more than seven months the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make a speech in the House. That represents a serious deterioration in parliamentary accountability. Moreover, it means that there is a very short period within which representations may be made to the Chancellor about what he has announced in the Budget. The fact that the Christmas recess intervenes tightens the timetable considerably. We must reconsider the whole business from a procedural point of view, and I am glad that, as I understand it, the present Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee proposes to do so.
  One possible way of solving the problem might be to leave the unified Budget in its present form but to move it to the spring. That would require a fairly radical change in the Treasury's internal proceedings, but it would avoid the difficult concertinaed programme that we now have. The difficulty has been exacerbated by the Opposition, who insist on an economic debate on the Queen's Speech a week before the Budget, when the latest forecasts are available and the Chancellor could not say anything substantive.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would it not be better to reform the parliamentary year completely, and get away from the nonsensical arrangements whereby we are away for such a long period from July until the end of October?
  Sir Terence Higgins: Perhaps, but that would raise different issues, rather than how the various items of Government business should be spread throughout the year. Presumably there will eventually be some reaction to the report of the Jopling Committee, and I believe that there is a strong case for having, in addition to the estimates days, which fulfil a useful function, a certain number of specific days devoted to public expenditure.
  The House has never really had serious debates on public expenditure, because the estimates were totally incomprehensible to almost everyone, and bore no relation to the real subject of the debate. That is not now the case. As a result of the work of the Treasury Select Committee and of the Treasury under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), people can now tell what the estimates are all about, and we could have an intelligent debate on the basis of the departmental reports.
  The Select Committees can now examine those and the Departments can scrutinise expenditure. Perhaps on some sort of biannual cycle—with four days, or eight half days, of debate—we could then discuss particular Departments' expenditure plans. The Select Committees have the responsibility of scrutinising policy, expenditure and administration, but, for reasons that I have explained, they have not done a very good job on expenditure. Now there is an opportunity for them to put that right.
  If that happens at least we shall have gained something from the change to a unified Budget—although in my view the whole idea is a myth. The reality is that because of our Standing Orders we can only reduce expenditure and taxation; we cannot increase either. So there is no question of the House saying, "We shall have a unified

  191
  Budget, and trade off higher spending on the health service for an increase in income tax." In that sense, there can be no real unified Budget.
  As I have said elsewhere, that applies even to the Government. The Secretary of State for Health does not go to the Chancellor and say, "I want more for the health service, so you must put up income tax." She has to haggle with the Chancellor about how much will be spent on the health service, then he separately decides what should happen to taxation. So there is no genuine unified Budget either in the House or within the Government. None the less, in deference to the idea, accountability in the House has been seriously eroded.
  The Opposition have failed in their task by not bringing that fact out, especially when the confusion arose last year involving the withdrawal of pairing and the general breakdown in communications. The Opposition should then have negotiated better arrangements for financial matters.
  Finally, I shall say a word or two about the single currency—and here I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames who was much involved in negotiating the opt-out clause, and so on. The single currency is a difficult issue, but I am deeply concerned about the proposals now being made by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others who want a referendum on it. It is a paradox that Members on both sides of the House who argue that the sovereignty of the House is being eroded by Brussels and by the European Union should seek to offset that process by resorting to the technique of referendums, which are alien to our system of representative democracy.
  On that subject we always risk the accusation of being elitist, but it is not likely that one could get a sensible response from a referendum on a single currency. If one asked people outside what the difference was between a single currency and a common currency—it is a fundamental difference—I doubt whether one in 10, or even one in 50, would give you an intelligent answer.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Or people on either side of the House.
  Sir Terence Higgins: That may be true. Indeed—and I am sorry to say this in his absence—the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), mixes up not only a single currency and a common currency, but exempt and zero-rated VAT status. But that is by the way.
  My main argument is that all appeals for a referendum on a single currency are really appeals on the broader European issue. The idea that a referendum should be held at all is wrong, and the idea that we should have one on a single currency—unless we added a few supplementary questions, such as what do people think about the convergence issue and what size deficit they favour—is bizarre. It is also fundamentally incompatible with our system of representative parliamentary democracy.
  192
  I make one exception on referendums, and that relates to Northern Ireland. When it is a question of which country people are to belong to—
  Mrs. Ewing: Why not the Scots?
  Sir Terence Higgins: I would describe what might happen there more in terms of a border plebiscite. I believe that that is distinguishable from what might reasonably be called a referendum. I very much hope that we shall not go down that road.
  Despite what was said by the right hon. Member for Copeland, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget judgment generally is about right. Inflation is at a remarkably low level and unemployment is coming down month by month. The rate of economic growth may be a little too fast at this stage, but until we get closer to the capacity ceiling, that growth must be to everyone's benefit. The balance of payments is remarkably resilient, investment is going up and consumer expenditure is not likely to get out of control.
  The only real problem is the size of the deficit. I am a little wary of those who say that we shall have tax increases now, but that we shall have tax reductions later. Such reductions seem likely to be envisaged at a stage in the economic cycle when they will be least appropriate. The deficit being forecast two or three years out is still too high. That being so, not to go along with this Chancellor's and the previous Chancellor's proposals on VAT on fuel at this stage would be the height of folly. On that basis, I shall support the Government this evening. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on what is, in all the circumstances, an entirely satisfactory Budget.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Budget debates are sometimes rather something and nothing affairs. They are something in that they address one of the most important issues in the running of the state—the building of a strong and fair economy, and the balancing of state and personal finances to achieve that end. They are nothing in that the inbuilt majority of the party of government normally guarantees that, despite all the debate, the essentials of the Chancellor's programme, right or wrong, are seen through. The Opposition may oppose, but they cannot dispose.
  I hope that tonight, things may prove rather different. Tonight, there appears to be the real prospect that the Chancellor will not have it all his own way. Tonight, if all those who know in their hearts that the proposed further increase in VAT on fuel is not only a broken tax promise, but wrong-headed and unjust vote with their consciences and their constituents, the Chancellor will be defeated. Such a defeat would undoubtedly be welcomed by the country. There is overwhelming opposition among all our constituents to this tax. The Government should already have started to listen to what the people are saying. If it takes some Conservative Back Benchers of courage and integrity to make the Government listen by joining the Opposition in voting against VAT tonight, in the long run, those Conservative Members will do the country and their party a service.

  193
  Why is the tax so unpopular? First, it is unpopular because the British people, rightly, feel that they have been deceived by the Government. As we heard earlier, Conservative Ministers and the Prime Minister himself made the specific pledge at the general election that
  "we have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT."
  Rightly, people cannot believe that those who were running the economy before and during the election were so ignorant of the true state of public finances that the need for big tax rises was not revealed to them until shortly after the election. Those tax rises were forced through in the March 1993 Budget.
  Secondly, the tax is unpopular because it falls so harshly on the old and the cold. The tax asks those who struggle to afford to keep warm in winter, rather than those who can afford it and who have been the major beneficiaries of previous tax cuts, to bail out the Government financially to allow tax cuts next year. The Chancellor argued last week that adequate compensation measures would be introduced to help alleviate the burden on the elderly. This week, a report by Age Concern shows that the compensation is simply not enough. Many single pensioners will expect to receive an extra 50p a week to help offset VAT on fuel. In fact, they will get only an extra 30p, the other 20p being incorporated in the annual uprating. On average, single pensioners and pensioner couples who are mainly dependent on state pensions will be 56p a week worse off after the VAT increase.
  A card that came in my postbag today raises a further point and sums up the horror that elderly people feel at the prospect of a 9.5 per cent. hike in VAT on domestic fuel. The writer said:
  "I do not have a full stamp record so do not receive a full pension. Last year I only got a percentage of the fuel increase. Is the same to be done to the new £52 a year? SHAME."
  Meanwhile, according to the social policy research unit at York university, lone parents with young children receive only 25 per cent. compensation and low-paid families who have children, but who are not on benefit, will get no extra help at all.
  Furthermore, the compensation takes no account of regional variations in heating costs. In my area of the south-west, people pay some of the highest fuel bills in the country, largely because of the introduction under privatization—about which the President of the Board of Trade boasted so much—of extra distribution costs for those living in remote areas far from generators. That comes on top of the highest water bills in the country and rising unemployment in an area where the benefits of such recovery as there is are not showing through to the businesses to which I talk. Indeed, unemployment has gone up at a time when it is falling elsewhere. As there are especially large numbers of elderly people living in the south-west, I am amazed that, as yet, no south-west Conservative Members have said that they will have the courage and decency to back their constituents on the issue. It is high time that Conservative Members in the south-west voted for their constituents rather than for the maintenance of their Government.
  Thirdly, the tax is unpopular because everyone knows that it is being hiked up now so that the Chancellor can introduce tax cuts later. Taking money out of people's pockets to give some of it back to them as election bribes and raising VAT now to cut income tax next year is a pretty cheap trick by the Government, but a rather
  194
  expensive trick for those on the receiving end. It is especially unfair to those on low incomes, some of whom may not benefit at all from direct tax cuts.
  What are the Government's excuses for the tax? First, they say that the finance is necessary. Given that the Chancellor talks of tax cuts as early as next year, it is hard to be entirely convinced by that argument. Even if we accept the Chancellor's judgment that he needs the finances now, there is no need for this especially unfair tax. The Chancellor believes that the money is vital to the nation's economy, but there are various other ways in which the money could have been raised.
  In the Budget, the Chancellor introduced new tax cuts totalling £1 billion, exactly the amount needed to hold VAT on fuel at 8 per cent., allowing for the compensation measures. The Government could have avoided the rise because they had the money, but they chose not to. I shall give a few other examples of ways in which the Chancellor could have met his target. He could have introduced the tax reforms outlined in the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget, including extending employers' national insurance contributions to benefits in kind, and reforming inheritance tax and performance-related pay. That would raise £1 billion.
  Sir Terence Higgins: The hon. Gentleman is saying that instead of raising VAT, the Chancellor should have abandoned the other tax changes he made. Those changes include, of course, hiking the threshold for tax on pensioners. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is not in favour of that?
  Mr. Taylor: I am outlining a series of different ways in which the Chancellor could have met his target. One would have been to abandon the tax cuts made which happen to exactly equal the cost of abandoning VAT on fuel. Another way is the series of tax reforms that I have just mentioned and I shall outline some others. We outlined what we would do in our alternative Budget, which included rather more substantive changes to employers' national insurance contributions.
  I am addressing the Chancellor's claim that he had no alternative. That simply is not true. Indeed, it is pretty obviously not true because we all know that the Chancellor is choosing between a large range of alternatives and using his judgment about which is best. He cannot claim anything other than that it is his judgment. Although he says otherwise, he would not privately argue that very strongly.
  The Chancellor could have reduced the 1995–96 contingency reserve by £1 billion, leaving a substantial £2 billion which would have risen to £5 billion by 1996–97 on his figures.
  Secondly, the Government seek to justify the tax by arguing that it is green; a tax to save the planet. Never was there such a wolf in such inadequate sheep's clothing. In fact, the tax falls on all energy use equally, polluting or not. It is a tax on electricity from clean wind power as well as from polluting coal, on electricity from clean hydro-electric as well as from polluting gas. The whole point about shifting tax from the "polluter pays" principle is to target the polluter not the good guy. This tax notably fails to do so.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore regard it as a double insult that, in many areas of Scotland, where the bulk of our power is produced by hydro-electric

  195
  power, our consumers will suffer most because they also live in the coldest climatic conditions in the whole of the UK?
  Mr. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Lady. I know that that matter has been especially controversial in her area. The truth that the tax has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with raising revenue is revealed most clearly by the fact that it is set to fall on standing charges as well as consumption. There is nothing in that which is green, but there is plenty in it which is regressive for those on low incomes. Moreover, the funds from this so-called green tax are not being used to invest in energy compensation. Just £10 million out of £1,000 million raised is going into the home energy efficiency scheme, helping the environment and those struggling to pay the bills. Nor is the tax a shift towards the "polluter pays" principle because it is not replacing another tax, but being used purely to raise further revenue. That is not the point of the shift for which we have argued—shifting taxes on to polluters.
  Of course, Conservative Members of Parliament are briefed by Ministers and told that we, as Liberal Democrats, looked at extending VAT to fuel ourselves. So we did and we concluded that it was the wrong approach for all the reasons that I have given. We were honest enough to say that we considered it and bright enough to rule it out. In contrast, the Government were bright enough to rule it out during the run-up to the last election and dishonest enough to implement it afterwards.
  It is true that the Liberal Democrats have long advocated a carbon energy tax—I shall not duck the issue—to address the need for energy conservation. In the early years of its adoption, it would raise similar revenue to that raised by VAT, but there are crucial differences. Unlike VAT, a carbon energy tax would target polluting industries. That means that there would be a far smaller burden on domestic users than is presently the case with VAT on fuel. Unlike VAT, it targets the raw material going into the power stations, encouraging more efficient energy production and, therefore, lower costs to customers, rather than putting up bills willy-nilly. Many power stations are currently only 30 to 40 per cent. efficient—a good starting point for improvement. Unlike VAT, we would recycle the revenue from the carbon tax into reducing employers' national insurance contributions, the tax on jobs, which returns to the point made earlier. So it would shift the burden from NI contributions, which currently puts people and keeps people out of work, and place it on the pollution of our environment, which is widely acknowledged as needing to be capped.
  Unlike Labour, we do not run away from our policies, nor do we propose targets for cutting greenhouse gases without explaining how we would achieve them.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that so-called clean producers of electricity—he talked about wind power and about hydro-electric power, which was also emphasised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) —represent a very small proportion of the total mechanisms used for generating electricity in the country? At the end of the day, has the hon. Gentleman calculated
  196
  the total cost to pensioners and, indeed, any consumer of electricity, of his carbon tax, albeit, as he points out, that it is a tax on polluting producers of electricity?
  Mr. Taylor: First, let us remember that we are talking about giving back with one hand the tax that we are collecting with the other in the same process, rather than giving it back later as tax bribes. So, we are not talking of increasing the overall burden on the economy. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must remember that the more efficient and cleaner energy producers, those which are not destroying the environment, will be penalised equally by the imposition of VAT on fuel as those which are dirty. That will not be of any benefit.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) is wrong. One of the ways in which we clean up our environment is to make those who burn carbon fuels burn them more efficiently and get better returns on energy. At the moment, whichever power station we are talking about, the same burden of VAT on fuel will apply and the customer will see no benefit from it. However, if fuels were used intelligently to generate electricity, we would see a direct return in the profits of the company and in the prices to consumers under the carbon tax. That is the specific point of the adoption of that tax. That is why environmentalists are united on it and why the European Community also sees it as the best way forward.
  The third reason that Ministers give their Back Benchers for supporting VAT is loyalty to the party. They say that the measure is a central part of Conservative Government policy, so Conservative Members should vote for it as a matter of duty, that they were elected as Government Members of Parliament and that they should stand or fall with their Chancellor, right or wrong. That is a new constitutional theory to me and not one, I fancy, for which many of us in the House have time. Members of Parliament are elected to represent and stand up for their constituents, not back a Government who are so out of touch.
  Let us look instead at what defeat for the Government will tells us and what it will achieve. First, it will tell us that the Government will not only have lost their majority tonight. It will confirm that they have effectively become a minority Government. They will have got there not only because of defeats by Liberal Democrats in by-elections, but because they ceased to listen to the people who elected them or even to those elected to represent them on the Back Benches. The Cabinet has become so unwilling to listen to others that it can no longer even command the confidence of its own Back Benchers. A defeat for the Government will tell us that the time of this Government is drawing to a close, that the Prime Minister has neither the authority nor the ability to see through his policies, and that his is a Government buffeted and rocked by dissent and confusion.
  Far more important is what the defeat will achieve. Whatever the technical status of the amendment, its success tonight will force the Government to abandon their plans for the second-stage increase in VAT on fuel—a result which would be welcomed by people across the country. Even more important, perhaps defeat can persuade the Government to stop listening to their ideologues and start listening to the country. It will be clear that the Government must start to build a more open-minded, a more consensual and a more honest

  197
  approach to governing Britain. If they do not, it will be clear that neither the Prime Minister nor the Government deserve to survive.
  Most important of all, a defeat will show that the Government can no longer get away with deceiving the electorate and that they cannot win the next election, as they did the previous election, on the back of promises that they had no intention of keeping. The bluff is called, the disguise uncovered. Their time is up.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: After all the days of the Budget debate and having looked through some of speeches, I am fully aware that I will probably be repeating everything that has been said. However, I shall repeat it regardless because this, after all, is a secret that we are keeping in here. I know that nobody up there in the Press Gallery is bothering to report any of it anyway. I shall try all the same.
  The Budget, which has been clearly presented to us tonight, falls very much into the context of what we have been doing over the past 15 years, and I shall review a little of that. It has been produced against the backdrop of the particularly successful economic regeneration that is going on at the moment. It is quite interesting to look back through the reforms made to the supply side during the 1980s, because one can see that some of the key areas of success, such as businesses being able to take up extra employment early and therefore producing new jobs for people, are mostly due to those hard decisions. It has meant that businesses are now much more flexible and much more able to compete. Essentially, they are able to take up those extra bits of slack in the economy. I emphasise manufacturing, which did not go through a boom period in the late 1980s, but which, with restructuring all the way through, has come out of the recession remarkably well and is now competing worldwide.
  We forget at our cost the change in labour relations which we have undertaken over the past 15 years. Often, not one word is said about that. Back in the 1970s, a Labour Prime Minister was telling trade union bosses to get their tanks off his lawn because they were so threatening and were demanding so many things. We do not hear comments such as that any more because today the trade unions do not have any tanks. All the breast-beating before 1979 about the problems of days lost through strikes has disappeared. Not a word is said about that by Opposition Members, simply because it no longer exists. The concerns and worries that ran up to 1979 have gone, with the result that there has been a major and beneficial change to our economic prospects. The United Kingdom is in the vanguard of trade union reform. Fewer days are lost through strikes in this country than pretty well anywhere else in the western world.
  We have talked about the exchange rate mechanism almost endlessly, so I do not intend to make it a great issue this evening. I merely say that our adherence to the ERM must be a lesson for us all. We find greater success through floating exchange rates than fixed exchange rates that peg us to currencies that relate to economies with which only a tiny proportion of our trade is conducted.
  I welcomed our departure from the ERM. Much of our success and growth since then has stemmed from our leaving it. Those Opposition Members who speak as if they had been talking constantly about departure should
  198
  carefully rethink their position. Earlier they were arguing that we should stay within the ERM regardless of the cost. They advocated upping interest rates. In effect, they were saying that we should find anything that would allow us to stay in. On that basis, they would take no credit from our departure. Indeed, they would still be in the ERM now, and we would see no growth.
  We are in a period of sustained low inflation with strong export-led growth. We would have given our eye teeth for such a state of affairs 15 years ago. I remember over the years the growth that moved into consumer expansion, which led to inflation and everyone gritting their teeth and saying, "Up interest rates." We are not, thankfully, in that position. We are in a near-perfect position at the present stage of growth in the economy. It is export-led growth and consumers are not spending at rates that they cannot afford.
  We have about 8.25 per cent. growth in exports with 2.5 per cent. growth in the level of consumer spending, which does, however, lead to some problems.
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is going to the heart of the debate, which was conspicuously missed earlier by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I am talking about sustainable growth. We have heard nothing from Opposition Members about how they would improve our present prospects.
  My hon. Friend has made comparisons between now and the 1970s, and Opposition Members have produced a welter of selective economic comparisons. Does my hon. Friend recall a time under any Labour Government when growth was as high as at present and inflation was as low, and it looked as though things would stay like that for a long time?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I cannot remember such a period. I dare say that Opposition Members are unable to refer me to one.
  Conspicuously absent from the speeches of Opposition Members is the fact that we have a strong level of growth in the economy. As I have said, there is 8.25 per cent. growth in exports, which is something that we have wished for over the past 30 years. At the same time, there is a lower level of growth in consumer spending. The two levels of consumer growth are the same as they were last year, and the predictions are that they will not rise by very much next year. That produces a strong level of growth and a strong base for the economy, but it is a situation that will lead to problems.
  The current problem between consumers and businesses is that the businesses that will satisfy the consumers are in a 2.5 per cent. trap, which means that they do not necessarily recognise the growth that we are talking about. They do not see it to quite the same extent as it exists. We must try to explain much more clearly that in the long term a low level of inflation with export-led growth will be beneficial and that it will not lead to higher levels of inflation.
  We are in a period of instability because of the shake-outs that have been taking place in manufacturing industry and the service sector over the past 15 years. For the first time, we find a great deal of instability among white-collar workers. Most white-collar workers succeeded in passing through many previous recessions without experiencing too many personal problems. They

  199
  now find that jobs that they might have anticipated keeping for long periods will not necessarily be available to them. They are in the same position as many others in looking much more frequently for jobs. They change their jobs more frequently and consequently are more often looking for new employment than hitherto. The concept of people entering industries and staying within them for their entire working lives has gone. It is a cultural shake-up that has had a major effect on the views that are taken on levels of growth within the economy.
  It is excellent that we have low inflation and a good level of growth, but we must understand that outside the House it will take some time for people to recognise, for example, that the value of their houses will not increase massively and that they will not be able to borrow against increased property values. They will not experience wage settlements that bring them a great deal more money. In the short term, they will not think that they are better off. There is a cultural change taking place outside the House. Unfortunately, the Opposition continue to carp. They suggest that they would wave a magic wand and change everything. That is not possible and we must see through the change from an old, manufacturing society to a modern society that is based on knowledge and the employment of people in the selling of knowledge. Those will be the key factors. The change will be better for people in the long run.
  We have a growing economy within which there is no real pressure from consumer spending. Against that background, I do not think that the Bank of England is right about pressures on inflation. It went on about them the other day and it is still doing so. If we take account of levels of consumer spending and project them over next year, however, and at the same time bear in mind M4, the broad money measure, which is low for the historical level of upturn within the economy—over the past two months or so M4 has reflected a decrease—the position is worrying. I take that view because the figures reveal that the amount of money in the economy is not as great as it perhaps should be at this stage. At the same time, there is no real pressure on inflation. I wish that people would stop talking about interest rate rises. We have yet to see the results of the most recent interest rate rises.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall not because I am conscious that I must get on. Others wish to speak.
  I welcome the Budget because it demonstrates that we can set a domestic monetary framework that works. We do not have to worry too much about the way in which others are behaving with their exchange rates. We take the right decisions, which are based on floating exchange rates and targets for inflation. Floating exchange rates worked for us in the early 1980s and they are working again for us now. I do not accept the arguments for the adoption of a single currency. Those who advance them suggest that there is a better approach that is based on re-pegging our currency to a fixed exchange rate. I do not agree. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that on board over the next six months, when a decision will need to be taken on whether to go into a single currency.
  200
  I am concerned to note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has predicted from the Red Book that there will be a reduction of about 0.8 per cent. in public expenditure next year. That is a pretty tough target given our record. I am concerned because the Red Book figures tell us that we forecast a reduction, ultimately, of about 1.3 per cent. last time round and ended up with an increase of about 1.4 per cent. There has been an overall increase of about 2.7 per cent. from where we projected we would be. That could mean expenditure of up to £6 billion more than we expected. I raise a note of concern. Had we adhered to the figures that were forecast we would be in an even better public expenditure position than at present. The contents of page 10 of the Red Book show clearly that we need to make a greater effort to adhere to our public expenditure programmes. If we say 0.8 per cent., I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to adhere to that and even to do better.
  When the right hon. Member for Copeland was asked by several hon. Members, and finally by me, whether public expenditure was too high or too low, he said that it was too high. He went further and said that social security spending was too high. Let us ask the right hon. Member for Copeland and his hon. Friends, in particular the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who is to reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, which element of social security spending they are going to cut. Where is the axe going to fall?
  I was amazed by that clear statement made by the right hon. Member for Copeland. I would like to follow it up to discover what it means. If public expenditure is not to be cut, which element of taxation is to rise to support higher levels of public expenditure?
  Given the figures to which I referred earlier, and the fact that even under huge pressure to keep public expenditure down it has actually risen in real terms, we do not have scope to fiddle around with VAT on fuel this time round. Following a point made by one of my colleagues earlier, it is clear that we do not want to end up with a differentiated level of VAT. We must decide whether we want that tax altogether or not.
  Some people may think that we do not want it. I accept that some hon. Members do not want it. However, in present circumstances, where else will they find the money if it does not come from higher public expenditure? There must be a level of taxation and they must want a higher level.
  Mrs. Ewing: I must make it clear that I am not responding on behalf of the official Opposition. The City made it very clear that it anticipated a Budget based on a £23 billion public sector borrowing requirement while the Chancellor produced one with a £21.5 billion PSBR. The difference is exactly the amount of money that will be raised from VAT on fuel. Therefore, the City did not see the necessity for the tax on fuel. As Conservatives usually support the City, why does not the hon. Gentleman listen to the City?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I always listen to the City. If the hon. Lady looks at the figures carefully, she will discover that public expenditure this year is higher than was originally forecast in real terms. The question that we must ask, and which has not yet been answered, is that if the Opposition want to get rid of the uprating to 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel, where will they find the extra money? We are already talking about £3.5 billion more than was

  201
  forecast last year. As I said earlier, if we consider the original forecast, the figure is £6 billion higher. The Opposition have not faced that fact.
  I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that I am concerned about the fact that, although the increase in VAT on fuel is an important part of the Finance Bill, a week ago, in relation to the European budget, the issue became a matter of confidence and the measure was passed on that basis. Whether or not that measure had been approved, money still would have flowed, as the Paymaster General is aware, to the European Community—although not necessarily at the higher level.
  However, if there is a problem further down the road with regard to the Finance Bill, money does not flow to the Government and they cannot finance their operations. It would therefore be wholly legitimate for my Government to say that the increase in VAT on fuel is a matter of supreme confidence in them, but we find that it is not. I am somewhat bewildered by the fact that it seems to be more important to make a matter of confidence out of moneys not being stopped going to Europe, while a serious measure of taxation does not have the same importance attached to it. I hope for an explanation about that.
  Those who talk about the effects on poorer people and pensioners have not studied the figures and the package of measures. As was pointed out earlier, the package of measures has wiped out almost half the revenue that will be taken as a result of VAT on fuel. Pensioners across the board, regardless of income, will find themselves—in some cases—even better off. The Opposition say that those people are going to suffer, but that point has not been proved.
  The public who are by and large on low incomes, and pensioners, are not suffering because of the measure. There has been a huge amount of largesse from the Government Front Bench in getting rid of a great deal of the money that the Government would have taken from the measure. The figures speak louder than anything else and those who try to avoid that point are avoiding reality. The figures show that we take far less than we might have done in respect of VAT on fuel simply because we are handing so much of it back.
  Figures from 1988 to the end of 1993–94 show that there was an increase of between £90 billion and £100 billion in public expenditure. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) in an earlier debate. That increase in public expenditure is the culprit in respect of VAT on fuel. In those four to five years we took our eye off the ball on public expenditure. The biggest lesson must be that we cannot do that again. That is what has caused the pain and hardship.
  Another culprit can be found in the people who, on the one hand, refer to public expenditure while on the other they fight hard to exempt certain things. It is impossible to argue both sides of the argument. Public expenditure must be controlled. I believe that we have not controlled it sufficiently, but we are controlling it now and that is welcome.
  Some people say that the Budget falls between last year's Budget and next year's Budget and that it does nothing. I believe that the contrary is the case. Some people have missed the point that we are in the process of restoring finances. It was therefore wise of my right
  202
  hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor not to complete the changes to the taxation system which were started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) at this stage.
  It is remarkable that so few commentators have picked up the fact that we are seeing a fairly major process of change to taxation. There is a general move, by and large, from direct taxation to indirect taxation. That has been a process of Government thinking for the past 15 years, but it was given greater impetus by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames and it is being pursued now, quite rightly, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in this Budget and his previous Budget. That is a very good area of reform and it is one that Conservatives should be pleased about as it shifts the burden and leaves the element of choice.
  Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I will not give way because others wish to speak and I have already given way on several occasions.
  The success of the changes in taxation will be seen only when we drag the base rate of income tax down to 20p for all and force the level of overall taxation down much further. The key is that the overall burden of taxation must be reduced as a total package. That is what we must get back to. There has been a blip in that regard over the past two or three years. It must now go down as it would remain unfair if we left it simply as moving towards indirect taxation.
  My right hon. and noble Friend the former Member for Blaby, Lord Lawson, said:
  "The history of the 1980s demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that unique political potency of cutting the basic rate of income tax."
  I fully support that. Our economy is clearly now showing that it is a global economy—as it always has been. Most of our exports are outside the European Community, not inside it. The latest figures revealed in the Red Book show that 43.5 per cent. of our exports, including financial services, go to the European Community. It is clear that we will be influenced by the changes taking place outside the Community. We will affected by the massive changes in the far east and north America, which are big markets for us. We should be proud about that. We should not pretend that such growth is an accident.
  Our business men are voting with their feet. They are exporting more every year to the far east and to north America and they do not want to be hidebound with restrictions, taxation and other forms of Government interference which the European Community seems to want to dump on us and which, in essence, comprises a smaller part of our exports.
  I am tired of the constant gripe about manufacturing industry when not one word is said about the service sector. Financial services in this country are the main exporters. We have the third-largest surplus in financial trade in the world—a £16 billion surplus each year—which is beaten only by America and Switzerland. As one industrialist said the other day, our financial services skills are similar to the skills of which the German engineering sector has been proud for many years. We should trumpet that fact because people are beating a path to our door to employ people with those financial services skills.

  203
  In that light, I welcome the venture capital trust scheme, the industrial financial initiative, and the £600 million package of transitional support on business rates—they will go a long way to demonstrate our support for business activity—as well as the changes to the Export Credits Guarantee Department that were proposed in the Budget.
  Opposition Members say that they will sort out the share options scheme and drag lots of money back to the Exchequer on that basis. They are in cloud cuckoo land, just as they are in respect of the loopholes that they will close and the tax that they will drag back to us in that way. It is easy for them to say that, but it does not hold water when we consider the finances.
  We are moving in the right direction. At last, we are getting a grip on public expenditure. We are looking to bring down taxation, and we must bring down the overall burden of taxation. We must never let what happened to us in the four years to 1994 happen again. The Budget, seen in the light of the past 15 years, is exactly right. All that I ask for now is that we make certain that we hold tight on public expenditure so that we may deliver a lower burden of taxation to the British people in future.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I have listened to several Tory speeches since the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened the debate, and I have listened to the President of the Board of Trade, in particular. Nothing in the Tory party has changed since, more than a century ago, Disraeli described the Tory party as an organised hypocrisy.
  It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) refer to the situation in the labour markets and the fact that we have no industrial problems. One reason, if not the principal reason, for that state of affairs is the fear that now exists throughout British industry. That fear was created by the Government's use of mass unemployment as a weapon in their economic policy.
  Tories like to tell us that 2.5 million people are unemployed. Of course, that figure is utterly meaningless. There are 2.5 million unemployed people who are claiming benefit. The operative words are "claiming benefit". It is estimated that between 1.5 million and 2 million people are economically inactive, without work, but not claiming benefit. About 4 million people are without employment. One reason for the enormous drain on the public purse is that people who could work and contribute to the national Exchequer in national insurance contributions and income tax are in receipt of benefits of one form or another.
  Another reason for the situation that the hon. Member for Chingford regards as so wonderful is that the average British worker has less legislative cover than workers in almost every other European country, including many in the former eastern bloc. The British employee is exposed to the depredations of some of the worst employers in Europe.
  I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to two early-day motions. Early-day motion 166 refers to trade union representation and the fact that several organisations and companies refuse employees the right to trade union
  204
  recognition. Early-day motion 166 states that G. R. Scott Ltd. of Wakefield has sacked four employees with 60 years' service between them because they sought trade union recognition. Early-day motion 178, which relates to Badgerline and the Eastern National bus company, states:
  "That this House regrets that employees of Eastern National Bus Company, based in Chelmsford have been dismissed whilst lawfully contemplating industrial action in furtherance of a trade dispute; notes that not a single employee was on strike at the time the sackings took place".
  Many British workers find themselves in that situation today. I hope that the hon. Member for Chingford will bear that in mind before he makes another such speech.
  The Budget has been described in a variety of ways. The Tories generally say that the Budget is good. Most Opposition Members describe it as bad. I describe it as a typical Tory Budget. It is the sort of Budget that I have witnessed since 1979, when the Tories took office from the previous Labour Government. As usual, it is a Budget that protects and promotes the interests of the wealthy and denigrates and downgrades the interests of the poor, the elderly, the low-paid, the sick and the unemployed. That is what one expects and gets from Tory Budgets.
  The Budget reinforces the point that was rammed home by the memorandum that was so expertly leaked from Tory central office, from Mr. John Maples, deputy chairman of the Conservative party. That memorandum has caused many problems for the Tory party and great amusement and interest for the rest of the country. Mr. Maples struck the note exactly right when he said that the general opinion of Tory voters is that
  "the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer".
  In the Budget, once again, the rich are getting richer through the full uprating of inheritance tax, the venture capital trust scheme, which undoubtedly will be another scam for higher-rate taxpayers, and the extension of relief for investors in personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts. It is remarkable that, next year, holders of TESSAs—in many instances, they will be husbands and wives—at the culmination of their five-year TESSAs, will be able to reinvest £18,000 tax free for at least another five years.
  We know that the poor are getting poorer, because VAT will increase from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. if the Government get their way tonight. That will cost the average family an additional £80 a year. We know that, from the previous Budget, seven new Tory taxes will cost the average family another £7 a week. We have seen the freezing of the married couple's allowance, the freezing of the blind person's allowance, the ending of mortgage interest payments for the unemployed and, of course, the continuing tax on ordinary savings.
  The increase in VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. lies at the heart of the controversy surrounding the Budget. No one should be allowed to forget that, at the previous election, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Tory party said that there would be no need for any VAT on fuel. That was a specific statement to the country. We now see how worthless that promise was. The VAT increase is undoubtedly one of the most unpopular measures that have ever been perpetrated.
  In St. Helens town centre, voluntary organisations and the Labour party organised a petition against the increase in VAT on domestic fuel. People were prepared to stand

  205
  in a queue for half an hour to sign that petition. Thousands of people almost rushed to add their names to the petition for Members of Parliament to present to the House.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Was the hon. Gentleman able to assure those people who felt so strongly, that a future Labour Government would reduce the rate from 17.5 per cent. to its present level?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman and I share many views about the European Community. As far as I am aware, once value added tax is applied at a particular level, it cannot be reduced or removed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am wrong. If it were possible, I would certainly like to see VAT removed from fuel. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it would be possible to reduce VAT on gas and electricity—although there might be legal action— but not on other fuel items, such as wood.
  Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to argue with me as we share similar views on the subject. I stress that, as far as I am aware, once VAT is imposed it cannot be reduced or removed.
  The Tory party is the party of value added tax. It introduced VAT and has doubled the rate of VAT since 1979. A typical family will pay more than £1,250 in VAT next year, which is £715 more in real terms than it paid under the previous Labour Government.
  I believe that the Tories intend to extend the imposition of VAT to other goods and services in successive Budgets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it quite clear that he strongly favors switching from direct to indirect taxation. We all know how unfair that would be. The imposition of VAT on domestic fuel is both a regressive and retrograde step, which will hit hardest the elderly, the unemployed and the low-paid. It is certainly a bigger impost on the poorer sections of the community than it is on those who are better off.
  All hon. Members who vote on the motion should bear it in mind that if there is a severe winter this year, a number of elderly people will die of hypothermia as a result of the increase in VAT. Elderly people died last year of hypothermia, and this year the Government have imposed an even bigger charge that will hit the low-paid—who will not qualify for any of the Chancellor's so-called benefits—particularly hard.
  Mr. Fabricant: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on several points, but is not it the case that people died of hypothermia last year and the year before that? People were dying of hypothermia long before VAT on fuel was ever dreamt of.
  Mr. Evans: That is the point that I was making: there will be more deaths from hypothermia this year—particularly if it is a severe winter— than occurred in the last three winters, which were not particularly severe. Many weather forecasters are predicting a severe winter. Conservative Members should bear that in mind when they enter the Lobby to vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight.
  Tory Members and Ministers constantly proclaim—as the President of the Board of Trade did in his speech today—what a wonderful situation the Government have created in Great Britain. They constantly extol the benefits
  206
  of the growth in exports, the control of inflation, the fall in the public sector borrowing requirement and the decrease in unemployment. They say that we have the strongest economy in western Europe.
  In the light of those comments, we are entitled to ask: why cannot the elderly, many of whom do not have long to live, share in that wonderful prosperity? Why has VAT on domestic fuel doubled from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent.? Apart from food, the absolute necessities of life for the elderly are heating and lighting.
  I am a little sceptical about the rebellion that we may see tonight. I would not like to count all the rebellions in the Tory party that have almost taken place about issue after issue since 1979. While I hope that the Government are defeated tonight—and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will then resign—my instincts tell me that when the vote is counted, we shall see once again that Tory Members have failed to put their vote where their mouth has been in the past three or four weeks. We shall wait and see.
  I now refer to an issue that has hardly been mentioned in the debate—indeed, it was skipped over almost completely in the Budget speech. Public expenditure took up barely two columns of the Chancellor's rather lengthy speech. He said that the Government will maintain "tight control" over public expenditure. That statement can be interpreted as a promise of massive cuts in public expenditure.
  That is certainly what has happened with local government. It is remarkable that an area of public expenditure that has been pruned so ruthlessly in the past few years was not mentioned in the Budget speech. We had to wait for the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment to learn precisely what was about to happen in that area.
  According to calculations made by the metropolitan authorities local government committee, some 316 English councils face substantial spending cuts if they are to stay within the Government's new capping levels. Some 217 of those councils will be restricted to an expenditure increase of 0.5 per cent. The Chancellor's inflation forecast for 1995–96 is 2.5 per cent., which represents a substantial cut in local government finance.
  Once again, the Government have cynically walked away from the results of their actions. It is obvious that they will refuse to fund any agreed national wage increases for local authority workers. When one considers that a 1 per cent. increase in teachers' wages will cost English local authorities £1 billion, which they do not possess, one can appreciate the burden that will be placed on local authorities.
  The authority in St. Helens—I am tired of returning time and again to the theme of St. Helens' revenue support grant settlement—has been treated worse than the national average. Its standard spending assessment of £131.9 million this year has been reduced to £129.7 million—a reduction of £2.2 million or 1.7 per cent. of the total.
  The capping level for 1994-95 is £138.5 million, and for 1995-96 it will be £139.2 million—an addition of £700,000 or 0.5 per cent. The reduction in the standard spending assessment in real terms means that St. Helens will lose £2.2 million in grant and that council taxes will have to rise by £45 for a band D property—or 7.7 per cent— in order to compensate for that loss.

  207
  The increased cap allows for an increase of only 0.5 per cent. on the existing budget. That falls far short of current inflation levels and means that the Government will again fail to fund any pay awards that St. Helens council may face. As a result of that reduction and the Government's failure to fund correctly in 1994-95, St. Helens borough council will need to make a £6 million cut in its already stricken budget.
  One can make an amazing comparison of the treatment of St. Helens with that of Westminster city council—which I have done on many occasions— an authority of a similar size, with a similar population. Whereas St. Helens' standard spending assessment has been reduced by £2.2 million, unbelievably and incredibly, Westminster's standard spending assessment has increased by £5.5 million. The permitted increase in St. Helens' budget is 0.5 per cent., but the permitted increase for Westminster is an incredible 15.3 per cent. What does Westminster have on the Tory Government that allows it to get away with such largesse being showered upon it while St. Helens receives such drastic treatment?
  We had a meeting upstairs this afternoon with members of the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority, whose budget has been slashed. They told us that they would probably have to ask the five local authorities of Merseyside for a 22 per cent. increase in the precept merely to stand still financially. On top of all the other tax increases that have been imposed on the people of St. Helens, they now face a further substantial hike in their council tax. The upshot will be that social services and education will have to be cut again.
  Indeed, I suspect that most local authorities will have to make further savage cuts in their care in the community programmes. I shudder to think what yesterday's High Court judgment will mean. It granted judicial review to two pensioners in Gloucester, who can now take their council to court for cutting expenditure on community care. If councils are forced to meet the costs of community care in full, that can only mean further savage reductions, especially in the education budget.
  The combination of ever-increasing taxation and constantly reducing public services, together with the widespread fear of unemployment, supports what the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), said about the lack of a feelgood factor. There is no feelgood factor because, as we know, even the middle classes are bitterly resentful of Tory incompetence and Tory sleaze. Every time people pick up a newspaper or turn on the television, they hear of all sorts of companies and all sorts of industries shedding hundreds and sometimes thousands of workers.
  A good example of that can be found in St. Helens. Earlier this year, SmithKline Beecham announced an increased profit of £1.2 billion. At the same time, it announced the closure of Beecham's factory at St. Helens, with the loss of 500 jobs. That factory, which stands on a site in the town centre, has not suffered from even one industrial dispute in more than 30 years. It ceased production last week. The spectacle of the privatised utilities paying their directors large salaries and share options nauseates millions of people. There is no feelgood factor; there is only contempt for the Tories. Next week's by-election at Dudley, West will show that.
  208
  One matter in the Budget speech which offended me greatly was the Chancellor's casual reference to
  "the emergence of a deprived underclass, excluded from the opportunity to work and dependent on welfare."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1079.]
  Who has created that underclass? Who has been in government for 15 years? Who has presided over the enormous growth in unemployment and the enormous rise in the number of people in receipt of benefit? It is the Tory party; the Tory Government.
  I remind Tory Members that in 1979 many of those people had jobs—in many instances, skilled jobs—in factories that were producing goods that were exported all over the world. Many of those factories, especially in places such as Merseyside, have been closed and demolished. The work forces have dissipated and many people have been out of work almost since 1979. In case Tory Members have forgotten, I remind them that millions of young people—working-class sons and daughters—obtained skilled apprenticeships and went on to produce for and serve their country. Apprenticeships have virtually disappeared in Great Britain and it is now a nation of low-skilled people. Yet what have the Government done? They have cut the unemployment budget by a further £500 million over the next three years.
  Tax increases, public expenditure cuts, average families hugely worse off over the past few years—what is the purpose of the Budget strategy? It is to create a situation that will allow the Tories to go to the country at the next general election resting on a 5 or 6 per cent. cut in the standard rate of income tax. They sold that pup to the country in 1992. They will never sell it again because no one with an ounce of intelligence will ever again believe a Tory when he talks about taxation.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: We are coming to the end of five days of debate on the Budget. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) made an interesting speech, although he raised a couple of points which begged a few questions. First, he spoke of what he called the litany of Tory tax rises; yet he did not refer to his party's position at the last general election, when it pledged additional spending of £13 billion. He did not say what tax rises there would have been had a Labour Government been in power trying to make that additional expenditure.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the "feelgood factor". The reason why there might not be one is the negative equity suffered by so many home owners. Of course, one reason for there being negative equity is that we have not fallen into the trap of encouraging inflation. In fact, currently the United Kingdom is enjoying growth and low inflation—a position which, as many hon. Members have pointed out over the past five days, is virtually unique.
  In rising to take part in this debate on the Budget, I broadly welcome the initiative taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, although I deeply regret the fact that he has inherited one particular tax measure from an earlier Budget. However, I shall say more about that later. Over the past few days, my hon. Friends have highlighted the fact that it is a balanced Budget. It not only serves to build on a firm fiscal base by reducing spending and offering new tax initiatives, but it takes steps to improve employment prospects for the long-term

  209
  unemployed. That is something that even the Leader of the Opposition was forced to welcome in his response to my right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] although only because Conservative Members shouted at him, "Do you welcome it?" and he had to admit that he did.
  I would not want to adopt the policy of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), who said that he would reiterate all the excellent points in the Budget. Instead, I shall concentrate on just two measures which have not attracted the headlines and have not been mentioned much over the past few days, but which deserve recognition. I also intend to deal with the question of VAT on fuel, about which I have the deepest misgivings.
  Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I built up a business with clients in some 52 countries. Some were developed nations and others were developing nations. In the business that I was in, the multi-million-pound contracts tended to be in the developing world where high premiums were paid for western—nay, British—expertise. That gives the lie to Labour Members who constantly denigrate the level of expertise in this country.
  The Opposition also denigrate the service industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford referred to the financial services industry. I remind the House that Britain is also one of the world leaders in computer software. That is another important service industry.
  I and other British exporters often faced overwhelming competition from France., Germany, Japan and the United States, as a result of a price differential arising from the support that our competitors received from their Governments. HERMES, the German equivalent of our Office of Economic Co-operation and Development, offered particularly aggressive facilities and rates to domestic manufacturers—aiming to encourage exports to markets which have less than an A1 credit rating, but which are among the most lucrative markets for UK exporters. While I sweated in hot and humid climates, I saw Siemens and Bosch winning while we lost out.
  Building on the initiatives of the past couple of years, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has wisely directed his attention to manufacturing and to the Export Credits Guarantee Department in particular. By reducing premiums by 20 per cent. for exporters to Argentina, Brazil, the Philippines, Egypt and to what in my view is "the economy most likely to succeed"—Vietnam—costs have been reduced substantially, enabling the UK to compete advantageously with our competitors.
  In addition, a further £300 million of cover was announced last week for the so-called amber zone markets—China, South Africa and Indonesia—to which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade referred. They are all areas where I have traded in the past and which offer Britain huge export potential.
  With a stronger ECGD and one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in Europe, with rates lower than in Japan or the United States, low inflation and lower national insurance premiums for employers, British manufacturers have the springboard to take a deeper plunge into world markets.
  Not every company can survive. Many can fail despite a full and profitable order book. Overtrading can induce cash flow difficulties, and banks and the Inland Revenue may be unsympathetic. I therefore welcome the second
  210
  initiative that I wish to highlight—the 28-day moratorium for insolvent companies. Bankers and tax collectors are often different animals from the entrepreneurs working in small and medium-sized businesses. Too often, they foreclose without exploring opportunities. I look forward to the Green Paper, heralded in the Budget, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade plans to issue.
  Chapter 11 has worked reasonably well in the United States. There are companies trading today which would have been bankrupt without chapter 11, which protects the creditor while allowing many companies to trade out of difficulty and to keep many people employed. I hope that the DTI initiative will include many of the best features of that legislation.
  I was bitterly opposed to the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel, and I am disappointed that the improvement in the economy has not allowed my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to maintain it at 8 per cent.—an international treaty makes it difficult for us to lower it. I oppose that measure on three grounds—compensation levels, the effect on my party, and the very principle behind the tax.
  The elderly spend three times as much on fuel as ordinary households. They feel the cold more. They are often at home during the day, particularly when it is cold outside, when others are at work and have their heating switched off. The elderly also often live in badly insulated houses, so I welcome the Government's initiative on home insulation in the Budget.
  Other hon. Members have spoken at length about the shortfalls in the Government's compensation package. I refer the House to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden). Despite the £2.5 billion for compensation announced in the Budget, which should not be underestimated, pensioners with little spare cash will be slightly worse off—and many hard-up people will receive no help at all.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is wrong if he thinks that the hostility to VAT on fuel—a tax measure which he inherited—will blow over. It will not. I almost wonder whether this issue could be the final straw, as other hon. Members and the media have suggested. As I told the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, elderly people die of hypothermia every year. They have always done so and they always will. Often such deaths have nothing to do with the cost of fuel or with taxation, but for every foreseeable winter from now on the Opposition will be cynically blaming the Conservative Government for the deaths that will occur this winter and the next and the next—and the press will take up their cry. Neither we nor the electorate will be allowed to forget. The staggered introduction of VAT on domestic fuel has made things still worse for my party.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that over the year the average temperature in the north of England is more severe than in the south? Elderly parents in my constituency are a cause of concern for their children who, for economic

  211
  reasons, have moved to the south. In such instances, two families are affected by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The Government are giving extra assistance in the form of cold weather payments, but they will not help in every case.
  My most important objection is to the principle behind the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel, which is fundamentally wrong. In the 1980s, we shifted from direct to indirect taxation, to extend choice and encourage a savings culture that had been enjoyed by Germany for many years. That country has had historically low interest rates, resulting partly from low inflation and a high savings ratio—something that we have not enjoyed. But how much choice is there in purchasing fuel for the home? Such choice as there is certainly does not extend to 17.5 per cent. of the cost, even taking into account the compensation available to some sectors of the community.
  Privatisation has brought a significant lowering in the cost of fuel, as was admirably pointed out by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade earlier today. Why can we not keep VAT on fuel at 8 per cent? I intend to demonstrate that we could do so and remain within our public sector borrowing requirement target. The solution might even have satisfied the carbon tax lobby on the Opposition Benches.
  Other countries have multiple VAT rates. France, our nearest neighbour, has four: zero, 2.1 per cent., 5.5 per cent. and 18.6 per cent. If we maintained VAT on fuel at 8 per cent.—an amount over which everyone can exercise some choice—we could broaden the tax base to include other commodities in that band which are currently zero-rated all in one step and without prolonging our political misery. That might be politically difficult, but not so politically difficult as putting VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent.
  The Government's thrust has rightly been to wean people off state benefits. Yet at a stroke we have succeeded in alienating more of our natural supporters while trawling still more into state dependency. This House is sometimes referred to as the palace of enchantments. At times, it is also the palace of empty gestures and rhetoric. If the Opposition amendment before us today would keep VAT on fuel at 8 per cent., I would vote for it. But it does not. And abstention is deplorable. Because the Opposition amendment would not result in keeping VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. and would, I believe, simply serve to destabilise the economy—[Interruption.] I invite Opposition Members to intervene and correct my argument if I have it wrong.
  Mr. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) stood up first.
  Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is normal practice in the House to have to have paving amendments and then the follow-up amendments, and that if the paving amendment is not passed it is very difficult to vote for the follow-up amendment? I invite the hon. Gentleman to vote for the paving amendment today and
  212
  then, as soon as we get the opportunity on the Finance Bill, to vote to ensure that VAT on fuel does not go up to 17.5 per cent.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I could refer to some paving motions in the past that I would have liked to avoid altogether, because they were not always necessary. However, I digress.
  This amendment is a paving motion to disaster, because the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the international markets would say that a fundamental element of Government legislation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) interrupts from a sedentary position, but makes no sensible points. I shall finish the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I shall then be happy to allow the hon. Member for Walsall, North to intervene.
  If the paving motion fails, the international markets will say, quite correctly, that a fundamental pillar of Government legislation has failed. I believe that there will be pressure on the pound and that that will put interest rates up, which will be detrimental not only to householders, but to pensioners ,and the unemployed, because the growth in our economy will stagger to a halt and slowly slip backwards. There can be no doubt about that. So when I vote tonight, I shall be voting with a heavy heart, but I shall be voting for the better of two evils.
  Mr. David Winnick: Why does the hon. Gentleman not simply say that although he is totally opposed to what the Government intend to do he has not got the bottle to follow his conscience and vote, as he should, with the Opposition? He is betraying his constituents. All the weasel excuses that he is making cannot alter the fact that he has surrendered to the Whips instead of listening to his constituents.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman does not know me. He thinks that he does, but he does not. If he knew me as well as the Whips do, he would know damned well that I would not surrender to them or to anyone else. He can sit there in Opposition and come up with weasel words and points that he thinks will score, but I tell him this: if the Government fail tonight, my constituents—and his—will suffer more than the 17.5 per cent. on fuel, which I still believe is iniquitous.
  I am a Conservative because I wish to see no ceiling on anyone's aspirations or opportunities, but our safety net must be of a fine mesh to minimise the number of those who might slip through. I believe that it is time that we took a long, hard look into what we stand for as a party and reassess our programme for the future. It is not just about privatising the Post Office, which I would have supported vigorously, subject to the safeguards of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already spoken. It is about supporting libraries, parks, the monarchy, care in the community, the police and a variety of other institutions—a whole social environment of which we can all be proud, including those who might not normally be this Government's natural supporters.
  We need a sound economy. The Government have already won us that. But we need to remember that the boundaries of the state can be rolled back only so far. Too little, as Opposition Members would like, and initiative would be stifled, leading to economic and social ruin. Too much, and the Prime Minister's promise of "a nation at

  213
  ease with itself' would become ever more hollow. We need to regain the trust of the people, of those decent, ordinary people who are our natural supporters. We need to revisit the values which respect firm governance and respect for our institutions, tempered with security for the weak and assistance for the vulnerable. Those values are not at variance with a sound economy: they should be the very aims of a sound economy—an economy based on respect for the law, low taxation, free trade and a balanced budget.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I have found some of the speeches tonight so pathetic, so unbelievably wrong. I heard the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) showing his anger about VAT, yet he is not prepared to support the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed and the low-paid. He is not prepared to walk through the Lobby and put a stop to the increase in VAT on fuel increase. We will stop it tonight only if Tory Members are prepared to do that.
  I heard the President of the Board of Tears—sorry, Trade—start the debate tonight. I have never heard him so weak. I have never heard him deliver such a pathetic speech—a speech that lacked any guts. He is normally at the Dispatch Box jumping, shouting and knocking his speech into us. Tonight, his speech was knocking into the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed. His Government created a situation in which the 17.5 per cent. VAT was a result of their total mismanagement of local councils. Lo and behold we had the poll tax, which was a disaster, then the increase in VAT to 17.5 per cent. The poor are paying for the absolute mismanagement of the Government. They are paying through their fuel—badly needed fuel which allows them to live in their homes.
  We hear the members of the Government painting a rosy picture. Are they deaf? Do they not read the newspapers? Have they not travelled around the country? Can they not see what the opinion polls say? Are they not listening to the ordinary men and women who have said, "enough is enough"? The other day, when there was a possibility of a general election if the Government had been brought down, millions of people in the country were praying for just that. Millions would have turfed Tory Members into the place where they belong—the Opposition Benches.
  I heard the President of the Board of Trade tonight. I felt as though I was in Disneyland and hearing "The Jungle Book", a kid's film. But that is not the world that I live in. It is no Disneyland where Tommy Graham comes from. I live in a community where the people have to pay the price of the Government's failures, and that price costs lives. Undoubtedly, people will die because of the Government's VAT policies. I will go further. I have heard rumours that the Chancellor, if he does not win the vote tonight, will savagely reduce public expenditure. Public expenditure has already been reduced, for 15 years.
  I heard the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire talk about public expenditure. Where has he been? The number of home helps has been slashed. Bus services have been deregulated. Communities have been isolated. Bus services have been ruined. Train services look as though they will go the same way. We have seen the wholesale slaughter of private and nationalised industries. We have seen companies go bankrupt and go out of business. Millions of people are unemployed. I remember
  214
  1979. I had a job. My neighbours had jobs. The people of Linwood had jobs. Do they have jobs now? No, after 15 years, millions of people are unemployed and the Government have the audacity to tell us that they have the policies to make Britain good again. It is not on.
  It is obscene that tonight the Chancellor was smiling away when my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) told him that he had made champagne cheaper. He gave us a lovely bubbly smile. Yes, the rich too are bubbling with cheer; but the ordinary men and women—the poor, the unemployed—are bubbling with tears because of the measures that the Government will force through tonight.
  I spoke to a number of constituents before I came here tonight. One, Rose Templeton, has worked as a sister in NHS hospitals all over Britain. Last week, she told me that the imposition of VAT on fuel would cause shivering in the homes of the elderly. Let us make no bones about it: the hospitals will be full of elderly people suffering from the effects of trying to keep their homes warm. Other aspects of their lives will suffer, such as their dietary habits, and they will end up queuing for the doctor or even a hospital bed. The country will pay dearly for that.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Was the hon. Gentleman able to assure Rose that a possible future Labour Government would bring fuel costs down again?
  Mr. Graham: If I were leader of the next Labour Government, I would give an assurance that I would look after the people of Britain far better than the present Government. I would ensure that the elderly could live and die comfortably, and that the young folk had a decent and healthy future. I would create a single system for us all, not a separate system for the rich. We would give the poor a chance to live and breathe. From small seeds grow great trees, but only if the Government are prepared to provide the seeds, and the present Government have no hope of doing that.
  In a letter to me, the chairman of Renfrew district council wrote:
  "I sincerely urge you to take up the issues against an increase to fuel costs … There is clear evidence that the fabric on housing stock is damaged and rot sets in if houses are not well insulated but especially if they are not properly heated."
  Local authority public expenditure will then be needed to make the houses habitable. The council chairman pleaded with the Government not to increase VAT on fuel.
  I also received a letter from Age Concern, which represents many elderly people. One says:
  "I dread this tax as I must have heat; I will need to forfeit other things including bathing and washing clothes."
  This is what VAT on fuel means to elderly men and women:
  "It means making flasks of tea for hot drinks rather than making a fresh brew each time. It would be nice to be allowed to live in comfort and dignity in our old age … I pray we have a mild winter … I am proud to say I have always paid whatever I have been asked for but God knows what the future holds."
  After 15 years of the Tory Government, taxes on basic necessities are taxes on life. It is scandalous. The pensioners say:
  "Like the comedy on TV, I'll be Waiting for God … I'll hibernate for the winter … I'll have to sit in the shopping centre … This takes us back to the war years when sacrifices were made to help everyone. This is not required now—hardship should be a thing of the past."

  215
  I could go on, but I feel that I am speaking to a heartless bunch, and also that I am speaking to a number of Conservative Members who will not be here at the next general election.
  Let me tell the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire about a wee note sent to me by Dr. Brenda Boardman, of Oxford university's environmental change unit. She has estimated that VAT at 8 per cent. will cause 5,000 extra winter deaths, and that VAT at 17.5 per cent. will double the number.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman deny that?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for giving way to me. I have no doubt that the 17.5 per cent. rate of VAT on fuel may produce some detrimental effects; as for the 8 per cent. rate, prices have fallen over the past two years. The net effect of that is that the charge for most fuel is now the same as it was two years ago. Are not Dr. Boardman's figures flawed?
  Mr. Graham: I think that every hon. Member has been inundated with letters, data and other information about the bad effects of VAT on fuel. I do not know of a single hon. Member who has received a letter supporting it—not even a Conservative Member. I am, however, more prepared to believe that woman than to believe any Conservative Member. That is what has happened in the country: we do not believe Conservative Members. We have lost our faith and trust in their ability to govern the country well. There is no possibility that I would believe the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire in this context.
  There is no doubt that VAT is the Tories' favourite tax. How many times have the present Government conned the public? They have made such statements as:
  "We have no plans to increase value added tax … There will be no VAT increase."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
  In March 1992, in a Westminster press conference, the Prime Minister said:
  "I have made it clear that we have no plan and no need to extend the scope of VAT."
  Less than a year later, his Government announced the imposition of VAT on fuel.
  Since 1979, the Government have extended the scope of VAT 14 times. The Chancellor is clearly out of touch with the public in whole-heartedly supporting VAT, which he describes as "a perfectly fair tax". He has said:
  "I think it was a very sensible decision to impose VAT on fuel."
  I plead with the House to listen, and to stop the imposition of VAT on fuel. I plead with hon. Members to allow 10,000 people to live, and to allow 10 million people to take part in the democratic process and vote the Government out. It is time for a change of direction, to ensure that everyone in the country can live comfortably and heat his or her house, eat in that house and enjoy living in Britain. I hope that the Minister will change his mind and support our amendment.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. David Porter: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham): to do so shows that he has finished speaking.
  Mrs. Ewing: He spoke sincerely.
  Mr. Porter: He did; he often speaks with great sincerity. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that I will speak with equal sincerity in representing my part of the country.
  Last week I felt that the Budget represented a small sticking plaster for the wounds inflicted on the party last Monday night. It was welcome in that regard. A Budget that is criticised for being a Budget without fireworks and praised for being a "no headlines" Budget must be quite good, especially at this point in the economic and political cycle. A Budget for business—especially small business—for jobs, for the unemployed and the low-paid, which cuts borrowing yet increases targeted public expenditure is just what we need.
  The fact that the Budget is a part of a coherent economic policy, a strategy for long-term stability and growth, seems to have escaped many Opposition Members. The fact that it is possible to have this strategy of low inflation, sound finance, deregulation and supply-side reform is due in large measure to our departure from the ghastly exchange rate mechanism. That fact has not escaped my hon. Friends even if they do not talk about it in those terms. We all know that the holy grail of growth that is steady and sustained cannot be put at risk for short-term popularity.
  Just before the Budget, the Confederation of British Industry, eastern region sent a letter to East Anglian Members of Parliament presenting a picture of a fragile recovery, a modest improvement in most sectors, cautious investment plans and some reluctance to take on extra employees. I should have thought that the Budget addressed all those concerns directly.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor referred to the strategy of letting the flow of new jobs come. That will always be required to replace the old jobs eroded by technology and competition. That point is at the heart of many of the problems in my constituency.
  In Waveney, serious problems with declining industries seem to get worse as the recession visibly ends in other parts of East Anglia. We are not helped by a perception of remoteness of the area, by poor transport infrastructure or by Great Yarmouth, which is next door, being given assisted area status. The Government did not listen to the argument that giving assisted area status to one location may compound the problems of another just 10 miles away.
  Not all businesses like being in assisted areas or having objective 5b status. They would rather pay less tax so that such artificial subsidies were unnecessary. They will welcome the tax changes and the small business measures. Some businesses do not find it helpful to hear an area being criticised or run down in the way that Waveney district council often does. It is controlled by an unmodernised Labour party which attempts to blame the Government for everything that moves. None the less, parts of Waveney now have approval for objective 5b funding.

  217
  In one of the copious press releases in our Budget information files there is one from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which confirms that in a reduced public borrowing environment parts of Waveney will benefit from extra spending. In so doing we can test the claims of two different arguments. The first is that extra funding of that sort can stimulate jobs and the second is that partnerships between public and private funding are the best way forward. The experiment in public funding will test both those absolutely.
  Another press release tucked in the pile is from the Overseas Development Administration telling us that Britain's aid programme is to be increased. Few will argue with that, particularly where the ODA guarantee of tying aid to sound economic policies and good government is invoked. However, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I have had a small number of letters from constituents, particularly elderly people, who feel that we give too much overseas aid and that more should be spent at home. They find it particularly galling that, for example, money goes to the former communist bloc. It is a view and it should be recognised as such, particularly in a tight financial settlement.
  The big resentment comes over the overseas aid we pour into Europe. The press release says:
  "British contributions to multilateral agencies, especially to the European Community, are planned to increase sharply."
  I know that we are talking about money for genuine aid in third-world countries and countries in transition, but to most people in Britain, our net contribution to the European Union's budget is a glorified way of giving British taxpayers' money in overseas aid to Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy, to allow many of those countries to put our people out of work. I did not hear my right hon. and learned Friend justify such a big payment out of the nation's account for that.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman consider reimbursing the people who have lost their homes and thousands of pounds and are still paying the debt that the Government created for them? Will he consider giving them something back?
  Mr. Porter: Given that I am not a member of the Government and that I am criticising them in a small way, that is a hypothetical question.
  I know that we are not addressing the European Communities (Finance) Bill now, but it is hard to separate that from the tax and spend debate. One aspect of policy which, mercifully, is still free from European diktat is education. The 1 per cent. increase in real terms in education spending is very good news. It will allow for student numbers in further and higher education to grow still further, it will allow the curriculum reforms to bed down and it will allow some capital works spending. I presume that it will also allow for spending on the first steps towards the nursery and pre-school education that has been announced. Perhaps we shall have to wait for next year's Budget to hear the details.
  I have already mentioned the roads in my area. In transport, a partnership between public and private sectors is obviously the best provision. As the Chancellor said, privatisation and private finance for capital investment are increasingly the chosen method for raising the quality of public service. That system works with the Department of Transport's policy of supporting a wide variety of smaller
  218
  schemes. I remind the Government that the A12 Ipswich to Lowestoft dualling plans are already in five manageable bites, each one different. They range from rural dualling and village bypasses to a new bridge at Lowestoft. I commend all five parts to the Government as being economically essential and environmentally helpful to the quality of life.
  The Department of the Environment has announced that standard spending assessment methodology is to be changed. It currently calculates the SSA by looking at social, demographic and other factors which affect an authority's need to spend and it applies those to the individual circumstances of each authority. I should like to see each authority that is left after the local government review raise what it likes in local taxes and then answer for it each year at the ballot box. That would be real local government accountability. Until then, we have SSAs and all that paraphernalia. I hope that the Department will review the rural deprivation element in the SSA and the extent to which local economic bases can diversify and adapt to increasing competition and technology.
  The package of transitional support on business rates, the investment encouragement in growing firms and the reduction in costs for taking on new staff are not only welcome but essential and they should make big inroads into unemployment numbers. When those are coupled with the measures to help individuals back to work they should assist in keeping the United Kingdom at the forefront of Europe in achieving a sound and balanced economy.
  For all the sweeping statements and visions of national changes benefiting individuals, the VAT issue remains a principal concern. I shall not rehearse all the arguments yet again because I do not believe that we shall change any minds in the Chamber. I suspect that the changing of minds is going on in Rooms outside this place. I wish that the media and some politicians would give equal space and hot air to the fact that 15 million people are receiving above-inflation help with VAT and that there is extra help from April 1995 and April 1996, which is in permanent addition to the benefit rates and will be uprated in the normal way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security told the House last week that information on all that would be included in all benefit books and I welcome that.
  Twenty years ago no one would have predicted that tourism would have been the biggest job creator in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s. We cannot predict everything that lies ahead. The challenges of the next century are enormous and unpredictable. We know that the technological revolution has only just begun and what is coming will make what has happened so far seem like a teddy bears' picnic. The advances in medicine, life style, communications and entertainment will be mind boggling for us. We know that the threats from drug abuse, organised crime and disaffected people are terrifying and real. We know that pollution and the environmental tasks ahead will stretch our brains, our ingenuity and our pockets to the limit. We know that demands to live longer with more material possessions and in better health will be relentless. That future is inevitable. We owe it to those who will follow us to take on that challenge, to give there a stable financial bedrock and we have to do it now. That is why I support the thrust of the Budget.
  8.17 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Labour amendment talks about the Budget leaving increasing numbers of fellow citizens in poverty. It will do that and many of those fellow citizens will be children. It should be seen as a national scandal that one third of our children are now growing up in poverty. Many of those fellow citizens will be pregnant women. I notice that statutory maternity pay has been frozen at £52.50. Not many people remark on that. Somehow, pregnant women do not grab the headlines. The freezing of statutory maternity pay is a disgrace. Statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay were linked for technical reasons, and now statutory maternity pay is suffering because of that link. It shows the Chancellor's lack of concern for pregnant women, but there is worse.
  In 1992, the Select Committee on Health report on maternity services suggested that family credit should be extended to families during pregnancy so that preparation could be made for a healthy birth and a healthy child. Still, family credit does not extend to pregnancy.
  We recommended that pregnancy age discrimination should be abandoned, but there is no mention in the Budget of the hardship suffered by our youngest mothers and mothers-to-be. Under-16s do not receive any financial support and 16 and 17-year-olds receive no income support for the first 29 weeks of pregnancy unless they can show severe hardship.
  Ministers say complacently that pregnancy is not a qualification for income support. They are asking 16 and 17-year-old pregnant girls, therefore, to suffer severe hardship before they receive the sort of help that is available to older women. Income support, if they receive it, is at the rate available to 18 to 24-year-olds—still substantially lower than that available to 25-year-olds.
  The Government have given no convincing explanation as to why pregnant women aged under 25 need less money than pregnant women aged 25 and over. The reason why they receive a lower rate is that the Government consider that they have fewer household responsibilities. Pregnancy should at least be a cure for that assumption. It would cost peanuts to institute such a change in the Budget. Even though a majority of the members of the Select Committee are from the Conservative party, .the Government still ignore its recommendations.
  As the Department of Health and Social Security noted as long ago as 1977:
  "An inadequate diet before and during pregnancy may impair growth of the baby and put at risk the health of both mother and child".
  The Select Committee said:
  "We do not believe that all the difficulties faced by mothers in feeding themselves during pregnancy result from lack of knowledge about good food, rather we believe that major difficulties arise from poor material circumstances and low income."
  The Select Committee, which has a majority of Tory Members, went on to say:
  "Our view is broadly no different to that expressed by one of the earliest commentators. In his report on poverty in York in 1899, Rowntree observed that if York was typical, 'then the impediment to the rearing of healthy children is not the ignorance of the mothers so much or nearly so much as that the conditions of modem life do not enable them to supply their children with sufficient sustenance.'"
  220
  That applies not only in 1899 but, unfortunately and disgracefully, in 1994. We seem to have spent 100 years coming full circle. The Budget does nothing to remedy the problem. The Government, therefore, have left young poor women on income support in a position where, as is widely acknowledged, they cannot receive adequate nourishment because they cannot pay for it.
  The babies of those women are likely to be smaller. In later life, smaller babies are more likely to suffer heart trouble, diabetes and other problems. They will then call on the national health service, if it still exists, which is not certain with the machinations of the Conservative party. This matter affects not only women during pregnancy, but the entire life of the babies to whom they give birth.
  The poorest mothers might apply for a maternity grant from the social fund. It has been frozen again at £100. The poorest mothers can receive only £100 to help them to pay for all their babies' necessities. Women on supplementary benefit in April 1987, when the Government were in power, could receive a grant of £187. In December 1991, it would have been worth £249. The maternity grant level for the poorest mothers would, I think, now be about £270 if it were-based in the same way as the 1987 grant. Instead, they receive a measly £100 and it is frozen. No wonder Opposition Members talk about leaving our fellow citizens in poverty.
  Government policy affects not only the food of the poorest mothers. Children born into poor families are likely to live in inadequate housing. Those families will suffer greatly from VAT on fuel. I agree with everything that has been said about the plight of the elderly, but it is not the whole story. Poor families with children also suffer from VAT on fuel. Children in poor, inadequately heated homes are contributing to the positive epidemic of respiratory illness among children.
  The Government's response is not to improve those families' housing. They do not take any constructive steps in that regard. They make threats to reduce housing benefit. Hon. Members can read the gobbledegook of the Secretary of State for Social Security in Hansard. In one paragraph, he says:
  "Rent officers determine whether rents are within reasonable market levels and help"—
  that is help from housing benefit—
  "is not usually available above that."
  He said that people could receive help above the market rent in their region and went on to say:
  "But in many areas, the market level is largely determined by those on housing benefit."
  In the next paragraph, the Secretary of State says:
  "New claimants and those moving home will be entitled to housing benefit for the full rent up to the average rent for similar properties in the area"—[Official Report, 30 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1206.]
  In the previous paragraph, however, he said that that was the existing position. All I can conclude from that is that the Government are waving threats about while they consider how to carry them out.
  Many Opposition Members have regular experience of the fact that people on housing benefit in the private rented sector frequently have the utmost difficulty in receiving the full rent. They are told that it is too expensive. I always challenge the housing benefit office to find accommodation at a lower rent than that being charged to the person whose case I am dealing with.

  221
  Usually I win the argument, but many people in my constituency receive less in housing benefit than they should. Gobbledegook is the best that the Secretary of State for Social Security can contribute to the housing problem.
  We will find that people who need income support will receive no help on paying mortgage interest for the first nine months. They are told to insure against not being able to pay. Many people cannot afford their mortgage payments now and the Government want to add a mythical insurance, which people may not even be able to get. They seem completely to ignore the fact that their policy is likely to result in bigger debts and more homelessness. Even people with current loans will find that for the first two months during which they get income support they will receive no help with mortgage interest. The four months during which half of it will be paid will then begin. That is incredible when, as of June 1994, there were 485,000 households in Britain with mortgage arrears of three months or more.
  Many people are already unable to pay interest on their mortgages having fallen on hard times. That is causing them the utmost distress but also leads to huge numbers of repossessions—200,000 properties were repossessed between 1991 and 1993—which necessitates more public spending because those people become homeless. Many finish up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at huge public expense. The Government's policy is not only heartless but stupid.
  The social rented sector—I hate that term but we know what it means—has shrunk by more than 1 million homes since 1981. The central problem is not fecklessness or even profiteering by private landlords—landlords would not be able to profiteer if there were not such a housing shortage presided over by the Government. The effects of the shrinking social rented sector are evident from a letter from my borough council. It states:
  "The key factors locally in Preston are that there are 2,300 applicants registered on the council's waiting list … 181 homeless families in temporary accommodation for periods up to eight months … it would cost an estimated £170 million to bring all the private sector housing stock up to full modern standards of repair and facilities and £90 million for the council's own stock … and there has been a cut of 60 per cent. in real terms in the council's borrowing approvals for housing over the last 10 years."
  The Government have presided over all that. The council now expects that the Budget
  "will lead to a reduction in spending on improvements to existing council stock, higher council rents and further reductions in renovation grants in the private sector and in area-based improvements in such renewal areas."
  That is no way to run a country.
  Our fellow citizens live in such poverty that it is just as well that the curious conventions of the House allow the Prime Minister himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and their immediate colleagues to "congratulate Her Majesty's Government" because one thing is certain—the population in general will not.
  8.32 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to draw attention to a simple fact, not to make a political point. During this debate, I asked the Labour party's Front Bench spokesmen and two Back Benchers a simple question: if there were ever a Labour Government, would they abolish the 17.5 per cent. rate of value added tax? Unfortunately, I have not yet received a clear yes.
  222
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), in a delightful speech, argued strongly about how filthy Tory policies are and how splendid the Labour party's are, and I am sure that he believes that. However, I am going to Renfrew town hall on Sunday to make a point that I shall make now. It is time that the House woke up to the fact that we are kidding the people of Britain if we pretend that a change of Government will dramatically change what can be done about VAT. It is a horrible message, but we must tell people that this now pathetic Parliament can do hardly anything about VAT or many other things.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde talked about some of his poor friends whom he mentioned by name. He referred particularly to a lady who was having to pay more for her water, but what power do the Government have to reduce the VAT? The hon. Gentleman also talked about telephones; I am sure that many people, including his delightful Rose, are worried about paying this horrible VAT on their telephone bills. However, what the blazes could a Scottish Nationalist Government, a Labour Government or a real Conservative Government do about such matters? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the answer is nothing. That is not a matter for debate; it is a fact.
  As we know, the freedom of our country to decide our taxation disappeared back when it all started in 1987 when Madame Scrivener proposed that there should be no provision for a zero rate. There was some flexibility but a series of decisions meant that Britain had to tax most of its goods at a basic rate within a certain band and a minority of its goods at the lower rate. Special provisions for gas and electricity meant that we could levy the lower rate but I am confused about one issue, which I hope that the Government will clarify.
  It seems that gas and electricity are the only items on which we could reduce the 17.5 per cent. rate if the Government changed their mind or if there were a change of Government. However, I am led to believe that we could not reduce the rate on some items of fuel and power, such as fuel oil, coal, peat and coke. Furthermore, if the European Community decided that there had been a distortion of the rules of competition among the various forms of fuel it could take legal action. We are in a terrible mess.
  I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the fact that, although the Tories and the present Government are blamed for levying VAT on certain items, we did not decide to do so. For example, I remember a great hoo-ha about the imposition of VAT on the construction of buildings; and there was a huge upsurge in complaints about VAT on sewerage and water services, but we did not take the relevant decisions. They were taken by something called the European Court of Justice and we had to comply. The same applies to fuel and power other than domestic fuel.
  I wish that we would wake up to the fact that, no matter which party is in power, we are landed with a foul tax which is nasty for the poor, offensive and causes great hardship. As we know, the sad fact is that the people who suffer from the manipulation of VAT are those on low and medium incomes. The Government are kind and always try hard to help people, but it does not matter how hard they try.

  223
  Any extra money given to pensioners is taken into account in their housing benefit and, of course, some pensioners also pay tax. Let us assume that I had a very wealthy mother, which I do not, and that she received an increase in her pension—she would have to pay tax on it. The unpleasant fact is that, if one has saved nothing, one could now be better off.
  Given that the Government's powers have almost disappeared, that democracy is almost dead and that there is virtually nothing we can do in this instance, would not it be sensible for the Chancellor to wait until he was forced to do something about VAT? Everyone knows that VAT on fuel and power is horribly unpopular, and understandably so. People have no choice about it. The imposition of VAT will not affect people like me because Members of Parliament have lots of money, but those with little money will not be able to get involved in savings schemes and the installation of various pieces of equipment.
  During a debate on 12 April 1993, I made a little speech pointing out that VAT on fuel and power was filthy and that it was unkind to everyone. However, because the Government were in a horrific mess, having a deficit of £50 billion, one was inclined to say that anything was better than nothing. Because of the Government's magnificent attitude and because we fell out of the exchange rate mechanism, things are better and we now have more scope and opportunity, so I wonder whether it is wise to go ahead with the second tranche of VAT on fuel and power.
  I believe that, as the Government are unpopular because of VAT decisions many of which have been nothing to do with us, it might be wise and prudent for us to say that we shall wait until we are told what to do, rather than take the initiative to put more taxes on fuel and power ourselves. I hope that people will wake up to the fact that on most of those VAT issues our freedom of action is basically nil. I also hope that the Government will agree on reflection that there may be a case for putting off the second stage of VAT on fuel and power. It is very unpopular and it appears very unfair.
  Things have changed somewhat since the previous debate. It is a mistake for the Government to go on paying so much money to the EC to be wasted on fraud and mismanagement, and then to make a proposal that will hit people so hard. My feeling is that in those circumstances it is best to express no opinion—and that is what I shall do tonight. None the less, the measure is a mistake.
  Unfortunately, the Labour party is playing games and trying to pretend that things would be infinitely better if it were in power. It would be better if Labour Members woke up to the fact that our powers are extremely limited. Therefore, if there is a vote I shall not vote for an extension of VAT on fuel and power; on the other hand, in loyalty to the views that I hold, and as the Labour party is playing silly political games and pretending that it would have powers that it would not, I shall certainly not vote with Labour Members.
  8.40 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Tempting though it is to take up the issues raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in the context of the
  224
  various European Community directives on VAT and the qualifications placed on exemptions, reductions, derogations and so on, the hon. Gentleman will understand that, because of pressure of time and the fact that many Opposition Members have been here for the debate and wish to register their own opinions about the vote facing us, I cannot. I simply say to him that he is not the sole expert nor the fount of all wisdom on European directives and legislation. Many debates could no doubt arise from what he has said.
  It may surprise Ministers that I shall start with a small congratulation to the Government on the Budget—I may add that that is the only congratulation that I shall offer them. I am glad to see that they have followed my advice in early-day motion 950, dated 24 March this year, to allow flexible arrangements on annuities. I welcome that measure in the Budget, but perhaps one of the Treasury Ministers will tell me why it is subject to an upper age limit of 75. That limit is regarded as arbitrary, and I believe that it should be removed. It would be nice to hear an answer on that point.
  The second aspect of the Budget that I shall mention concerns the excise levels on DERV and fuel. Excise paid by the owners of vehicles in the United Kingdom is now the highest in the European Union, and fuel accounts for 21 per cent. of the operating costs of Scottish businesses. That is especially disastrous for my area and for many other rural constituencies.
  In Moray we export fish, food, whisky and timber, and the additional cost is one that my local businesses cannot sustain. It will harm the local economy. Over the weekend various organisations representing business interests and people who work in local businesses made clear to me their anger at facing yet again the prospect of additional fuel costs, which make such a crucial difference in remote areas.
  In Scotland we already have petrol differentials; petrol is more expensive there. In rural areas cars are not a luxury; they are a necessity for employment. I add a special word on behalf of the disabled, for whom access to a car is especially important. We greatly resent the fact that we are again having additional costs added for the use of our vehicles.
  Because of the exigencies of time I may not be able to get through all the points that I wish to make to the Chancellor and the Government. My main argument is, of course, about VAT on fuel. Since the mid-1970s I have spoken in the House on the issue of fuel poverty, yet it still exists. In an energy-rich country such as Scotland it is appalling that fuel poverty continues, as indeed it does throughout the United Kingdom.
  The vote tonight on VAT on fuel will be critical. The issue is one of life and death to many of our people. During a recent debate in Scotland I was told that the Conservatives were driving a nail into their coffin north of the border by going ahead with the second tranche of VAT on domestic fuel. I do not give a tuppenny scone for the future of the Conservative party in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, nor for the future of the Conservative Government. But I care deeply about the well-being and the lives of the people whom I have been asked to represent, and about the thousands and thousands of people on low incomes—people who are disabled, pensioners and young families—all of whom are being severely affected by that Government policy.

  225
  I have met representatives of the disabled and the elderly in my constituency, and I can tell the Chancellor that their anger about the measure cannot be contained. They are shivering, but they are also shaking with temper. They read articles in the Sunday press about the Chancellor relishing his curry in a Pimlico restaurant, with his pint and his cigars, while they are frightened to order a bag of coal or to switch on their gas or electric fires.
  Today the Secretary of State for the Environment, aided and abetted by the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), told us that VAT on fuel is a wonderful environmental tax, being imposed in the interests of green policy. Does that mean the 569,876 cold, damp and mouldy houses in Scotland? Is that the environment that we are talking about? Are we talking about the environment of our elderly, and of the disabled and other vulnerable people—the people who have watched £90 billion worth of revenues from North sea oil and gas flow to Westminster, while they still feel cold in 1994?
  An article by Dorothy Grace Elder that appeared in Scotland on Sunday reflects the views of people in Scotland:
  "From the team which brought you The Sleaze, now comes The Freeze, with almost 4,000 funerals and no weddings.
  It is wrong to call the Budget 'boring'; VAT on fuel isn't boring—unless you count an additional 800 elderly Scots being bored to the point of death. Additional? That is because we already have around 3,000 cold-related deaths every year; the worst winter death rate in Europe within a country which has the greatest fuel bonanza in Europe".
  Earlier speeches in the debate revealed that there is a dispute about excess winter deaths. Yet the Prime Minister himself, as long ago as 1986, admitted that there were excess winter deaths and that the figure was much higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States of America or in Sweden.
  The Energy Action Group in Scotland has produced scientific statistics about excessive winter deaths in Scotland. To discover how many excess winter deaths there are we must compare the number of deaths per 10,000 of population in the first quarter of the year, from January to March, with those in the third quarter, from July to September. Studies for England and Wales show an average excess winter mortality of 20 per cent. The comparable figure for Scotland between 1977 and 1990 is 27 per cent.
  The Energy Action Group's report also shows that countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, which have more severe climatic conditions than ours, have far fewer excess winter deaths.
  It is argued that the problem of winter deaths will not be exacerbated by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. The reality is that it will be exacerbated. The Government should talk to social workers or people involved in voluntary organisations. They should go into a pensioner's house where only one room is heated, where it is too cold to go to the toilet and where it is too cold to go to bed at night. People live, eat and breathe in the one room that they think they can afford to heat. That problem will be exacerbated.
  People had the insult of seeing that the chief executive of British Gas had been given a 75 per cent. pay increase. That is ludicrous. We see headlines saying that the 75 per cent. rise for the gas chief is too little and that he should have more. Yet people are literally freezing to death in our country.
  226
  I received today a letter from the Charities Tax Reform Group which has complimented my party on the fact that it has mentioned charities in its amendment. The group has pointed out that the burden of VAT on fuel will add £13 million to the bill of charities. The group says that that may be small change in public expenditure terms, but that it could mean the difference between closing a residential home or leaving it open.
  The Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund, to which we are all indebted, pays one third of its grant to people with cancer to help them meet the higher fuel costs they incur as a result of their illness. Residential care providers are required by law to maintain temperatures at a specific level. Reducing consumption is, therefore, difficult. In fact, I would say that it is well-nigh impossible.
  I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up the invitation that was issued to him on 1 December by a pensioner in Dingwall, in the constituency of Ross, Cromarty and Skye. I know that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will not mind my quoting this. This lady says:
  "I'm just a pensioner and my electricity bill was over £200 last winter, so heaven knows what it'll be in years to come … I'd really like Kenneth Clarke to come and live in my house for a week in mid-winter so that he could see reality."
  The reality is that people are frightened. They are living with fuel poverty. Whatever compensation deal the Government may argue about, it is not adequate to deal with the realities of the temperatures that we consistently experience in the north of Scotland.
  Anyone who believes in social justice should be with us in the Lobby tonight, opposing the Government and giving us the opportunity to eradicate fuel poverty in our society. I ask Conservative Members this question. Will they be able to live with their consciences tomorrow?
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and to echo her views. I want to deliver two messages. My constituents are bitterly disappointed that the Prime Minister has broken one promise and they anticipate being bitterly disappointed when he breaks a second. The Prime Minister promised that he would not put VAT on fuel. He also promised that the Government would deliver their commitment to the Rio reductions in emissions, especially carbon dioxide emissions. From the evidence of the Budget, the Government will renege on that commitment as well.
  To hear the rant by the President of the Board of Trade, one would have thought that this country could have difficulties if we did not go ahead with this increase in VAT. I do not believe a word of what he said because the evidence is all there. The right hon. Gentleman, however, insists that the increase is necessary. I suggest to the Government that there is no problem this year in avoiding the increase. Almost all my constituents would far prefer to see no increase in VAT next year instead of having the tax cuts at which the Chancellor is hinting.
  What really concerns me is that there is no economic justification for VAT. The only thing that the Government have ever claimed is that there is a green argument for VAT on fuel. All the evidence I have shows that the green argument is equal nonsense. The Government said that to meet the Rio commitments, they had to reduce carbon

  227
  dioxide emissions by 10 million tonnes. The claim is that by putting VAT up, 15 per cent. of that target will be produced.
  I have done a little bit of checking in my constituency to find out what people on average and above average incomes are doing about VAT on fuel. All of them are just accepting the VAT as another Government tax. It is not changing behaviour in any way. It is not persuading those people to use less fuel or to make their homes energy-efficient. I made further checks. There is no increase in the number of people trying to get wall insulation and no increase in the number of people ordering loft insulation or taking other similar measures. People who have the chance to borrow money to invest in energy efficiency measures are taking no action at all.
  The hard-up in my constituency—the elderly and those with children—cannot afford to spend money on energy efficiency schemes. They are making their contribution to the Rio targets by going without and by suffering. One can see pensioners talking to each other about how they can move from a luncheon club to somewhere else, such as a library, so that they can use someone else's heat rather than having to heat their homes during the winter. For those with children, it is almost impossible to move around to use other people's heat. There is real hardship. Those people cannot improve their dwellings. Many of them are in rented property and they cannot persuade their landlords to take energy efficiency measures, whether they are in the public or the private sector.
  The Government have said, "Ah well, we have got the home energy saving scheme." Last week, many hon. Members were out publicising that scheme. It is a very worthwhile scheme; how much extra did the Government put in? They put in £10 million. What does that actually mean? In Stockport, there is now a waiting list of more than six weeks to get the work done. If that pittance in the Budget was allocated across the whole country, six extra homes could have the energy saving schemes installed. If the Government really have a commitment to the Rio targets, they must come up with real money for energy saving. If they do not, they are not only betraying pensioners and young children, but betraying our commitment to the global strategy to stop global warming and to ensure that we look after our planet.
  I now turn to the Energy Saving Trust; Lord Moore is supposed to be in charge of it. The Government say that it is intended to provide 35 per cent. of the achievement of the Rio targets. It has set up a whole series of schemes for energy saving so that we can achieve our Rio targets, ensure that people have better, warmer homes and stop the problems of damp and other problems. There is no money for the schemes. The gas regulator said that there would be no money from British Gas. The Government are now looking for £1 billion to finance the Energy Saving Trust and its targets. The trust is not mentioned at all in the Budget.
  I am bitterly disappointed that on VAT, the Government will hit the poorest in our country. They are totally failing in their commitment to Rio. That is a disgrace. I certainly hope that the Government are defeated tonight.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey: I have two issues to raise on the question of fuel and I shall do so as briefly as I can. I thank the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for their brevity. I shall try to match their brevity, but I do not know whether I can match their excellence.
  One of the most important fuels that we have in Scotland is, of course, Scotch whisky. The Chancellor missed a marvellous opportunity to redress the imbalance of taxation, levied not only on Scotch whisky, but on spirits in general. He should have done something to harmonise taxes on spirits, wines and beers and, especially, he should have given a message to our continental friends because our products are being discriminated against to our detriment. While this country is being flooded by cheap booze from the continent, it can only be to the detriment of the Chancellor's coffers, because, as he is bound to see, the amount of cheap booze now entering the country is considerable.
  The Lamont legacy in certain areas of the Budget was referred to earlier. The one Lamont trait that I appreciated was that he had a glass of Highland Park as he announced his Budget. I am not sure what the present Chancellor was drinking, but it looked like whisky.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated assent.
  Mr. McKelvey: I do not know the product brand name, but, whatever it was, it was certainly a couple of million quid to the company and the industry and long may it continue.
  The other serious issue, has, of course, already been described by my colleagues: VAT on fuel. At the outset, I echo the comments of the Braemar coal merchant, Mr. Alan Clark, who was quoted in today's edition of The Guardian. He said:
  "VAT was supposed to be for luxuries".
  He then asked:
  "Since when was fuel a luxury?"
  The answer, of course, is that fuel has been a luxury since the years of economic mismanagement and rash income tax promises to their supporters have led the Government to shift the burden of taxation on to those least able to shoulder it. The hon. Member for Moray and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish outlined exactly the difficulties that people will suffer in their areas.
  My comments should alert the House to the fact that I am implacably opposed to any VAT on fuel. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, if we were to take office and I were the leader of my party, I would say here and now that we would rescind, wherever we could under the European legislation, imposition of VAT on fuel.
  Even the best compensation packages designed to help the sections of the community who are most disadvantaged by the introduction of 17.5 per cent. VAT will be bound to leave out many thousands of vulnerable adults and children—those who do not qualify because of their age or because they have a few pence too much. In assessing income, 5p too much can knock somebody off income support and therefore devalue the opportunity of compensation.

  229
  The VAT on fuel compensation scheme is not, however, one of the best compensation packages by any measure of judgment. Indeed, it is appalling. First, it treats the British Isles as an amorphous mass and one cannot do that. It deals in averages, which take no account whatever of regional variations. The eligible pensioner or family in John o'Groats receives exactly the same as the eligible pensioner or family in Lands End, but their climates could not be more different.
  I shall use figures which have been extracted from the Ministry. Over 10 years, the hon. Member for Moray has tenaciously tried to extract figures from it. I gave up 10 years ago. I asked the then Secretary of Scotland about compensation for colder climates in Scotland and I was told blandly from the Dispatch Box that there was no difference between the climate in Scotland and the climate in England, which showed how few visits he had made to Scotland. By the Department of the Environment's own reckoning, it costs 41 per cent. more to heat a typical semi in Aberdeen than it does in Bristol and it costs 66 per cent. more in Braemar, yet every pensioner in Bristol is entitled to the same compensation and will receive the same as every pensioner in Kilmarnock, Aberdeen, John o'Groats and Braemar. The princely sum of £52 per annum has been calculated by the Treasury as adequate compensation for 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel for those who qualify.
  Age Concern produced some interesting tables which showed that the compensation package benefits only those with fuel bills below £300, which takes into account £80 standing charges. I doubt very much if there is a pensioner in Bristol, let alone Braemar, who boast bills so low over the year. Again, today's article in The Guardian said that a retired nurse in Braemar, with a two-roomed flat, pays £700 a year on heating. Another villager, a former Tory voter, pays £1,100 a year to heat his five-roomed house. I know that those figures are not too dissimilar to those paid by pensioners and families in my constituency.
  The Right to Warmth campaign demonstrates that a couple on income support with two children will pay, on average, an extra £135 per annum. Again, that is an average which must be taken into account to get the picture of the problems which will face young families in Scotland on income support. When people cannot pay to keep warm, their health suffers. These figures suggest that almost no one benefits from this meagre compensation. Scottish pensioners and families on income support will suffer disproportionately.
  A new report "Ice Cold" from Age Concern shows than an estimated 3 million—one third of all pensioners—live in indoor temperatures at or below 16 deg. Celsius, 61 deg. Fahrenheit, in the winter. Contrast that with the advice of the Department of the Environment that the elderly and the sick should have an indoor temperature of 21 deg. Celsius, which is 70 deg. Fahrenheit. The same advice is given by the Institute of Housing and the Institute of Architects and Surveyors. It is sound advice, but it falls on the deaf ears of those who cannot afford to heat their homes accordingly.
  It should be remembered that shops and offices are obliged to close if the indoor temperature drops to 16 deg. centigrade. The House might share my view that the elderly, the poor and the sick are already at considerable risk. A survey conducted by Age Concern found that 95 per cent. of pensioners interviewed expected to cut back on heating if VAT increased again.
  230
  Deaths as a result of hypothermia increased by 20 per cent. in Scotland last year. I am not producing fictitious figures or figures that are designed to scaremonger. These are real figures. The numbers of winter-time deaths among the elderly in this country provide a stark comparison with the figures of our continental neighbours. Given our record, can any sane people, including Members of this place, justify the imposition of VAT on fuel? For that matter, can any sane person or conscientious Member afford not to vote with us, the Opposition, to save elderly people from their fate?
  I see that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) is shaking her head. Perhaps her conscience bothers her, or perhaps she thinks that the figures to which I have referred were drawn from the air. As I have said, they are real figures. People will die of hypothermia in Scotland and elsewhere. The hon. Lady need not shake her head because I have stated a fact. My assertion is backed by Government figures.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McKelvey: No, I shall not. The hon. Lady has not been in her place for more than five minutes. I have been in the Chamber since 3 o'clock.
  Should we not be considering ways of reducing hypothermia deaths, especially undertaking additional insulation work to give extra help to those who live in the coldest and remotest parts of Britain? It is every citizen's right, irrespective of his income, to have proper housing that is windproof, waterproof and adequately heated. That is a basic right that surely even Conservatives would have to accept.
  There is no reason for those who have pontificated on the horrors of the imposition of more VAT on fuel to be in the House to abstain in person. That is nonsensical. Equally, hon. Members should not keep away from the House this evening. Conservative Members should add their votes to those of Opposition Members to defeat the increased burden of an obnoxious and unwanted tax.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: The Opposition's charge against the Budget is that it is out of touch with the needs of the country and disregards the views of the British people. We needed a Budget for investment, jobs and fairness, and instead we have a Budget that does next to nothing for investment. The Government have acted too late and done too little to increase employment. They have confirmed the greatest tax rise in history, which perpetuates the injustice of imposing value added tax on fuel. It is significant that, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), no Conservative Member has sought to justify the increase in VAT on fuel on its merits, or on any merits that Conservative Members suppose that it has.
  The Government's argument seems to be that they can bring national finances into order only by measures such as increasing VAT, which is manifestly unfair. We say that sound finances, a strong economy and fairness must go hand in hand.
  The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) sought to give us a history lesson on the past 15 years. He would have done well to remember, as would his hon. Friends, that when the Conservatives secured their route

  231
  to power in 1979, they did so because they were seen as helping people to get on and to make the most of their chances, and helping Britain make the most of its potential. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) so ably argued, all the Conservatives' claims have been betrayed. Living standards have fallen since the general election, as the latest edition of "Economic Trends" shows, with a fall in personal disposable income. What is more, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister seem not to understand how far they are seen now as holding people back and holding Britain back, where we are urging that people should have the chance to get on.
  In his characteristically well-argued speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) spelt out how, to secure prosperity, Britain needs investment in business, in infrastructure and in people. As he said, everyone in Britain should be alarmed at the very low present level of investment. Not only is it at a very low level, but it has actually fallen in the past two quarters. Not only is it still lower in real terms than the level that the Conservatives inherited 15 years ago, but the real net capital stock available to British manufacturers is barely higher now than in 1979.
  British firms must attempt to compete with 30 per cent. less investment per worker than in Germany and France and 65 per cent. less investment per worker than in Japan. In those circumstances, is not it staggering that the Chancellor did so very little in the Budget to stimulate investment? While, of course, growth in current output is one stimulus, on its own it may well not be enough.
  We all note that the Red Book forecast is for private investment to grow next year by 11 per cent. Let us hope that that forecast is right, but such a figure is notoriously difficult to predict. It would be a triumph of hope over experience not to imagine that the now likely prospect of rising interest rates will not have an impact on that.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman believe—and he will probably say no, so I would like him to justify his negative response—that if the Opposition amendment was successful tonight, interest rates would rise still further?
  Mr. Smith: It would be interesting to know whether, on the basis of my answer, the hon. Gentleman is seriously considering changing his mind to honour what he said to his constituents. However, if our amendment is successful, of course the Chancellor will make a statement. We have set out the measures, which I shall spell out in greater detail later, to raise the revenue. There is no reason why interest rates should rise tomorrow. We shall wait and see whether, on the basis of the discussions that the Chancellor has had with the Governor of the Bank of England, interest rates will rise anyway.
  We believe that the Chancellor should have done more to stimulate investment in industry and that he should have acted on the representations that he received from the seven largest manufacturing associations. We noted with interest the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South about tapered capital gains taxation for longer-term holdings. We also believe that that is worth considering.
  The new venture capital tax in the Budget will not address the shortcomings to which I referred. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) was
  232
  right to say that that scheme is much more likely to create another tax loophole than to generate investment in the high-tech, high value added businesses that Britain needs. Similarly, the extended tax reliefs for the enterprise investment scheme remove the restrictions on investment in land and buildings and are thereby likely to open up the way for it to operate as a business expansion scheme mark 2, encouraging investment in low-risk, low value added schemes rather than in the high-risk, high value added schemes that Britain needs.
  We believe that the Chancellor is out of touch with the need for business investment. We must ask why he allowed the industrial finance initiative, launched by the former Financial Secretary, to run into the sand. We have all heard about the letter from Lord Hanson. If that is not the only reason why the Chancellor backed off, he should give us the real reason, because we were promised much more extensive statements in this Budget than anything that has been forthcoming on the private finance initiative.
  We argue that the Government are out of touch with the public on housing and the need for housing investment. With 160,000 families recorded as homeless last year; with 1.5 million homes deemed unfit for human habitation; with 59,000 homes repossessed; and with more than 1 million home owners trapped in negative equity, the public will be outraged that this Budget will make housing problems worse, not better.
  According to the National Federation of Housing Associations, the 10 per cent. real cut in housing expenditure next year will mean that the number of housing association rented homes being built will be reduced by more than 10,000, the lowest level since world war 2. At the same time, council rents are being forced up by the squeeze on local authority budgets, by 6 per cent. on average next year, which is three times the rate of inflation. We say that those cuts, too, will damage people's chances of getting on and will make Britain a poorer place.
  The Chancellor's measures on long-term unemployment represent a belated recognition of a crisis on which we have been campaigning for years. Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North, I was amazed at the breathtaking claim in the Chancellor's Budget speech, when he said:
  "We must combine greater prosperity for the majority of our people with measures to prevent the emergence of a deprived underclass, excluded from the opportunity to work and dependent on welfare."
  I repeat:
  "to prevent the emergence of a deprived underclass".— [Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1079.]
  Where have the Chancellor and his right hon. and hon. Friends been for the past 15 years? Nothing demonstrates more clearly how out of touch he and the Government are with the reality facing people throughout the country.
  Let the Chancellor tell us, too, why his proposed national insurance rebate scheme will bring help only in April 1996. We say that the long-term unemployed need help now, and the Government should provide that help now.
  Of the many measures in the Budget that hold people back, none is more mean or unjust than the little measure to phase out means-tested allowances for over 26-year-olds who are studying. As the hon. Member for Chingford said, in a modern competitive economy, people need to re-educate and retrain throughout their working

  233
  lives. How can it be right then to take away one component of the student support system which is specifically designed to help older people returning to education and training? On average, that measure will take £1,000 from students who would otherwise have expected that help, and it will hit especially hard older students who are either ineligible for or find it difficult to obtain support from the Student Loans Company.
  Of all the measures in this Budget of missed opportunities, as hon. Members have said, nothing will be more widely resented than or as well remembered as the Chancellor's decision to persevere with the increase in VAT on fuel. Many of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, North, for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, for Preston (Mrs. Wise), and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)—[Interruption.] I include the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing); I apologise. Hon. Members of all parties put forward powerful arguments on why the increase is wrong. It hits family budgets hard and gratuitously, especially the budgets of the elderly, the disabled and the housebound. It will add an average of £2.30 a week to fuel bills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, that has everything to do with the financial mess that the Government got themselves into, and nothing whatever to do with Rio or the environment.
  The VAT compensation that the Chancellor announced added nothing to what he offered last year. It will come as cold comfort to pensioners that the Secretary of State for Social Security now tells us that he is to insert a note into pension books explaining why the extra cash that they will receive this year is just 25p for a single pensioner and 30p for a couple over and above the inflation uprating. If I know pensioners at all, they will look at that note in their pension books every week and they will be enraged at what the Government have done to them. It will be a reminder every week that they cannot trust the Government ever again.
  Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Chingford said about largesse having been given to pensioners, based on the official family expenditure survey figures, even after compensation has been paid, including the compensation buried in the inflation uprating, the average pensioner couple will be £42 a year worse off. As many hon. Members have pointed out, the picture will be much worse for those who need to stay at home for longer periods, for those who need more heat and for those who live in colder parts of Britain.
  Sir Terence Higgins: Is not it the case that more than 44 per cent. of the proceeds of VAT on fuel will be given in compensation?
  Mr. Smith: The average pensioner facing an average fuel bill will still be worse off, and those facing higher bills will suffer even more. Many hon. Members have said that the increase is wrong in principle and wrong in practice and that it is a total breach of faith with the electorate for the Government to forge on regardless. People will not forget that. As the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, the Conservative party will pay a very high price at the polls—not only in Dudley, but in future polls—if the Government persist with the VAT increase.
  234
  I commend all honourable Members who oppose the increase. I do not underestimate the pressure which, even now, may be being brought to bear on Conservative Members who want to keep faith with what they have told their constituents.
  One cannot help but wonder whether there are some in the Government who want to lose the vote. How else do we explain the Environment Secretary's tactics in writing to potential opponents of VAT? The Prime Minister may have cause to consider whether that was a wise move. The Environment Secretary wrote that he wanted to reduce bills rather than increase them, and said that that was a real possibility in most households. He said that falling unit energy prices since the mid-1980s had reduced the incentive to invest in saving energy, but the imposition of VAT re-established that incentive in a sensible and moderate manner. There we have it: people have been missing the point. They have not realised that VAT is a "sensible and moderate" measure. The Environment Secretary says that it is an "incentive"; better still, it saves people money. I think that the Environment Secretary has been eating a few too many beefburgers.
  As well as the contradictions in the Environment Secretary's letter, Conservative Members should remember that the Prime Minister—I am pleased that he has joined us—said that tonight's vote is not a matter of confidence. He clearly entertains the possibility of the Chancellor being asked to reconsider the issue. He has been supported in that view by the Secretary of State for Employment, who said on the radio this morning that winning the vote was not the "be all and end all of everything" and that it was "not Armageddon".
  I ask those Conservative Members who have doubts about the measure—I respect those who have expressed many sincere and honest doubts—to stand firm tonight and resist the increase in VAT on fuel. The Chancellor has no mandate to increase VAT and, as Conservative Members know, it goes completely against what the Conservative party promised at the last general election.
  In the past half hour, all sorts of rumours have circulated Westminster about panic, last-minute compensation packages that have been cobbled together in an attempt to buy a vote here or a vote there. Nothing demonstrates more clearly that in Britain we now have government by shambles: the Government are not in control of events.
  Before we vote on the motion, we should be clear about what the Opposition's amendment says. It says simply that in considering the Finance Bill, hon. Members must not be prevented from discussing VAT on fuel for domestic and charity use. Our amendment says that we should be able to discuss the matter during Finance Bill proceedings. That is an essential step in giving the House the opportunity to reconsider the fuel increase. At the same time, it raises an important matter of principle for the Chamber to consider. When the Government announced tax rises in advance and in the 1993 Finance Bill drove through measures that would take effect only in April 1995, they were trying to make one Parliament's decisions binding on its successors.
  Surely it is right that this House of Commons should now have the chance to re-examine the VAT increase. Our amendment would simply give the House the opportunity to look at it again and to vote on it in the circumstances of today. When the Chancellor replies, he must tell us why he wants to deny the House the right

  235
  even to consider the question as a separate issue, as that is what voting against the amendment would do. The Government appear to be staggering from one panic to another and cannot even expose themselves to rational debate through the normal processes of the Finance Bill.
  Labour has made its position clear on where the money would come from to replace the increase in VAT on fuel for domestic and charity purposes. I shall tell the Chancellor where in the Budget the money could come from. We have advocated a number of steps that would more than cover the cost of abandoning the VAT increase. The money could come from tightening up the treatment of executive share options—[Interruption.] Before Conservative Members shout too loudly, they might care to remember that that is a step advised by their own vice-chairman of the Conservative party. The money could come from part of a windfall levy on the privatised utilities, similar to that which Lady Thatcher levied on the banks in 1981. It could come from ending tax relief on private medical insurance. It could come from steps to end the commercial avoidance of stamp duty. For future years, we would also look to draw on some of the gains from retaining the stamp duty charge on share transactions that the Government intend to drop.
  Let us not forget—I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will not forget—that dropping the VAT increase would reduce slightly our contributions to the European Union. It would cut the measure of gross national product at market prices used in calculating the third and fourth reductions—
  Mr. David Shaw: How much?
  Mr. Smith: An £8 million saving on the contributions to the European Union.
  There is something else that the Chancellor could do—he could abandon his proposal to cut the duty on champagne. How much more out of touch could the Government get than to cut the cost of champagne while our pensioners shiver? I emphasise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has other choices open to him, such as those suggested to him during the Budget debate by his hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Mid-Staffordshire.
  Hon. Members may recall that when the increase was first put forward 21 months ago in March 1993, the Government justified it as being necessary to bring down the public sector borrowing requirement for 1995-96 to £39 billion. Without that increase, on present projections the PSBR for 1995–96 would be £22.3 billion. We believe that the Chancellor is right to get down the PSBR, which is why we are proposing alternative revenue-raising measures. The figures that I have given show the House how very much circumstances have changed since the increase was first proposed.
  The point that I want to stress, in a genuinely non-partisan spirit, is that if the amendment is carried and a subsequent change to the Finance Bill made, the Chancellor has choices—whether he takes our advice, that of his hon. Friends or develops alternatives of his own. If the amendment is carried tonight, the responsible thing for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do would be immediately to make a statement to the House indicating
  236
  how he would raise the money. Let there be no mistake: choices can be made which leave the Budget's policy balance intact—a point that I know is of great concern to a number of Conservative Members. I understand that the Chancellor acknowledged that after the ECOFIN meeting, when he said that if he were defeated over VAT on domestic fuel, he would find other ways to raise the money.
  The Chancellor has choices, but only one choice is open to pensioners struggling to pay their bills—they go cold or they go broke. Here and now, the House faces a clear choice—whether to allow this extremely unfair and bitterly resented tax increase to be implemented without challenge, or to assert the right of the House to question the Executive's revenue-raising powers and to call the Government to account for betraying their election promises.
  I urge right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to vote for the right and the duty of the House to speak for constituents, pensioners and the country. The people of Britain, whatever their views on the rest of the Budget, want the VAT increase on domestic fuel stopped. Let their voice be heard in the Division Lobby tonight.
  9.30 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We have debated the Budget for five days. Most right hon. and hon. Members have participated in many such debates, but this one had an unusual quality. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, devoted a high proportion of their speeches to last year's Budget and the Budget before that. They devoted a large part of their speeches also to next year's Budget.
  The Opposition want to revisit last year's Budget—that is the point of their main motion. They criticise us for raising taxation and invite the House to reverse it. They anticipate and guess at next year's Budget, and criticise it because they believe that the Government intend to reduce taxation.
  The issue on which the Opposition want to vote results from last year's Budget and the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. The main subject of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), like those of other right hon. and hon. Members, was the decision taken in last year's Budget to impose VAT on fuel. Are the Opposition concerned about the effect of higher fuel prices on people in this country and on energy conservation? I think not.
  In a case that can be perfectly evenly balanced, we heard the most melodramatic interpretations. No one listening to speeches this evening about people dying from hypothermia would realise that fuel prices had fallen. Even after the imposition of the first stage of VAT on domestic fuel, prices have fallen 1 per cent. in real terms over the past two years—even taking account of the first stage of VAT, but taking no account of the compensation package for all pensioners and those on benefits.
  Even when the full rate of VAT is imposed, gas prices will be 6 per cent. lower in real terms than before privatisation. The level of disconnections for non-payment of domestic fuel bills has never been lower. I will give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing); then perhaps I shall be allowed to talk about this

  237
  year's Budget, the measures that I have taken this November, and what that bodes for the British economy and for our prospects over the next year or two.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that people die from cold-related illnesses in this country?
  Mr. Clarke: Of course I do not deny that, but as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, fuel prices have been falling in real terms in recent years. Over the past two years, they fell 1 per cent., even taking into account VAT at 8 per cent. already imposed, and compensation has taken the price lower for pensioners and those on benefits receiving compensation. I realise that politics is more often about perception than about reality, but the underlying reality to what we are doing with VAT on fuel is that fuel prices are coming down, that they will continue to come down, that since privatisation far fewer people now have their supplies disconnected, and that we have a generous measure of further compensation for vulnerable groups, for all pensioners, for those on benefit, which I shall return to in due course.
  Before we get to VAT on fuel, and I am sure that we will, I insist on reminding people of the Budget strategy to which the Opposition have totally failed to address themselves with the slightest seriousness at all. I set myself three objectives this year: keeping the economy on track for steady and sustainable growth; tackling the problem of long-term unemployment; and strengthening the economy in the medium term by introducing a package of measures to help businesses.
  This Budget does have measures to cut long-term unemployment, and everyone has welcomed them. The only point that they can produce is to point out that a minority of the measures and the expenditure start in 1996, for perfectly obvious and practicable reasons. There is a package of measures to help small businesses and, so far as I am aware, no one has directly opposed the package of measures—the tax incentives or the deregulatory measures—that I proposed. The policies on taxation, particularly the cuts in public spending and borrowing, are of the scale necessary to keep confidence in our recovery.
  Over the vast bulk of the five days of the Budget debate—the Budget has been particularly welcomed by all concerned with business, with our manufacturing base, with recovery and outside this country—there has been very little criticism from Opposition Members for the particular measures that I announced last week when I presented the Budget. What has most significance for our recovery in the Budget is the very firm action that we have taken to get Government borrowing down. The hon. Member for Oxford, East made a passing, apparently favourable, reference to that, but every speech made by almost every Opposition Member, be he or she on the shadow Treasury Bench or behind, by implication seeks to undermine that.
  In the 1993 Budget, faced as we had been with the prospect of a £50 billion borrowing requirement after the recession, we effectively reduced public borrowing. We looked to the spending side of the account first--from listening to the Labour party, it is quite plain that that is something that it would never do—and we still had to increase taxes. Of course, Opposition Members heard us as clearly as my right hon. and hon. Friends did, before
  238
  we even reached the Budget, that, this year, it was not practicable, if we were to put our recovery, prosperity and jobs first, to ease taxation, except for vulnerable groups.
  I raised tax allowances for pensioners, above inflation. I raised the 20p band above inflation for the one fifth of all taxpayers who pay tax at the very lowest rate. Further tax reductions, including the tax reduction by going back on last year, for which the Labour party is pressing, are impracticable if we are to get borrowing down. I was able to be neutral on taxation, apart from those beneficial changes, then tackle spending, as only a Conservative Government can and as a Labour Government or Liberal Government never would.
  Last year, I reduced Government spending by £15 billion over three years. This year, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I have been able to reduce Government spending by another £28 billion over the next three-year period. What is more, as we have managed to find savings, we have done so in so competent and effective a way in pursuing our priorities that we are able to increase real resources for key public services such as the national health service and the police. By improving efficiency, we make sure that the public get better public services for less public money, and we tackle the overheads of Government. Therefore we can produce those results and still build on the improvements which mean that the NHS treats 1 million more patients a year than it did in 1979, and that one in three young people will go on to higher education compared with 15 years ago.
  Those measures represent a strategy, unlike the pathetic ramblings of Opposition Members. They represent a strategy that has not only put our borrowing on course but, as a result, has given us a recovery—real growth in the economy, a real increase in our production, rising manufacturing output, falling unemployment, a great productivity record, level unit wage costs, a record level of exports and a record level of retail sales. From beginning to end of this Budget debate, those developments simply have not registered in the speeches of Opposition Members who claimed to be talking about the economy.
  Conservative Members recognise the link between public spending and taxes, public borrowing and helping public finances, enabling recovery to be sustained and riot turned into boom followed by bust. Labour would put all that at risk. Last year Labour Members voted against our spending reductions, and they are plainly resisting spending reductions again. Last year they opposed our measures to raise revenue, and they would do so again.
  Opposition Front Benchers avoid such words, but we need only listen to every Back Bencher to hear them. I sat and listened to Scottish Members questioning this year's Scottish local government settlement. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland answered questions, every Scottish Labour Member demanded more spending on one service or another—more for their local authorities. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) cheers on behalf of Scotland, but what he wants is not on behalf of Scotland. He is denied by the rest of the Opposition Front Bench.

  239
  The new Opposition Front Bench is semi-detached from the hon. Gentleman, who sits urging public spending that will be the ruin of economic recovery in Scotland.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
  If Labour Members do not like the contrast between my measures and their approach, let them look at the shadow Budget. [Interruption.] If I may say so, the revival in Scotland is getting a little carried away. I think that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) agrees with at least one measure that I took for Scottish industry.
  Labour presented a draft Budget outside the House—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have some order in the House.
  Mr. Clarke: May I address the Scottish Front Bench? The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) only produced a draft Budget outside the House. A draft Budget worthy of the name should have at least three components—spending plans, tax plans and borrowing plans. The so-called shadow Budget had none of those components; as a document on economic policy, it was about as much use as a used bus ticket.
  There were spending commitments. The shadow Budget referred to a regional development agency, allowing local councils to spend their capital receipts and a small business fund. Today, at one point in his speech, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) began to go on about what he regarded as terrible reductions in transport spending; he implied that he might reverse them, although our level of transport investment is much higher than it was 10 years ago. A moment ago, the hon. Member for Oxford, East criticised the savings that we had made in housing expenditure, although we are well ahead of our manifesto commitments on social housing. The Opposition slink into spending commitments without spelling them out or costing them; then they try to address the question of how they would raise the taxation, talking of loopholes and windfalls. The loopholes that they are talking about are unspecified and are not spelled out. Last year, they put a bold figure of £10 billion on loopholes that they would close. In the shadow Budget this year—it is almost an identical document—the £10 billion has vanished because not a single independent tax commentator believed that they could raise anything like that amount.
  What does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East regard as loopholes? Last year, the Opposition voted against a measure in the Finance Bill that blocked the device of paying salaries in gold and coffee beans in order to avoid national insurance. This year, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has been publicly criticising the ending of transport zero rating for things such as theme park rides, which have been taking advantage of a loophole. The hon. Gentleman's loopholes are non-existent and he knows that. Howard Davies has been quoted repeatedly in the debate to describe those loopholes as a massive increase in taxation on genuine business.
  240
  What is the one-off windfall tax that the Opposition hold out? In fact, it would penalise the success of those who now own the national grid and are improving its performance. That improved performance allows the national grid to reduce charges on electricity bills by 3 per cent. in real terms every year. The Opposition claim that there is a great pot of money to be had by reversing that. In fact, they would be penalising success, damaging prospects for investment and damaging electricity prices.
  Right at the end of the debate the hon. Member for Oxford, East mentioned the tax on champagne. He knows that for legal reasons we are closing an anomaly whereby sparkling wine is taxed at a higher level than loopholes—[Interruption.] I mean fortified wine. Unlike some hon. Members who will be voting this evening, I have not been partaking of either. The correction of the anomaly on sparking wine will help many sparkling wines made in this country, not just champagne. Champagne socialists may believe otherwise. It produces a princely sum of £5 million if the legal challenge is defied by the Labour party. That leaves £1,495 million to go to give some credibility to its policy on VAT on fuel.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East said that we should reduce our VAT contribution to Europe. That would be another £8 million. It is fatuous as a taxation policy. It is fatuous at the end of a speech in which the hon. Gentleman had already talked gaily about capital allowances being restored, thereby giving great tax exemptions to all investment across all business.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East was attracted by tapered capital gains tax. The Labour party is attracted by every increase in public spending and every reduction in taxation that is put before it by any interest group, or any opportunistic lobby group. That is not a sensible economic policy.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On the subject of anomalies, can my right hon. and learned Friend explain why he can find almost three quarters of a billion pounds to give to Europe, but he cannot find a similar sum to do away with the increase in VAT which is awfully unpopular? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Clarke: That was the biggest support yet shown to my hon. Friend. With respect to her, the figure is £75 million. That is not three quarters of a billion pounds, but she is getting nearer the total of £1.5 billion than the Labour party has remotely got so far—I concede that much to her.
  I shall be coming to a subject in which I know my hon. Friends are interested: VAT on fuel. Before I leave the Labour party, however, I should point out that it is not just my view in the debate that the Labour party is putting forward waffle instead of policy: it is the view of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), my sworn political enemy for as many years as I have known him, although my personal relations with him are good. He would be pleased with the first description as he is a man of principle in a party that has been robbed of principles by its Front-Bench spokesmen and I quote him with approval talking of his Front-Bench spokesman. He said that
  "it is not enough to oppose the Conservative party; we have to spell out what we will do, how it will be better than what the Conservatives have done, who will pay the price and who will benefit. Until we do that, people will continue to doubt us".—[Official Report, 30 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1268.]

  241
  Until the Labour party does that, anyone with the long-term interests of the British economy in mind should not just doubt the Labour party but reject it for trying to fob us off with such nonsense, as it has done for the past five days.
  I had to take the necessary steps. I have explained that the strategy is to keep on course with a reduction in public borrowing, which I think most commentators did not believe possible last year, which we are on course to achieve and which is the principal explanation for the high level of confidence in the future of British industry and in the prospects for jobs and prosperity. Although public spending is the main contribution opposed by the Labour party, the taxation in the pipeline from past Budgets, including VAT on fuel, is a sensible, integral part of our tax policy. At this stage, it would be reckless for the House, having been taken so far on the road to lasting recovery, suddenly to decide that it cannot stay the course, that it will overturn what we have done and go back on the decision last year.
  Mr. Harry Greenway rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving way? Apparently so.
  Mr. Greenway: As my right hon. and learned Friend returned to VAT on fuel, may I ask him this? Is he aware that, in a constituency like mine, pensioners' heating bills are much higher than they would be if their homes were properly insulated? The reduction in heating bills would probably be as much as 30 per cent. Will he do something about improving home insulation grants, in particular, to pensioners and poor people?
  Mr. Clarke: I am surprised that a murmur of discontent broke out from the Labour party when my hon. Friend intervened to press the case for improved insulation of pensioners' homes which, as he rightly said, reduces bills. Loft insulation, for example, takes an average £70 off heating bills. The hon. Member for Moray pressed the same case upon me.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that the tax of VAT on fuel, which I think is defensible for reasons that I shall give in a moment, has to be combined with efforts to protect the vulnerable, particularly pensioners and those people on benefit. Also, it has to be combined with measures that really deliver the fuel efficiency that led the Liberal party to propose it and Friends of the Earth to support it. I should say to my hon. Friend that, last year, I doubled the home energy efficiency scheme budget. As a result, nearly 1 million people have already benefited from it. I added a further £10 million in my Budget speech last week. My hon. Friend, however, has been pressing this case. So have other hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Moray who, with respect, is trying to intervene on me now—who have pointed out the arrears that are built up under the scheme. I am, therefore, prepared to add another £20 million to the home energy efficiency scheme.
  Sir John Gorst: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has given any thought to imposing VAT on a less vulnerable community, namely the press?
  Mr. Clarke: I have thought about it frequently but decided not to do it. The Labour party would have
  242
  opposed it as it opposes all taxation and the further broadening of the VAT base is not necessary if we stick to the course that we are on and reduce public spending as we are doing.
  As I have already announced, I have increased the cold weather payments to £8.50 a week in 1995 compared with £6 a week last year. I set out in the Budget help for the least well off, especially pensioners—all pensioners—and vulnerable groups. By April 1995, help for pensioners and vulnerable groups will be worth £52 a year for individuals and £73 a year for couples. From April 1996, the permanent increase in benefits due to VAT on fuel will be worth around £68 a year for individuals and £96 for couples.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the increase for pensioners next April will be on exactly the same basis as this year, namely that there will be a full uprating of 2.2 per cent. for inflation, including the 0.4 per cent. as a result of VAT on fuel, plus an additional 50p for all single pensioners and 70p for all married pensioners?
  Mr. Clarke: For as long as my hon. Friend has been in the House, he has pursued the cause of pensioners with very considerable effectiveness and skill. Ever since I announced the package of measures in the Budget, which I believe implement to the full what we said about compensation for all pensioners and vulnerable groups, he and I have been disputing whether the figure that I have given carries the commitment that I have given—certainly the package produces the figures that I have just given. [Interruption.] I believe that every statement that I have made is consistent with the figures that I have given but I do not wish there to be any doubt about our commitment to compensating pensioners and those on benefit. Therefore, to resolve the anomaly which has at times become a matter of semantics, when the second stage of VAT goes ahead I shall indeed make the changes to the uprating statement to meet the terms that my hon. Friend requests.
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman going to oppose it?
  Mr. Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm that he is this evening offering not a penny more for families with children, the unemployed, the disabled or invalids and that the 25p a week more that he is offering for pensioners must be set against their average £505 fuel bill? If this scheme, which I estimate is worth only £100 million, is not enough to satisfy the country, it should not be enough to satisfy Tory Members.
  Mr. Clarke: I am spelling out what we are doing for pensioners and vulnerable groups. If the Opposition win their amendment the principal beneficiaries will be people of working age who do not receive means-tested benefits, and people in larger houses, who pay the largest bills—obviously they will make the greatest savings if the Opposition have their way. But if the Government succeed we shall have VAT at a lower level than Scandinavian countries, on prices that are dropping in real terms because of privatisation. We shall be on course for a successful recovery—[Interruption.] The howls from the

  243
  Labour party at what I am saying are howls of rage and disappointment at the fact that a successful economic strategy is being pursued.
  Mr. Brown rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Brown rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. It is 9.59. Mr. Brown.
  Mr. Brown: Madam Speaker—
  Mr. Greg Knight(Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division:
  Madam Speaker: Order. Before this vote is declared, Members at the Bar will remove themselves behind the Bar. Members in the central aisle will resume their seats before the vote is declared. It is perfectly all right to sit in the aisles or to sit on someone's knee.
  The House having divided: Ayes 319, Noes 311.

  Division No. 7]

  [22.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caborn, Richard

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ainger.Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Alton, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Chidgey, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Church, Judith

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Beggs,Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Coffey, Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Jean

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Cox, Tom

  Boateng, Paul

  Cummings, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dafis, Cynog

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

  Dalyell.Tam

  Bruce, Malcolm Gordon

  Darling, Alistair

  Burden, Richard

  Davidson, Ian

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  244

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Janner, Greville

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

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Denham, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Keen, Alan

  Eastham, Ken

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Enright, Derek

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kinnock,Rt Hon Neil(Islwyn)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Terry

  Flynn, Paul

  Liddel, Mrs Helen

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Litherland, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Foulkes, George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fraser, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Macdonald, Calum

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gapes, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Garrett, John

  Madden, Max

  George, Bruce

  Maddock, Diana

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mahon, Alice

  Godrnan, Dr Norman A

  Mallon, Seamus

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marek, Dr John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marland, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Griffiths, Win.(Bridgend)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gunnel, John

  Maxton, John

  Hain, Peter

  McAllion,John

  Hall, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hanson, David

  McCartney, Ian

  Hardy, Peter

  McCrea, Rev William

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  McFall.John

  Harvey, Nick

  McGrady, Eddie

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  McKelvey, William

  Henderson, Doug

  McLeish, Henry

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heppell, John

  McWilliam.John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Meacher, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hodge, Margaret

  Michael,Alun

  Hoey,Kate

  Michie, Bill (S'field Heeley)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Home Robertson, John

  Milburn,Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoyle, Doug

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hume, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hutton,John

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Adam

  Murphy, Paul

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  245

  O'Hara, Edward

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  Olner, Bill

  Spearing, Nigel

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spellar, John

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Parry, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Patchett, Terry

  Stevenson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Pickthall, Colin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pike, Peter L

  Straw, Jack

  Pope, Greg

  Sumberg, David

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prescott Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Timms, Stephen

  Racdice, Giles

  Tipping, Paddy

  Randall, Stuart

  Trimble, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dennis

  Redmond, Martin

  Tyler, Paul

  Reid, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Rendel, David

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wallace, James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Walley, Joan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watson, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Worthington, Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wray, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Simpson, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Booth, Hartley

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswel, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Amess, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkins, Robert

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  246

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Colvin, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Congdon, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

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

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirrral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dover, Den

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Elletson, Harold

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Faber, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Legg, Barry

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lidington, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maclean, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorst, Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

  Malone, Gerald

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  247

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spring, Richard

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Nelson, Anthony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Allan

  Norris, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sweeney, Walter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sykes, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thomason, Roy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pickles, Eric

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Portillo,Rt Hon Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Walden, George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wells, Bowen

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Wood, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Sir Dudey (Warwick)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax other than in respect of value added tax on fuel and power for domestic or charity use 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 any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.

  10.23 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seek to catch your eye to give an indication of his intentions at the conclusion of any further votes on these resolutions.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The House of Commons has now spoken for the country against a Government who are both discredited and no longer in control of events. Will you insist, Madam Speaker, that when the Chancellor makes his statement to the House, he withdraws the proposal to put up VAT to 17.5 per cent?
  Madam Speaker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an indication of his intentions to the House. I am now required to put the remaining questions.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House has indicated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his position clear. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledge that the House has said quite clearly that that tax must be removed and that what we want is a motion to remove it?
  Madam Speaker: Order. These are now becoming bogus points of order.
  I have to put the remaining motions on the Budget resolutions. I am now required, under Standing Order No. 50, to put successively, without further debate, the motions on each of the Ways and Means motions, Nos. 2 to 64, and on the motions on procedure and finance, on all of which the Bill is to be brought in. After that, I will put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion entitled "Public Expenditure". Instead of reading out each motion in extenso—[interruption.] Order. Do listen to what is going on in the House. I propose to follow the procedure used in recent years. That is to say, I will first state the title of the motion and then put simply the Question that the motion be agreed to. We start with motion No. 2, and that is "Low-strength alcohol".
  MADAM SPEAKER then, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means Motions), put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    2. LOW-STRENGTH ALCOHOL
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) The Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be amended as follows.

    (2) In section 1, in subsections (4) and (5) after the words "any liquor" there shall in both cases be inserted "which is of a strength exceeding 1.2 per cent and which is".

    (3) In section 1(6) after the word "strength" there shall be inserted "exceeding 1.2 per cent but".

    (4) In section 59(1) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

    "(b) is wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent.".

    249

    (5) Paragraphs (2) and (4) above—

    (a) shall apply in relation to liquor imported into, or produced in, the United Kingdom on or after 1st January 1995, and

    (b) as regards any provision about liquor removed to the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man, shall also apply in relation to liquor so removed on or after that date.

    250

    (6) Paragraph (3) above shall apply in relation to liquor imported into, or made in, the United Kingdom on or after 1st January 1995.

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

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    3. WINE AND MADE-WINE (RATES)
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That—

    TABLE OF RATES OF DUTY ON WINE AND MADE-WINE

    PART I

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

    Description of wine or made-wine

    Rates of duty per hectoliter

    £

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

    22.46

    Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 4 per cent. but not exceeding 5.5 per cent.

    40.44

    Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent. but not exceeding 15 per cent. and not sparkling

    134.77

    Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent. but not exceeding 15 per cent.

    192.53

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

    192.53

    PART II

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

    Description of wine or made-wine

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

    £

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

    19.81

    (2) This Resolution shall come into force on 1st January 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 297.

    Division No. 8

    22.25 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Bates, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Batiste, Spencer

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Amess, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Ancram, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Booth, Hartley

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Boswell, Tim

    Ashby, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baldry, Tony

    Bright Sir Graham

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    (1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 there shall be substituted the following Table—
    Question accordingly agreed to.

    4. ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DIMES (ALCOHOLIC INGREDIENTS AND VINEGAR)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the repayment and remission of duty charged on alcoholic liquor used as an ingredient or converted into vinegar.

    5. ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTIES (DENATURED ALCOHOL)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about alcoholic liquors that are denatured.

    6. TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RATES)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

    TABLE

    1. Cigarettes

    An amount equal to 20 per cent. of the retail price plus £55.58 per thousand cigarettes.

    2. Cigars

    £82.56 per kilogram.

    3. Hand-rolling tobacco

    £85.94 per kilogram.

    4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

    £36.30 per kilogram."

    (2) This Resolution shall come into force at 6 o'clock in the evening of 29th November 1994.

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

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

    (1) In section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 for "£0.3314" and "£0.2770" there shall be substituted "—0.3526" and "£0.3044" respectively.

    (2) In section 8 of that Act the following subsection shall be substituted for subsections (3) to (5)—

    "(3) The rate of the duty under this section shall be £0.3314 a kilogram."

    (3) In section 11(1) of that Act for "£0.0116" and "£0.0164" there shall be substituted "£0.0166" and "£0.0214" respectively.

    (4) In section 14(1) of that Act for "£0.0116" there shall be substituted "£0.0166".

    (5) This Resolution shall come into force at 6 o'clock in the evening of 29th November 1994.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 161.

    Division No. 8

    22.25 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Bates, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Batiste, Spencer

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Amess, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Ancram, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Booth, Hartley

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Boswell, Tim

    Ashby, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baldry, Tony

    Bright Sir Graham

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Couchman, James

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Cran, James

    Burns, Simon

    Critchley, Julian

    Burt, Alistair

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

    Butcher, John

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Butler, Peter

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Butterfill, John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Day, Stephen

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Carrington, Matthew

    Devlin, Tim

    Cash, William

    Dicks, Terry

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Churchill, Mr

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Clappison, James

    Dover, Den

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Duncan, Alan

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Dunn, Bob

    Coe, Sebastian

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Colvin, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Congdon, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Conway, Derek

    Elletson, Harold

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    253

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

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

    Evennett, David

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Faber, David

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Knox, Sir David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fishbum, Dudley

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Forman, Nigel

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Forth, Eric

    Legg, Barry

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Leigh, Edward

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lidington, David

    French, Douglas

    Lightbown, David

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Gallie, Phil

    Lord, Michael

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Luff, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Garnier, Edward

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    MacKay, Andrew

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Maclean, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Madel, Sir David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gorst, Sir John

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

    Malone, Gerald

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mans, Keith

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marland, Paul

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hague, William

    Mates, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Merchant, Piers

    Harris, David

    Mills, Iain

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hayes, Jerry

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Heald, Oliver

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hicks, Robert

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Horam, John

    Norris, Steve

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sr Cranley

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Paice, James

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pawsey, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jack, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jessel, Toby

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jopling.Rt Hon Michael

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Richards, Rod

    Key, Robert

    Riddick, Graham

    254

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Thomason, Roy

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sackville, Tom

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Tracey, Richard

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Tredinnick, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trend, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Trotter, Neville

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shersby, Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Sims, Roger

    Walden, George

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Waller, Gary

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Ward, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Watts, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wells, Bowen

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Whitney, Ray

    Spring, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Willetts, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Wilshire, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Stephen, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Stern, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stewart, Allan

    Wood, Timothy

    Streeter, Gary

    Yeo, Tim

    Sumberg, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sweeney, Walter

    Sykes, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

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

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Burden, Richard

    Ainger, Nick

    Byers, Stephen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Caborn, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Callaghan, Jim

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Austin-Walker, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cann, Jamie

    Barnes, Harry

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Barron, Kevin

    Chidgey, David

    Battle, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Bayley, Hugh

    Church, Judith

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clapham, Michael

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Bell, Stuart

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clelland, David

    Benton, Joe

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Coffey, Ann

    Berry, Roger

    Cohen, Harry

    Betts, Clive

    Connarty, Michael

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Blunkett, David

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Boateng, Paul

    Corbett, Robin

    Boyes, Roland

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bradley, Keith

    Corston, Jean

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cousins, Jim

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Cox, Tom

    255

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hume, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hutton, John

    Dafie, Cynog

    Illsley, Eric

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ingram, Adam

    Darling, Alistair

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Janner, Greville

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

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

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'Side)

    Denham, John

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dixon, Don

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dobson, Frank

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jowell, Tessa

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Keen, Alan

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Eastham, Ken

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Enright, Derek

    Khabra, Piara S

    Etherington, Bill

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Fatchett, Derek

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lewis, Terry

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Fisher, Mark

    Litherland, Robert

    Flynn, Paul

    Livingstone, Ken

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Foulkes, George

    Loyden, Eddie

    Fraser, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fyfe, Maria

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Galbraith, Sam

    MacShane, Denis

    Galloway, George

    Madden, Max

    Gapes, Mike

    Maddock, Diana

    Garrett, John

    Mahon, Alice

    George, Bruce

    Mallon, Seamus

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mandelson, Peter

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Martlew, Eric

    Gordon, Mildred

    Maxton, John

    Graham, Thomas

    McAllion, John

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McCartney, Ian

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Grocott, Bruce

    McFall, John

    Gunnell, John

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hain, Peter

    McKelvey, William

    Hall, Mike

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    McLeish, Henry

    Hardy, Peter

    McMaster, Gordon

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    McNamara, Kevin

    Harvey, Nick

    McWilliam, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Meacher, Michael

    Henderson, Doug

    Meale, Alan

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Michael, Alun

    Heppell, John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Milburn, Alan

    Hodge, Margaret

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoey, Kate

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Home Robertson, John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hood, Jimmy

    Morley, Elliot

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mudie, George

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Mullin, Chris

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Murphy, Paul

    256

    O'Brien, Bill (Narmanton)

    Smith, Andrew

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Snape, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Soley, Clive

    Olner, Bill

    Spearing, Nigel

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Spellar, John

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Parry, Robert

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Patchett, Terry

    Stevenson, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Stott, Roger

    Pickthall, Colin

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Pike, Peter L

    Straw, Jack

    Pope, Greg

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Timms, Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Tipping, Paddy

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Dennis

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Tyler, Paul

    Radice, Giles

    Vaz, Keith

    Randall, Stuart

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wallace, James

    Redmond, Martin

    Walley, Joan

    Reid, Dr John

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rendel, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Watson, Mike

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rogers, Allan

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rooker, Jeff

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wilson, Brian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Winnick, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wise, Audrey

    Salmond, Alex

    Worthington, Tony

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wray, Jimmy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Short, Clare

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Simpson, Alan

    Mr. John Cummings and

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mrs. Barbara Roche.

    Division No. 9

    [22.41 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Booth, Hartley

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Boswell, Tim

    Alexander, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Amess, David

    Bowis, John

    Ancram, Michael

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brazier, Julian

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Ashby, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Atkins, Robert

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Burns, Simon

    Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baldry, Tony

    Butcher, John

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Butler, Peter

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Butterfill, John

    Bates, Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carrington, Matthew

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cash, William

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Churchill, Mr

    258

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hayes, Jerry

    Colvin, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hendry, Charles

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Couchman, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cran, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Critchley, Julian

    Horam, John

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

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Day, Stephen

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Dicks, Terry

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hunter, Andrew

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dover, Den

    Jack, Michael

    Duncan, Smith, Iain

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dunn, Bob

    Jessel, Toby

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Eggar, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Elletson, Harold

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Key, Robert

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Evennett, David

    Knapman, Roger

    Faber, David

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

    Fabricant, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knox, Sir David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Forth, Eric

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Legg, Barry

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Leigh, Edward

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    French, Douglas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Lidington, David

    Gale, Roger

    Lightbown, David

    Gallie, Phil

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Lord, Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Luff, Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gillan, Cheryl

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    MacKay, Andrew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Maclean, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Madel, Sir David

    Gorst Sir John

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Malone, Gerald

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mans, Keith

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marland, Paul

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Marlow, Tony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hague, William

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Mates, Michael

    Hampson.Dr Keith

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hannam, Sir John

    McLoughin, Patrick

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    259

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Merchant Piers

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mills, Iain

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Spring, Richard

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sproat, Iain

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Steen, Anthony

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Stephen, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Streeter, Gary

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Sykes, John

    Norris, Steve

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Page, Richard

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Paice, James

    Thomason, Roy

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Pawsey, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Pickles, Eric

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tracey, Richard

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Trend, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Richards, Rod

    Viggers, Peter

    Riddick, Graham

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Walden, George

    Robathan, Andrew

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Waller, Gary

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Ward, John

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Watts, John

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Wells, Bowen

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Sackville, Tom

    Whitney, Ray

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Whittingdale, John

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wilkinson, John

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Willetts, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wilshire, David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shersby, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Yeo, Tim

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mr. Derek Conway

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Boateng, Paul

    Ainger, Nick

    Boyes, Roland

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bradley, Keith

    Alton, David

    Burden, Richard

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Barnes, Harry

    Canavan, Dennis

    Battle, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chidgey, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Church, Judith

    260

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Loyden, Eddie

    Coffey, Ann

    Macdonald, Calum

    Cohen, Harry

    Maclennan, Robert

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Madden, Max

    Corston, Jean

    Maddock, Diana

    Cummings, John

    Mallon, Seamus

    Dafis, Cynog

    Mandelson, Peter

    Dalyell, Tam

    Maxton, John

    Davidson, Ian

    McAllion, John

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McCrea, Rev William

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

    McGrady, Eddie

    Denham, John

    McKelvey, William

    Dixon, Don

    McLeish, Henry

    Dowd, Jim

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Enright, Derek

    Miller, Andrew

    Flynn, Paul

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fyfe, Maria

    Morgan Rhodri

    Galloway, George

    Morley, Elliot

    Garrett, John

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    George, Bruce

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Godsiff, Roger

    Olner, Bill

    Gordon, Mildred

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Graham, Thomas

    Parry, Robert

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Pendry, Tom

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Gunnell, John

    Pike, Peter L

    Hain, Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hall, Mike

    Purchase, Ken

    Hanson, David

    Randall, Stuart

    Hardy, Peter

    Raynsford, Nick

    Harvey, Nick

    Rendel, David

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Hinchliffe, David

    Rogers, Allan

    Hoey, Kate

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Salmond, Alex

    Home Robertson, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Simpson, Alan

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Spellar, John

    Hutton, John

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Illsley, Eric

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Ingram, Adam

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Timms, Stephen

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Vaz, Keith

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Wallace, James

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Winnick, David

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Wise, Audrey

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Worthington, Tony

    Khabra, Piara S

    Wray, Jimmy

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Lewis, Terry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Litherland, Robert

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

    Livingstone, Ken

    Mr. Andrew Welsh

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    8. HYDROCARBON OIL DUTY ("ROAD VEHICLE")
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending the meaning of "road vehicle" in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

    9. ROAD FUEL GAS (OLD STOCK)
    Resolved,
    That section 8(7) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 may be repealed.

    TABLE

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

    (2)Small prize or five-penny machines

    (3)Other machines

    £

    £

    1

    60

    150

    2

    105

    275

    3

    155

    400

    4

    205

    520

    5

    250

    645

    6

    295

    755

    7

    340

    880

    8

    390

    1,005

    9

    435

    1,115

    10

    480

    1,235

    11

    510

    1,305

    12

    535

    1,375

    (2) This Resolution shall apply in relation to any gaming machine licence for which an application is made on or after 1st December 1994.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    11. AMUSEMENT MACHINE LICENCE Duty
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for excise duty to be charged on licences authorising the provision of amusement machines that are not gaming machines and for the amendment of the enactments relating to gaming machine licence duty.

    12. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (RATES)
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That—

    (1) Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.

    (2) In paragraph 1(b) for "£130" there shall be substituted "£135".

    (3) In paragraph 3(1)(a) for "£130" there shall be substituted "£135".

    (4) In paragraph 10—

    (a) in sub-paragraph (2) for "£130" there shall be substituted "£135";

    (b) in sub-paragraph (3) for "£360" there shall be substituted "£370".

    (5) This Resolution shall apply in relation to licences taken out on or after 30th November 1994.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 78.

    10. GAMING MACHINE LICENCE DUTY
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 for the Table set out at the end of section 23 there shall be substituted—

    Division No. 10

    [22.54 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Alexander, Richard

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Burns, Simon

    Amess, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Ancram, Michael

    Butcher, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butler, Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Ashby, David

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkins, Robert

    Cash, William

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Atkinson, Peter (East Surrey)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

    Clappison, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bates, Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Batiste, Spencer

    Colvin, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Congdon, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Cormack, Patrick

    Booth, Hartley

    Couchman, James

    Boswell, Tim

    Cran, James

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Critchley, Julian

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Bowis, John

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Day, Stephen

    Brazier, Julian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Devlin, Tim

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dicks, Terry

    263

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dover, Den

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Jack, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dunn, Bob

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Jessel, Toby

    Dykes, Hugh

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Eggar, Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Elletson, Harold

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Key, Robert

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Evennett, David

    Knapman, Roger

    Faber, David

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

    Fabricant, Michael

    Knight Greg (Derby N)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knox, Sir David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lamont Rt Hon Norman

    Forth, Eric

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Legg, Barry

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Leigh, Edward

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    French, Douglas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Lidington, David

    Gale, Roger

    Lightbown, David

    Gallie, Phil

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Lord, Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Luff, Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gillan, Cheryl

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    MacKay, Andrew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Maclean, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Madel, Sir David

    Gorst, Sir John

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

    Malone, Gerald

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mans, Keith

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marland, Paul

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marlow, Tony

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hague, William

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mates, Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Hampscn, Dr Keith

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Harnnam, Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Harris, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mills, lain

    Hawkins, Nick

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Heald, Oliver

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hendry, Charles

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hicks, Robert

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Horam, John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

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

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Page, Richard

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow West)

    Paice, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    264

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Stewart Allan

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Streeter, Gary

    Pawsey, James

    Sumberg, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Sweeney, Walter

    Pickles, Eric

    Sykes, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Thomason, Roy

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Richards, Rod

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Riddick, Graham

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Thumham, Peter

    Robathan, Andrew

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Tracey, Richard

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Trednnick, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Trend, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Trotter, Neville

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sackville, Tom

    Viggers, Peter

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Scott Rt Hon Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waller, Gary

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Ward John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shersby, Michael

    Watts, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wells, Bowen

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Smith, Sir Dudey (Warwick)

    Whitney, Ray

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Whittingdale, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wilkinson, John

    Willetts, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wilshire, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Spring, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sproat, Iain

    Yeo, Tim

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Steen, Anthony

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stephen, Michael

    Mr. Derek Conway and

    Stern, Michael

    Mr. Timothy Wood.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Galloway, George

    Ashton, Joe

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Barnes, Harry

    Godsiff, Roger

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Gordon, Mildred

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Graham, Thomas

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hardy, Peter

    Burden, Richard

    Harvey, Nick

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hoey, Kate

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Chidgey, David

    Janner, Greville

    Cohen, Harry

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davidson, Ian

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Eastham, Ken

    Lewis, Terry

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Litherland, Robert

    265

    Livingstone, Ken

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Rooney, Terry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Salmond, Alex

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    Maclennan, Robert

    Simpson, Alan

    Madden, Max

    Skinner, Dennis

    Maddock, Diana

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mahon, Alice

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marek, Dr John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Tyler, Paul

    McCrea, Rev William

    Wallace, James

    McGrady, Eddie

    Welsh, Andrew

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Olner, Bill

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    Rendel, David

    Mr. Simon Hughes.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    13. VEHICLE EXCISE Dun, (GENERAL)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

    14. VALUE ADDED TAX (WORKS OF ART, ANTIQUES, ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 21 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 as to the value to be given for the purposes of that Act to imported works of art, antiques and collectors' pieces.

    15. VALUE ADDED TAX (AGENTS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 47 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 in relation to goods supplied by an agent who acts in his own name.

    16. VALUE ADDED TAX (MARGIN SCHEMES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for enabling value added tax on some or all of the following supplies to be chargeable by reference to profit margins, instead of by reference to the value of the supplies, that is to say—

    (a) supplies of works of art, antiques or collectors' items;

    (b) supplies of motor vehicles;

    (c) supplies of second-hand goods; and

    (d) any supply of goods through a person who acts as an agent, but in his own name, in relation to the supply.

    17. VALUE ADDED TAX (SET-OFF OF CREDITS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 81 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 with respect to the circumstances in which amounts due to any person from the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under that Act may be set against sums which that person is liable to pay under that Act.

    18. VALUE ADDED TAX (LAND TRANSACTIONS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending the Value Added Tax Act 1994 in relation to cases where there is a supply consisting in the grant, assignment or surrender of an interest in or right over land and the grant, assignment or surrender is made by, or the benefit of the consideration for the supply accrues to, more than one person.

    19. VALUE ADDED TAX (FUEL SUPPLIED FOR PRIVATE USE)
    Resolved,
    That section 57 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 may be amended by—
    266

    (a) providing for the determination of the consideration appropriate to a vehicle where the prescribed accounting period is a period of 12 months;

    (b) increasing the consideration appropriate to a vehicle where the prescribed accounting period is a period of 3 months or a period of one month.

    20. VALUE ADDED TAX (DEEMED SUPPLIES)
    Resolved,
    That section 30(5) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (which treats transactions included in Schedule 8 as supplies) may be replaced by a provision dealing only with exports by charities.

    21. VALUE ADDED TAX (PENALTIES)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) In section 67 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 in subsection (4) (the specified percentage)—

    (a) in paragraph (a) for "10 per cent." there shall be substituted "5 per cent.";

    (b) in paragraph (b) for "20 per cent." there shall be substituted "10 per cent"; and

    (c) in paragraph (c) for "30 per cent." there shall be substituted "15 per cent."

    (2) Section 15(3A) of the Finance Act 1985 shall have effect subject to the amendments made by paragraph (1) above.

    (3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall apply where a penalty is assessed on or after 1st January 1995.

    (4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall not apply in the case of a supplementary assessment if the original assessment was made before 1st January 1995.

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

    22. VALUE ADDED TAX (MINOR CORRECTIONS)
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending provisions of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 that would otherwise have a different effect from the provisions they were intended to re-enact.

    23. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1995–96)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) Income tax shall be charged for the year 1995–96, and for that year—

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

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

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

    (2) For the year 1995–96 section 1(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply as if the amount specified in paragraph (aa) were £3,200; and accordingly section 1(4) of that Act so far as relating to that paragraph shall not apply for the year 1995–96.

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

    24. INCOME TAX (PERSONAL ALLOWANCE)
    Resolved,
    That section 257 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply for the year 1995–96 as if—

    (a) the amount specified in subsection (2) were £4,630, and

    (b) the amount specified in subsection (3) were £4,800;

    and accordingly section 257C(1) of that Act so far as relating to section 257(2) and (3) shall not apply for the year 1995–96.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    25. INCOME TAX (SCHEDULE A)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about income tax charged under Schedule A and for applying provisions relating to Schedule A to the charge to tax under Case V of Schedule D.

    26. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1995)
    Resolved,
    That corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 1995 at the rate of 33 per cent.

    27. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES: 1995)
    Resolved,
    That for the financial year 1995—

    (a) the small companies' rate shall be 25 per cent., and

    (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be one fiftieth.

    28. CORPORATION TAX (DISTRIBUTIONS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made as to the meaning of "distribution" for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts.

    29. CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP OF INVESTMENT COMPANY
    Resolved,
    That charges to corporation tax may be imposed by provisions about cases where there is a change in the ownership of an investment company.

    30. INSURANCE COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for cases where companies carry on insurance business and in relation to transfers of insurance business between companies.

    31. OPEN-ENDED INVESTMENT COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in relation to open-ended investment companies, to holdings in and assets of such companies and to transactions involving such companies.

    32. CONTRACTUAL SAVINGS SCHEMES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in relation to contractual savings schemes.

    33. PERSONAL EQUITY PLANS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about plan managers of personal equity plans.

    34. ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SCHEME
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the enterprise investment scheme.

    35. PERSONAL PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made imposing a charge to tax on sums payable under approved personal pension arrangements.

    36. RETIREMENT BENEFITS SCHEMES
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about retirement benefits schemes.

    37. CHARGEABLE GAINS (DE-GROUPING CHARGES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

    38. CHARGEABLE GAINS (ROLL-OVER RELIEF: GROUPS OF COMPANIES)
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about roll-over relief in cases involving members of a group of companies.

    39. CHARGEABLE GAINS (ROLL-OVER RELIEF ON RE-INVESTMENT)
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about roll-over relief on re-investment.

    40. CHARGEABLE GAINS (CORPORATE BONDS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the meaning of "corporate bond" for the purposes of section 117 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

    41. CURRENCY CONTRACTS
    Resolved,
    That charges (including charges by reference to existing contracts) may be imposed by provisions amending section 175 of the Finance Act 1994.

    42. CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Chapter IV of Part XVII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the corresponding provisions of the Finance Act 1984.

    43. EXCHANGE GAINS AND LOSSES (GENERAL)
    Resolved,
    That Chapter II of Part II of the Finance Act 1993 may be amended.

    44. EXCHANGE GAINS AND LOSSES (TRANSITIONAL)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about disposals between companies with different commencement days for the purposes of section 165 of the Finance Act 1993.

    45. INTEREST, ETC. ON CERTAIN DEBTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made extending the application of sections 63 to 66 of the Finance Act 1993.

    46. ABOLITION OF INTEREST RELIEF FOR COMMERCIALLY LET PROPERTY
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made abolishing interest relief in respect of property that is commercially let.

    47. MIRAS (RECOVERY OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for the recovery of amounts deducted by borrowers from payments of interest or paid to borrowers by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

    48. SETTLEMENTS AND SETTLORS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about settlements and settlors.

    49. INCOME OF ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the taxation as income of sums comprised in the estates of deceased persons.

    50. BENEFITS IN KIND (CARS AVAILABLE FOR PRIVATE USE)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in relation to cars available for private use.

    51. INCAPACITY BENEFIT
    Resolved,
    That section 139 of the Finance Act 1994 shall have effect as follows—

    (a) in subsection (5), for the definition of "initial period of incapacity" there shall be substituted—

    "'initial period of incapacity', in relation to incapacity benefit, means any period for which short-term incapacity benefit is payable otherwise than at the higher rate; and"; and

    (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—s

    "(6) The reference in subsection (5) above to short-term incapacity benefit payable at the higher rate shall be construed in accordance with sections 30B(5), 40(8) and 41(7) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the corresponding provisions of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992."

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

    52. SHORT ROTATION COPPICE
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about short rotation coppice.

    53. TRADING STOCK ON DISCONTINUANCE OF A TRADE
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 100 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    54. CHANGE OF RESIDENCE
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about cases where a person who is engaged in carrying on a trade, profession or vocation ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom or becomes so resident.

    55. RELIEF FOR PRE-TRADING EXPENDITURE
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 401 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    56. CHANGE OF BASIS OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SCHEDULE D
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending, and with respect to the exploitation of, Schedule 20 to the Finance Act 1994.

    57. PARTNERSHIPS
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the taxation of persons who carry on trades, professions or businesses in partnership.

    58. LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS (NEW STYLE SPECIAL RESERVE FUNDS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made deeming paragraph 2 of Schedule 20 to the Finance Act 1993 to have been enacted with a modification.

    59. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES (SALES, ETC. OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made, for the purposes of Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, about arrangements affecting the value of an interest in a building or structure.

    60. PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX (UNRELIEVABLE LOSSES FROM ABANDONED FIELDS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 6 of the Oil Taxation Act 1975 with respect to cases where certain claims or elections for the allowance of expenditure are received by the Board on or after 29th November 1994.

    61. PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX (TRANSFER OF INTERESTS IN OIL FIELDS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending paragraph 7 of Schedule 17 to the Finance Act 1980 with respect to transfers of the whole or part of interests in oil fields on or after 29th November 1994.

    62. STAMP DUTY (ASSOCIATED BODIES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about stamp duty in relation to transactions between associated bodies.

    63. LEVY UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE PORTS ACT 1991
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the assessment of the levy chargeable under section 13 of the Ports Act 1991.

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

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

    (a) provision about the deduction of tax from payments of interest in respect of deposits;

    (b) provision about sub-contractors in the construction industry;

    (c) provision about the policies which are to be qualifying policies under Schedule 15 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

    (d) provision about persons who are not resident in the United Kingdom and the persons through whom they act;

    (e) provision about the management of tax.

    FINANCE [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorize—

    (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of provisions of that Act relating to vehicle excise and registration;

    (b) the issue out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the payment of compensation in respect of tax deposits withdrawn for cash;

    271

    (c) any increase attributable to any provision of that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Ports Act 1991.

    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Dorrell, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Anthony Nelson and Sir George Young do prepare and bring it in.

    FINANCE BILL
    Sir George Young accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

    PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion relating to further expenditure, pursuant to Order [29 November].
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That this House welcomes the spending plans announced in the Budget statement by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th November; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its firm control over public expenditure, its drive for greater efficiency and economy in all areas of government, and its progress in reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector while improving key public services; and commends the Government's determination to maintain sound public finances.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Amendment proposed to the Question, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'notes the real cuts in the Government's new spending plans set out in the Budget Statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th November, which are the result of the complete failure of Government policies to achieve either high employment or the basis for sustainable high economic growth; regrets the absence of any strategy for using public investment to help generate growth and employment, and the derisory progress made in attracting private finance to public projects; condemns the unacceptable cuts to key public services and public investment programmes, while forcing public sector workers to continue to pay the price of the Government's economic failure; and condemns the betrayal of election pledges which will savage transport and housing programmes, slash the employment budget, especially training, further reduce support for local authorities, and leave increasing numbers of fellow citizens in poverty.'—[Mr. Derek Foster.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 325.

    Division No. 11]

    [23.07 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Ashton, Joe

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Austin-Waker, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Barnes, Harry

    Allen, Graham

    Barron, Kevin

    Alton, David

    Battle, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Bell, Stuart

    272

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fraser, John

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Fyfe, Maria

    Benton, Joe

    Gabraith, Sam

    Berrningharn, Gerald

    Galloway, George

    Berry, Roger

    Gapes, Mike

    Betts, Clive

    Garrett, John

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    George, Bruce

    Blunkett, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Boateng, Paul

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Boyes, Roland

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bradley, Keith

    Godsiff, Roger

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermine E)

    Gordon, Mildred

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

    Graham, (Thottenham)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Byers, Stephen

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cabom, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hardy, Peter

    Cann, Jamie

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Harvey, Nick

    Chidgey, David

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Henderson, Doug

    Church, Judith

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Clapham, Michael

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hi, Keith (Streatham)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clelland, David

    Hodge, Margaret

    Ctwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoey, Kate

    Coffey, Ann

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

    Cohen, Harry

    Home Robertson, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Corbett, Robin

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbyn Jeremy

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hume, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hutton, John

    Dafis, Cynog

    Illsley, Eric

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Ingram, Adam

    Darling, Alistair

    Jackson, Glenda (H'Stead)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llnelli)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

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

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Dixon, Don

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dobson, Frank

    Jowell, Tessa

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Alan

    Dumachie, Jimmy

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Khabra, Piara S

    Eastham, Ken

    Klfoyle, Peter

    Enright, Derek

    Kinnock, R Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Etherington, Bill

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Lewis, Terry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Field, Andrew

    Litherland, Robert

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Fisher, Mark

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ftynn, Paul

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Macdonald. Calum

    Foulkes, George

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    273

    Maclennman, Robert

    Reid, Dr John

    Madden, Max

    Rendel, David

    Maddock, Diana

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Mahon, Alice

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Mallon, Seamus

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Marek, DrJohn

    Rogers, Allan

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Martlew, Eric

    Rowlands, Ted

    Maxton, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    McAllion, John

    Salmond, Alex

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCrea, Rev William

    Sheerman, Barry

    McFall, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McGrady, Eddie

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McKelvey, William

    Short, Clare

    McLeish, Henry

    Simpson, Alan

    McMaster, Gordon

    Skinner, Dennis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Meacher, Michael

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Meale, Alan

    Snape, Peter

    Michael, Alun

    Soley, Clive

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Spellar, John

    Milburn, Alan

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Miller, Andrew

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Stevenson, George

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stott, Roger

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Morley, Elliot

    Straw, Jack

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Sutdiffe, Gerry

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Abemavon)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mudie, George

    Timms, Stephen

    Mullin, Chris

    Tipping, Paddy

    Murphy, Paul

    Turner, Dennis

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Tyler, Paul

    O'Brien, William (Norrmanton)

    Vaz, Keith

    C'Hara, Edward

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wallace, James

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Walley, Joan

    Olner, Bill

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wareing, Robert N

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Watson, Mike

    Parry, Robert

    Welsh, Andrew

    Patchett, Terry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Pendry, Tom

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Pike, Peter L

    Wliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wibon, Brian

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'rn E)

    Wirmick, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wise, Audrey

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Worthington, Tony

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Wray, Jimmy

    Purchase, Ken

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    young, David (Boton SE)

    Radice, Giles

    Randall, Stuart

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Raynsford, Nick

    Mr. Eric Clarke and

    Redmond, Martin

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Ashby, David

    Aitken.Rt Hon Jonathan

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkins, Robert

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'moulh E)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Amess, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Ancram, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    274

    Bates, Michael

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forman, Nigel

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forth, Eric

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Dr Liarn (Woodspring)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Booth, Hartley

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gale, Roger

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Gallie, Phil

    Bowis, John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Garnier, Edward

    Brazier, Julian

    Gill, Christopher

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butcher, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butler, Peter

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Cash, William

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hannam, Sir John

    Churchill, Mr

    Harg reaves, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hayes, Jerry

    Colvin, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hendry, Charles

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hicks, Robert

    Couchman, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Cran, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

    Horam., John

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

    Day, Stephen

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Dicks, Terry

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Dorrel, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hunt Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dover, Den

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Jack, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dunn, Bob

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Jessel, Toby

    Dykes, Hugh

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Eggar, Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Elletson, Harold

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hattield)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Key, Robert

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evennett, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Faber, David

    Knapman, Roger

    Fabricant, Michael

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

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    275

    Knox, Sir David

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Legg, Barry

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Leigh, Edward

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sackville, Tom

    Lidington, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lightbown, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lord, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Luff, Peter

    Lyel, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Shersby, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sims, Roger

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maclean, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Madel, Sir David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconstfield)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Soames, Nicholas

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Majone, Gerald

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Marland, Paul

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marlow, Tony

    Spring, Richard

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mates, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Stephen, Michael

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stem, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Streeter, Gary

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sumberg, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mills, Iain

    Sykes, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thomason, Roy

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thumham, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Tracey, Richard

    Norris, Steve

    Tredinnick, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Trend, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Trotter, Neville

    Ottaway, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Page, Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Paice, James

    Viggers, Peter

    Patrick, Sir Irvine

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Walden, George

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Waller, Bill (N Tayside)

    Pawsey, James

    Waller, Gary

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Ward, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Watts, John

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Whitney, Ray

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Whittingdale, John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Richards, Rod

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Riddick, Graham

    Wilkinson, John

    276

    Willetts, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Wilshire, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. Derek Conway

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 297.

    Division No. 12]

    [23.20 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Conway, Derek

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Alexander, Richard

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Amess, David

    Couchman, James

    Ancram, Michael

    Cran, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Critchley, Julian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Ashby, David

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Aspinwal, Jack

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Atkins, Robert

    Day, Stephen

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Devlin, Tim

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Dicks, Terry

    Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Baldry, Tony

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Banks, Matthew (Soulhport)

    Dover, Den

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Bates, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Dunn, Bob

    Bellingham, Henry

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Eggar, Tim

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Elletson, Harold

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Booth, Hartley

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Evernett, David

    Bowis, John

    Faber, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Brazier, Julian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Fishbum, Dudley

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Forth, Eric

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Burns, Simon

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Butcher, John

    French, Douglas

    Butler, Peter

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Butterfill, John

    Gale, Roger

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gallie, Phil

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Carrington, Matthew

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Cash, William

    Gamier, Edward

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Churchill, Mr

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Clappison, James

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Goodson-Wckes, Dr Charles

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Gorst, Sir John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

    Colvin, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Congdon, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    277

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marland, Paul

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Marlow, Tony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Setwyn

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hague, William

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Mates, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hannam, Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Harris, David

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Merchant Piers

    Hawkins, Nick

    Mills, Iain

    Hawksley, Warren

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Heald, Oliver

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hendry, Chailes

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hicks, Robert

    Nelson, Anthony

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Horam, John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Norris, Steve

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

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Oppenheim, Philip

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Page, Richard

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Paice, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hunter, Andrew

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jack, Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Pickles, Eric

    Jessel, Toby

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Key, Robert

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Richards, Rod

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Riddick, Graham

    Knapman, Roger

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

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

    Robathan, Andrew

    Knight Greg (Derby N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knox, Sir David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sackville, Tom

    Legg, Barry

    Salisbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Leigh, Edward

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lidington, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lightbown, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Luff, Peter

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maclean, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Madel, Sir David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Malone, Gerald

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mans, Keith

    Spring, Richard

    278

    Sproat, Iain

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Viggers, Peter

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Steen, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Stephen, Michael

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Stem, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Stewart, Allan

    Ward, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sumberg, David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sweeney, Walter

    Watts, John

    Sykes, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Whitney, Ray

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Widdeoombe, Ann

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Thomason, Roy

    Wilkinson, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Willetts, David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Wilshire, David

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Townsend, Cyril D (Baxl'yh'th)

    Yeo, Tim

    Tracey, Richard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tredinnick, David

    Trend, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trotter, Neville

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mr. Timothy Wood

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Church, Judith

    Ainger, Nick

    Clapham, Michael

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'ty NE)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Allen, Graham

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Alton, David

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Clelland, David

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Coffey, Ann

    Ashdown.Rt Hon Paddy

    Cohen, Harry

    Ashton, Joe

    Connarty, Michael

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cock, Robin (Livingston)

    Barnnes, Harry

    Corbett, Robin

    Barron, Kevin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Battle, John

    Corston, Jean

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cousins, Jim

    Beckett, Rf Hon Margaret

    Cox, Tom

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cummings, John

    Bell, Stuart

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dafis, Cynog

    Benton, Joe

    Dalyell,Tam

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Darling, Alistair

    Berry, Roger

    Davidson, Ian

    Betts, Clive

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Blunkett, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boateng, Paul

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

    Boyes, Roland

    Denham, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Dewar, Donald

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dixon, Don

    Brown, Gordon (Dunferrmline E)

    Dobson, Frank

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

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Burden, Richard

    Dunwoody, Mrs Qwyneth

    Byers, Stephen

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Caborn, Richard

    Eastham, Ken

    Callaghan,Jim

    Enright, Derek

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Etherlngton, Bill

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Fatchett, Derek

    Cann, Jamie

    Faulds, Andrew

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Chidgey, David

    Fisher, Mark

    279

    Flynn, Paul

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Loyden, Eddie

    Foulkes, George

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fraser, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fyfe, Maria

    Maclennan, Robert

    Galbraith, Sam

    MacShane, Denis

    Galloway, George

    Madden, Max

    Gapes, Mike

    Maddock, Diana

    Garrett, John

    Mahon, Alice

    George, Bruce

    Mallon, Seamus

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mandelson, Peter

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Marek, Dr John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Martlew, Eric

    Gordon, Mildred

    Maxton, John

    Graham, Thomas

    McAllion, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McCartney, Ian

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Grocott, Bruce

    McFall, John

    Gunnell, John

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hain, Peter

    McKelvey, William

    Hall, Mike

    McLeish, Henry

    Hanson, David

    McMaster, Gordon

    Hardy, Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    McWilliam, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Meacher, Michael

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Meale, Alan

    Henderson, Doug

    Michael, Alun

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Heppell, John

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Milburn, Alan

    Hinchliffe, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoey, Kate

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Home Robertson, John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hood, Jimmy

    Morley, Ellot

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mudie, George

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Mullin, Chris

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Murphy, Paul

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hume, John

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Hutton,John

    O'Hara, Edward

    Illsley, Eric

    O'Neill, Martin

    Ingram, Adam

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Olner, Bill

    Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Jamieson, David

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Jamer, Grevile

    Parry, Robert

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Patchett Terry

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Martyn (Olwyd, SW)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jewell, Tessa

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Keen, Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Purchase, Ken

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Khabra, Piara S

    Radice, Giles

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Randall, Stuart

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Redmond, Martin

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Reid, Dr John

    Lewis, Terry

    Rendel, David

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Litherland, Robert

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    280

    Rogers, Allan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rocker, Jeff

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Rooney, Terry

    Timms, Stephen

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dennis

    Ruddock, Joan

    Tyler, Paul

    Salmond, Alex

    Vaz, Keith

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wallace, James

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Walley, Joan

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Short, Clare

    Wareing, Robert N

    Simpson, Alan

    Watson, Mike

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Andrew

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson Brian

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wise, Audrey

    Spellar, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Stevenson, George

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Straw, Jack

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mr. Jim Dowd and

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mrs. Barbara Roche

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the spending plans announced in the Budget statement by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th November; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its firm control over public expenditure, its drive for greater efficiency and economy in all areas of government, and its progress in reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector while improving key public services; and commends the Government's determination to maintain sound public finances.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Conway and Mr. Jon Owen Jones to come to the Table.
    Mr. Derek Conway (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I have to report that in the Division on the amendment, the numbers for the Ayes were incorrectly reported as 279. The figure should have been 297.
    Madam Speaker: I direct that the correct figure of 297 be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I see that voting against all the tax increases and against all the spending reductions has cheered up the Labour party, but it might actually help the House if I gave a brief explanation of how I think our proceedings will now go ahead.
    During the Budget debate, I mapped out a clear path for reductions in public borrowing and emphasised the importance of sound public finances to the achievement of a strong and sustainable recovery. Nothing said in the course of the debate tonight has changed our commitment to take all the necessary measures to put the public finances on a sound footing and nor, indeed, has the outcome of the vote.
    However, it is only right that we should listen to the views expressed here tonight. I have therefore decided not to proceed with the second stage of value added tax on

    281
    fuel and power. The Government will be bringing forward a resolution to hold the rate at 8 per cent., together with the requisite new clause.
    The shortfall in the public finances must be made good. I shall be bringing proposals to the House on Thursday, designed to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement remains on the course that I mapped out in my Budget statement. Proceeding in that way is essential to keep the recovery on course in order to achieve the prosperity and jobs that we need in this country.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to catch my eye on a point of order. I judge what he has said to be a short statement, and I shall treat it as such.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Now that VAT at 17.5 per cent. has been stopped dead in its tracks, is that not a humiliating defeat for the Cabinet, for the Chancellor and for the Prime Minister? Having tried for 18 months, in three successive Budgets, to impose the unfair VAT tax, does the Chancellor agree that VAT on fuel should never have been imposed in the first place? Does he agree also that promises made by political parties at elections should be kept? The Government will have to listen to the British people.
    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree also that no hasty and ill-considered measures—cobbled-together compromises—should be brought to the House by the Chancellor? If he believes, as he says, that there is an obligation on us to come forward with proposals, why does he not consult us before he brings proposals before the House on Thursday?
    This is not just a defeat for the Budget. This signals a turning point in the politics of this country. Conservative Members may remain in office, but they are tired, they are discredited and they are out of touch. It is the Labour party that now represents and speaks for the people of this country.
    Mr. Clarke: The Labour party may produce proposals slowly, but they are certainly cobbled together when they come. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made his proposals to deal with the public finances—loopholes, windfalls and zero rates on rollercoasters in theme parks. They are unlikely to feature in my statement on Thursday.
    On Thursday, I will produce what the hon. Gentleman has never produced, which is a package of spending and taxation measures designed to keep borrowing on course and to regain confidence in the strong recovery of this country. The hon. Gentleman, in all his speeches on this matter, has made it clear that he will be utterly unfit to take forward the affairs of this country. He has no responsible suggestions to make on either spending or taxation. His vote this evening has been irresponsible and opportunist. He may gloat today, but we have the responsibility of keeping British industry on course tomorrow.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor accept that the defeat of the Government tonight was inflicted by the votes of Members from all nine parties in the House? That demonstrates a monumental rejection of the Government's policies. What ingenious new taxes will the
    282
    Tories now introduce? They have become the party of tax. If it moves they will tax it, and they will go on taxing until it stops moving. Does he accept that he is a member of a discredited Government who are rejected by the House, by his own party and by the people? There is only one place for him and his Government to go, and that is out.
    Mr. Clarke: The Liberal Democrat party was the first political party in this country to advocate the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel. The Liberal Democrat party remains committed to a carbon energy tax which would impose equivalent taxation in terms of domestic fuel and would also impose huge costs on British industry, damaging our competitiveness in world markets.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me a question. He asked what taxes I might bring forward. In effect, he is asking me to advertise tax increases in advance in an utterly irresponsible way. The Liberal Democrat party is no better than the Labour party at producing thought-out proposals of its own and the hon. Gentleman illustrates his own irresponsibility by asking me to trail tax changes in advance of their being announced_ I cannot do so today, any more than I could do so before a Budget.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: As the Labour party is committed to harmonising all taxes with those in the European Union and as every country in western Europe has a value added tax on fuel, is not it absolutely clear that a future Labour Government would introduce the tax which the House has just rejected?
    Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, if the Labour party stood by the commitments that it incurred in the European Parliament, that would indeed be the case. But Opposition Members shake their heads at the idea that they are committed to anything. Throughout five days of debate they never said that they would repeal the tax if we introduced it, and they engaged in pure political opportunism without offering any alternative proposals of their own.
    Mr. Peter Shore: Now that we have a minority Government, does not the Chancellor think that it is rather premature to bring forward new proposals this Thursday? Would not he be better advised to give himself more time to consult not only Opposition parties, but within his own party before he presents further proposals?
    Mr. Clarke: I see no alternative Government—nothing resembling an alternative Government— before me. I see no political party ready for office which could be responsible for this country's economic affairs. I have heard the Labour party's propositions: the windfalls, the loopholes, the zero rating of funfairs, and the restoration of the tax on champagne. They are preposterous. Of course, better suggestions will be considered if the Opposition can think of any between now and Thursday.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Chancellor had time to reflect upon the wisdom of the petulance which led him to defend an indefensible tax increase to the last ditch? If that was a marginal part of the Government's programme, should not the Chancellor consider his own position in leading his party to such

    283
    humiliation? If it was a central part of the Government's programme, should not the entire Government face the people in a general election?
    Mr. Clarke: Because of the compensation I announced— and actually would have improved during the debate— pensioners were one group in this country who would not have borne the full weight of the proposal. Indeed, about one fifth of pensioners would have received more compensation than the VAT they would have been likely to pay. The principal beneficiaries of this evening's vote will be people living in large houses with large central heating bills.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when he brings forward his package on Thursday he should consider the fact that we are determined to bring down public expenditure, while the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr Cunningham), said that public expenditure was too high, and other Opposition Back Benchers said that taxation is not high enough? Does the Chancellor agree that that shows the Labour party's absolute hypocrisy in this area?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right: the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made the extraordinary statement that, in his opinion, public expenditure was too high. He said— he repeats it now—that public expenditure on social security was too high, which I think bodes ill for old-age pensioners. He then went through the Division Lobby with his hon. Friends and voted against every public expenditure reduction that we had proposed. As I said a moment ago, the Labour party's position is preposterous—and other adjectives leap to mind quite easily.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In so far as Ministers were predicting a substantial increase in interest rates in the event that they lost the Division, is that still their view or were they just threatening Back Benchers in an irresponsible way?
    Mr. Clarke: If there is one thing dafter than asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer questions about possible tax movements two days before he announces them, it is asking him about likely movements in interest rates. There is scarcely a Labour Member who would be capable of running a whelk stall, let alone the Exchequer.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We shall move on to petitions.

  PETITIONS

    Population Control
    11.45 pm
    Ms Judith Church: I wish to present a petition from Mrs. Helen Descombes of 129 Ballards Road, Dagenham, signed by 36 constituents, against the use of overseas aid funds for the Chinese population control programme.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that no further funds from the Overseas Aid budget are disbursed to the United Nations Population Fund and the
    284
    International Planned Parenthood Federation whilst these organisations support, encourage or act as apologists for the Chinese Population Control Programme.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Imtiaz Begum
    11.46 pm
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: I rise to present a petition from the constituents of Preston. There are 3,084 signatures attached to it, led by the mayor and mayoress of Preston, the leader of the council and the town clerk.
    The petition declares that Imtiaz Begum should not be deported from the United Kingdom. She is a young woman who, because of head injuries sustained in an accident, cannot walk unaided or care for herself. She is being cared for in Preston by her brother, his wife and her parents, all of whom are British citizens. Her brother bears all the costs. She has no relatives in Pakistan who could care for her and so a deportation order would be a death sentence.
    The petitioners therefore respectfully request the House of Commons to call upon the Home Secretary to revoke the deportation order.
    To lie upon the Table.

Electoral Reform
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
11.47 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It was something of a surprise to draw this Adjournment debate, which I put in for some 18 months ago, as the spokesperson on democracy. It was recycled and finally pulled out of the hat last week.
One reason why I put in for the debate was that the House of Commons very rarely talks about matters to do with democracy and the way in which we govern ourselves. I thought that it would be useful to give the House the opportunity to discuss and debate an important question on part of our democracy, which is the system that we use to elect not just this House but our other institutions.
I was delighted over the weekend to note that there is a growing view that our democracy needs to be talked about, looked at and, perhaps, reviewed. For some time, Labour has had a wide-ranging package of measures on how to improve our democracy. I was pleased over the weekend to read the words:
"Labour's democratic agenda is the most extensive package of constitutional reform ever proposed by a British Government."
Those were not the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; they were not a quotation from our former leader, the late and greatly lamented John Smith, the former right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, but the words of the Prime Minister. It appears that there is a consensus that Labour has the most radical package of constitutional reform, even if there is no agreement that it should be implemented.
In my opinion, that package is designed to reinvent democracy in the United Kingdom. It stretches across all our institutions, to end the command politics that persist in this country. We have seen command economics wither and die in eastern and central Europe, and so, too, we shall inevitably see the highly centralised, one-track, winner-takes-all politics prevalent in our society wither and die. It must give way to a more open, diverse and plural system in which we are prepared to listen to all voices, which could be our salvation, rather than pretend and assume that someone in Whitehall or in No. 10 Downing street, regardless of party, possesses sufficient wisdom to answer all economic, social and political questions. That is the direction in which not only politics but any industry or international organisation is going.
In other countries, people are looking for answers, diversity, independent budgeting and accounting, and team work. Only our political system looks for centralised delivery of answers to all our problems.
Radical democratisation of our society and politics would free up the talents that could help us to move towards a more developed economy. If deference and hierarchy were ended and the terrible burden of our class structure were lifted, we would free people to liberate their talents, and make them more self-confident and assertive. They would then be more mobile, entrepreneurial and able to meet our economic needs. At present, people are held captive in the stranglehold of our unitary political system, often unable to express their politics other than once every four or five years, in a vote that is highly mediated by the media.
286
An incoming Labour Government would bring the victory of pluralism over centralism, which has failed our country over the years. It is time to consider a system that operates in not only western Europe but north America, to liberate the talents that could be our country's salvation.
The package of measures involved would include a review of the powers of the Executive. In the last couple of days, Crown prerogative and prerogative power have been confused with the future of the royal family. The two are quite distinct. Executive power is exercised almost without constraint in this country, and certainly without proper scrutiny by Parliament. We must ensure that international treaties, the ability to go to war and other aspects of Executive power are scrutinised by the House—not necessarily to obstruct or delay the exercise of those powers but to legitimise them.
If this country were to go to war, it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister or someone else to come to the House to seek ratification of that action by the elected legislature. The same applies to international treaties.
Another central part of our package is a Bill of Rights. It is remarkable that our country still does not have clear, written rights for all individuals. That makes us subjects rather than citizens. We should adopt the European convention on human rights, as most other countries have done, and then go further. We should ensure, through an all-party commission, that a British Bill of Rights is drafted, so that citizens have the ability to know and to defend their rights—and so that young people in school and elsewhere grow up know, to understand and to exercise their rights in a way that does not happen now. If we are to do that, the next question is: what do we do about the judiciary? I am careful not to stray too far and incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the judiciary needs to be examined carefully in terms of how it is selected, appointed and trained. Then, I believe, it would be capable of defending the civil and political rights that we would like to see in law.
In addition, we need to examine our own institutions, not merely in the other place—the second Chamber. We need to ensure not only that the hereditary principle is ended, but that the Chamber is fully and properly elected. I shall mention the method by which it should be elected in a moment. What is good for the Lords is also good for this Chamber. Far too often, we are complacent that, somehow, we do not need reform. Just about every other institution in our society may be pointed at as needing reform, but the House of Commons somehow escapes scrutiny. I believe that the reform process must begin at home, in this Chamber. We must give teeth to our democratic institutions. We must do what Gladstone said many years ago. He said that the role of the House of Commons is not to run the country, but to hold to account those who do.
By that clear criterion, we are failing in our duty in the House. The Labour party would like to introduce a package of measures to make this place more relevant, more accessible to people and more secure in the job that it should be doing as a legislature in the constitution.
We need also to look at the package of measures on the future of local government. Local government currently is just a creature of the centre. It needs to be given its own independence, its own ability to raise money. It is nonsense that only 20 per cent. of local expenditure is raised locally. We must ensure that local authorities are

287
given not merely the powers to carry out their duties adequately on behalf of their electorate, but the finance to do so. Without those two criteria existing together, we shall not have genuinely independent local authorities. I would go as far as saying that we need constitutionally independent local authorities. I believe that that certainly could be done were there the will in this place to ensure that it would be done under an incoming Government.
That raises the further prospect of what should happen at regional level in this country. My party is committed to a Scottish Parliament and we shall introduce legislation to that effect in our first term. We are also committed to a Welsh Assembly, and that will also take place in the first term. But the English regions present some other difficulties, which need to be overcome. I suggest that they could be overcome not by imposing regions on the English people, but by encouraging the development of regions by local action—in other words, ensuring that they develop from a menu of powers rather than from some centralised blueprint imposed from above.
That would have a liberating effect in the regions. It would also mean that people would find it far more difficult to repeal those regions, because they would be built up by the people themselves and would be backed and supported by them. Nothing would be more certain of instant repeal than a region imposed on an unwilling, and often unaware population, in a region of England.
Finally, I suggest that we also need to be very serious about what we want to do to democratise the European level. The European project has been the province of an elite, a minority of self-proclaimed visionaries, and that has meant that the project has lost touch with people, not just people in our country, but throughout Europe. We need to reclaim our vision of what a peaceful Europe could be, and that means involving those people. It means involving the electorates of those people and their national Parliaments and democratising the institutions of the European Parliament. Again, my party has made a distinct set of proposals to ensure that that takes place.
If I were permitted to do so, I would go a little further and discuss the possibility of the 1996 intergovernmental conference producing what would, in effect, be a written constitution. One exists now, fractured in 20 or 30 parts, in treaties and directives; why not pull something together that defines competence not only in Europe but at national, regional and local level? A package of pluralist measures could reinvent democracy in our country, and I believe that such a package is long overdue.
The central part of tonight's debate, however, should concern a further element of that package—the electoral systems that should govern our country into the new century. As one who served on the committee on electoral systems chaired by Professor Raymond Plant, now Lord Plant, I am very pleased that a long-serving, long-suffering colleague from those days—my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church)—is present tonight. Indeed, I shall be pleased to take interventions from colleagues as I talk about electoral systems.
Labour's policy on the matter is now crystal clear. As a result of its 1993 conference decision, embodied in composite resolution 31, it is committed to a proportional representation system based on regional lists for the second Chamber, and to the same system for the European
288
Parliament—which I hope will be active in the next European elections in 1998. Labour is also committed, through the same conference resolution, to a referendum to identify the electoral system that people want for the first Chamber. In many ways, that was the legacy of Professor Plant and his committee. The Plant proposals were taken further by the former leader of the Labour party, John Smith, and I think that that batch of proposals constitutes a coherent approach to electoral systems.
We talk of developing a plurality of institutions in the United Kingdom, but it is remarkable that some people—particularly Conservative Members—are still afraid of the possibility that there will also be a plurality of electoral systems. It is a question of horses for courses. The one thing that the year or two in which I served on the Plant committee taught me, and, I suspect, my colleagues, was that there is no holy grail, no perfect electoral system. In certain circumstances, proportional representation may be appropriate; in others, first-past-the-post may be appropriate. How we match electoral systems with the institutions that we wish to build and develop in a new pluralism is entirely a matter of political judgment and the wisdom of people, not least those in this place.
Probably the first new electoral system will be that for the Scottish Parliament. My party is rightly and thankfully committed to instituting a Parliament in Scotland, and I very much hope that that commitment will be honoured rapidly, in the first year of Labour government. We feel—ours is a view of some generosity—that we would not want a first-past-the-post system in Scotland; we would want the "additional member" system. That would mean a constituency-based system which would be made good, as it were, in terms of proportionality: the number of people elected directly would be topped up, possibly with losing candidates.
That means that the Labour party has forgone the possibility of developing a one-party state in Scotland. That is highly commendable. It will come on top of the discussion and activity that now takes place under the single transferable vote system, which is operative for European elections in Northern Ireland. So, civilisation as we know it has not collapsed where proportional representation systems or systems different from first-past-the-post have been exercised. I hope that that is something that people with an open mind will understand and appreciate.
If we were to have a regional list proportional representation system for the second Chamber, under Professor Plant's analysis, that would produce 322 Members. That would be in place of the current 1,203 peers, of whom 774 are hereditary and, of the remainder, 300 are Conservative and 100 are Labour. That is an important reason for us to move quickly to the second phase of our policy programme, which is to bring in an elected second Chamber. We could be faced with the ludicrous possibility of having 300 of the most partisan Conservative life peers outnumbering the 100 or so hard-working Labour life peers. That would necessitate the nomination of another 200 life peers just to balance the books. I do not think that any Labour Government would want to countenance that. We do not want to see a repeat of events under the last Labour Government, on whom 350 defeats were inflicted. That would surely be revisited were we to have a Labour Government, particularly one without a substantial majority.

289
Let me give a flavour of how the second Chamber might look. An elected Chamber would help to break down the existing metropolitan bias. For example, my region of the east midlands could elect 23 Members and the west midlands could elect 30. Throughout the whole of the midlands area, 53 people could be elected. To my knowledge—I am happy to be corrected—there are no peers representing my immediate area in the second Chamber now. There would be people representing the north, the north-west and other areas that are currently unrepresented. That would be great progress. It would also assist the representation of people who vote for parties that do not have any representation because of the first-past-the-post system. So, we would be operating a different system from that in the first Chamber.
Were we to have a system of proportional representation in the second Chamber, one operative in the European Parliament and another in the Scottish Parliament, we would see the decision on the referendum on the first Chamber in a different perspective. Right now, people will say that one may feel obliged to prove one's democratic credentials by supporting proportional representation in the first Chamber rather than to make a decision on a clear and honest basis.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but he is leaving very little time for the Minister to reply.
Mr. Allen: I understand that the Minister has generously allowed me to speak for 26 or 27 minutes. I should be pleased to take my seat if the Minister says that he is desperate to answer any of the questions that I am posing.
The perspective on which we would make a decision in the referendum on the first Chamber would be different from now. It would be an important decision for people to make on the basis of rational criteria.
Many people argued to Professor Plant that one needs a first-past-the-post system for the first Chamber to deliver a strong Executive. That argument may not be shared by everyone but people should certainly consider it. If people believe that both political parties supporting the first-past-the-post system in a referendum will make the result a foregone conclusion, they should look to New Zealand, where people were given a unique opportunity, if I may put it bluntly, to put two fingers up to both main parties, which were telling them that the first-past-the-post system was a good idea. People rejected that in New Zealand. People would have the option to do so in the United Kingdom.
Electoral systems are part of the Labour party's package for a new democracy in the UK and for a new constitutional settlement. People are ready for it. They are sick not only of the Government, but of the sleaze, of the inadequacy of this institution, the House of Commons, and of many other institutions that pretend to support our democracy in the UK.
The battle ahead is a philosophical battle between those who believe in plurality and in many independent and diverse institutions competing and conflicting, and those who believe that centralism, the unitary state, where one person or one institution can deliver the answer, is appropriate. More and more Labour Members are looking to pluralism as the way forward and the way to answer some of the economic, social and political questions that beset our nation.
12.10 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this debate. Since he came into the House, he has been a doughty campaigner on procedure. He has made a special study of procedure and constitutional matters. It was no surprise that he became the Labour party's constitutional affairs spokesman, although he no longer has that responsibility. He does, however, speak for the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North gave us a warning of some of his views in the Thomas Paine memorial lecture in January this year, when he said:
"I want to lead a Labour government"—
I do not know whether he gave notice of that to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
Mr. Allen: He said that too.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said:
"I want to lead a Labour government that will introduce the most radical package of constitutional reform ever proposed by any major political party. This, I believe, will be a key battleground of the 1990s as we define the new politics of a new century."
Radical words indeed. I notice that, at the lecture, he also said:
"The Commons is currently held in contempt by the electorate."
He has echoed that view this evening. It is one of a number of points on which he and I will be unable to agree.
The Government are not opposed to any constitutional change. If one considers some of the changes that have happened under the Government, particularly in relation to the House, I think that one can see clearly that the contrary is the case. I cite the examples of the Select Committees, which were set up by the Government, and the Jopling Committee, which was set in motion to make considerable changes to the way in which we conduct ourselves and which now seems likely to make more progress given that the Opposition parties agree.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's points about local government, he may or may not be aware that a local government review is now taking place. That review takes a radical look at how local government conducts itself and at the basis for our local democracy. Although we may disagree strongly with his call for regional government, we do not suggest that any of our institutions can be immune from change.
Change should be evolutionary. Our great institutions should be improved, but they should not be redefined in some of the ways that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. He has outlined a fairly radical package. I notice that, only this week, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) recommended fixed-term Parliaments, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North did not mention. Of course, any system of fixed-term Parliaments would still have to allow for the early dissolution of Parliament in some circumstances.

291
There is nothing to gain and much to lose from prolonging unnecessarily a Government or Parliament which is discredited or which has simply reached the end of its natural life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Labour Government who were defeated in, I think, 300 votes. They were clearly a Government who had reached the end of their natural life, and I should have thought that a fixed-term Parliament would be inappropriate in such circumstances. The ability to decide when a general election is to take place is a tactical advantage but I note that no Opposition have ever sought to relinquish that advantage when they have taken office.
I said that the hon. Gentleman's package was radical. He mentioned the redefinition of the monarchy, which his party announced only this week. Our electoral system has at its apex the monarchy. The monarchy is the oldest institution of government in Britain; it has
292
existed even longer than Parliament itself. It is a vital element of our present constitution and representative of centuries of history and tradition.
The monarch personifies national and Commonwealth unity but has continued to develop and evolve during the present monarch's reign: the size of the civil list has been reduced; the monarch herself has proposed the payment of tax on her income and capital gains and undertaken to publish detailed accounts of expenditure. In short, we have a monarchy that has made changes and for that reason, as much as its long history, we are extremely fortunate in that institution.
The monarchy is part of our national heritage. The hon. Gentleman is a Labour spokesman on national heritage but now tells us that this part of our heritage is to be redefined. What else is to be redefined—Westminster abbey, the Speaker or the House? Perhaps we shall learn the answer from next year's Thomas Paine memorial lecture.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Accounts
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the names of the loss-making companies owned by the Church Commissioners, giving in each case the amount of money lost by these companies in the last financial year.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners own shares in 44 subsidiary undertakings, of which the 12 most significant are listed in their annual report and accounts. In 1993, the Commissioners' total recognised capital and revenue gains and losses amounted to a net gain of £294.1 million. Within this total, five subsidiary companies incurred losses amounting to £472,000 as follows.

  £

  Deansbank Atlanta Inc

  398,000

  Cricklewood Estates (Investments) Ltd.

  21,000

  Cedarvale Ltd.

  20,000

  Cricklewood Trading Estates Ltd.

  17,000

  CEDIC Ltd.

  16,000

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make it his policy to release the full accounts of the Church Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 5 December.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Secret Files
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department further to his answer of 30 November to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers),Official Report, column 695, concerning secret files held by his Department, how many of (a) the three top secret files and (b) the 124 secret files contain information about past or potential applicants for judicial posts from the ranks of (i) the Bar and (ii) the Law Society; how many contain information about serving judges; and how many contain information about retired judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take measures to ensure that legal aid is not provided for the wealthy.
  116
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is anxious to ensure that legal aid is directed to those whose need is greatest. He is considering what changes, if any, might need to be made to the financial conditions for legal aid, and expects to issue a consultation paper shortly seeking views on some specific proposals.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, what response he has received to the White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", Cm 2621.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Comments on the White Paper were invited by 31 October. Ninety-four organisations and 109 individuals have sent in their views. I am placing a list of the organisations in the Libraries of the House. I will carefully consider all the comments received before reaching final conclusions.

  Public Lending Right Scheme
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, what will be the rate per loan payable to authors under the public lending right scheme in February 1995 in respect of loans of their books by public libraries from July 1993 to June 1994.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Registrar of Public Lending Right has proposed to me, on the basis of the size of the fund this year and of information about loans of books by local library authorities, that the rate per loan for the payments which will be made under the public lending right scheme next February should remain 2p. In the light of consultation with interested organisations, I have agreed to the registrar's proposal.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research Councils
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the annual salary of the Director-General of the research councils; and if he will make a statement on the work of the Director-General since his appointment.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The annual salary of the Director-General of research councils is £75,000 with the possibility of an annual lump-sum non-pensionable performance bonus of up to 20 per cent. of salary. Since taking up appointment in January 1994, the Director-General has carried out the functions set out in paragraphs 3.26–3.28 of the White Paper, "Realising Our Potential".

EMPLOYMENT

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of producing the National Council for Vocational Qualifications annual report of September 1994.
  117
  Mr. Paice
  The cost of producing the annual report for 1993–94 published by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications in September 1994 was £32,218.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full national vocational qualifications have been awarded in the current year and in each year from 1992; at which levels these awards were made; and how many, at each level, were awarded in construction, engineering, manufacturing, health and

  national vocational qualifications awarded 1992–19941

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Occupational areas/NVQ level

  L1

  L2

  L3

  L4

  L5

  L1

  L2

  L3

  L4

  L5

  L1

  L2

  L3

  L4

  L5

  Totals

  Tendng animals plants and land

  1,490

  1,221

  0

  0

  0

  2,437

  1,895

  5

  0

  0

  2,333

  2,504

  125

  2

  0

  12,012

  Extracting and providing natural resources

  0

  781

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1,715

  0

  0

  0

  58

  2,602

  1

  0

  0

  5,158

  Construction

  0

  3,057

  4,609

  0

  0

  2,954

  12,557

  4,467

  3

  0

  4,175

  9,014

  4,475

  0

  0

  45,311

  Engineering

  630

  5,965

  1,551

  448

  0

  999

  10,691

  1,819

  435

  0

  2,506

  15,004

  3,532

  596

  0

  44,176

  Manufacturing

  186

  2,218

  1,970

  0

  0

  543

  2,225

  3,184

  0

  0

  1,322

  3,334

  3,917

  0

  0

  18,899

  Transporing

  23

  79

  114

  0

  0

  0

  445

  51

  0

  0

  1

  911

  73

  0

  0

  1,697

  Providing goods and services

  8,655

  25,820

  1,108

  1

  0

  12,405

  31,095

  1,138

  3

  0

  9,177

  23,962

  750

  6

  0

  114,120

  Providing health, social care and protective services

  13,351

  3,594

  50

  0

  0

  3,568

  7,529

  284

  0

  0

  3,244

  9,577

  921

  0

  0

  42,298

  Providing business services

  23,413

  45,271

  2,350

  6,190

  118

  25,032

  48,802

  5,218

  7,082

  241

  21,209

  37,903

  6,755

  9,863

  653

  240,100

  Communicating

  0

  0

  3

  4

  0

  0

  0

  2

  16

  0

  0

  0

  2

  49

  0

  76

  Developing and extending knowledge and skill

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  74

  18

  0

  0

  0

  174

  100

  2

  369

  Totals

  47,928

  88,006

  11,756

  6,643

  118

  47,939

  116,954

  16,242

  7,557

  241

  44,025

  104,811

  20,725

  10,616

  655

  524,216

  All figures represent the numbers of NVQ awards that have been made by Awarding Bodies and notified to NCVQ, there is a variable delay between the award of the certificate to an individual and the notification of that award to NCVQ.

  1 The figures for 1994 represent only those awards notified until the end of the third quarter.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  HIV and AIDS
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Government funding has been allocated(a) bilaterally, (b) multilaterally and (c) through non-governmental

  ODA expenditure on HIV/AIDS: 1986–87 to 1993–94

  Expenditure shown as a percentage of total spending on HIV/AIDS

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total

  Bilateral1

  —

  19.6

  12.5

  28.0

  22.8

  20.9

  25.3

  20.2

  22.0

  Multilateral1 (WHO/GPA)

  70.0

  74.2

  65.9

  60.5

  62.4

  62.0

  53.7

  55.6

  61.0

  Non-governmental organizations1

  30.0

  6.2

  21.6

  11.5

  14.8

  17.1

  21.0

  24.2

  17.0

  Total expenditure on HIV/AIDS (£'000)

  357

  7,074

  3,893

  7,690

  7,652

  8,033

  9,252

  10,881

  54,832

  Notes:

  1 Percentage of total annual expenditure is shown for bilateral, multilateral and non-governmental support.

  The bilateral figures relate to expenditure on projects which are exclusively HIV/AIDS related, and includes contributions to National AIDS Control Programmes via WHO trust fund mechanisms.

  No separate bilateral expenditure figures for HIV/AIDS are available before 1987–88.

  Advance payments to WHO/GPA were made in 1987–88 of £2.25 million and in 1993–94 of £1.9 million

  Indonesia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects on 118
  social care, business administration, accounting and financial services and management respectively.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: Figures for the number of national vocational qualifications awarded in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are collected by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. Figures are not readily available in the format requested. The statistical data laid out in the 11 occupational areas under which NCVQ collects information is shown in the following tables:

  organisations to support HIV and AIDS programmes outside the United Kingdom for each year since 1976.

  Mr. Baldry
  Expenditure figures on HIV/AIDS are available for the 1986–87 financial year onwards reflecting the fact that most developing countries started HIV/AIDS programmes in or after 1987, the same year that the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS was established.

  Which British aid to Indonesia has been spent in the last two years; and what was the value in each case.

  Mr. Baldry
  The projects supported under the British aid programme to Indonesia on which there has been
  119
  expenditure in the last two years are listed in the table. This shows the aid programme allocation for each project and the expenditure on each in the last two financial years.

  Expenditure (£ thousands)

  Sector and Project

  Allocation

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (A) Renewable National Resources

  Rice Development Project

  1,659

  110

  64

  Cloves Disease Research

  706

  11

  6

  Coastal Fisheries—University of Diponegoro

  384

  159

  30

  Animal Health Phase 4

  1,687

  742

  381

  Coastal Prawn Culture

  1,298

  313

  298

  Regional Physical Planning, Map Improvement and Training Project

  655

  46

  0

  Forestry Senior Management Team

  1,793

  434

  574

  Forestry Conservation

  1,984

  425

  565

  Forestry Training

  2,454

  368

  785

  Forestry Research

  2,644

  418

  654

  Provincial Forest Management

  1,800

  0

  366

  (B) Energy—Gas

  Gas Distribution—Phase 1

  4,193

  40

  0

  Gas Distribution—Phase 2

  5,509

  1,177

  1,587

  Support to LEMIGAS (Petroleum Authority)

  4,762

  1,373

  431

  (C) Education

  Active Learning and Professional Support at Primary level

  1,708

  470

  477

  Libraries, Books and Information Development Project

  747

  223

  29

  English Language Teaching at the National level

  1,325

  514

  192

  English Language Teaching in Government Institutions

  1,789

  613

  408

  Biotechnology

  428

  98

  73

  (D) Mining and Geological Exploration

  South Sumatera Geological Survey Project

  2,261

  516

  331

  Ombilin Coal Mine Training School

  377

  36

  0

  (E) Public Administration and Finance

  Assistance to Regional and Local Government Finance

  905

  370

  310

  Police Management Training

  713

  268

  126

  Indonesian Civil Service Training Institute (LAN) Assistance to Public Admin

  120

  51

  21

  (F) Public Works

  Survey and Mapping Advisers Project

  400

  4

  0

  Local Consultants/Professional Engineers Training Project

  1,735

  232

  370

  (G) Energy—Electric Power

  Bali Power Study

  305

  44

  0

  Electricity Authority (PLN) Training Project Phase 2

  1,162

  117

  0

  Electricity Authority (PLN) Training Project Phase 3

  1,202

  330

  373

  Mini Hydros

  5,610

  596

  302

  (H) Projects financed from the Aid and Trade Provision

  Steel Bridging (Phase I)

  6,642

  366

  397

  Navigational Aids

  6,386

  370

  416

  120

  Expenditure (£ thousands)

  Sector and Project

  Allocation

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Bandung Television Studio

  9,734

  562

  632

  Scattered Diesels

  5,891

  377

  409

  Cigading Port Extension

  13,266

  774

  829

  Radio Studios Rehabilitation

  5,040

  304

  304

  Cigading/Serpong Railway

  24,690

  553

  12,257

  Citayam/Cibinong Railway

  20,105

  850

  505

  Radio Communication System for the Ministry of Forestry

  34,111

  1,421

  1,384

  Western Universities Equipment

  13,671

  654

  814

  Flight Simulator

  4,659

  139

  211

  Bali and Medan Airport Security

  10,455

  501

  628

  Jambi Power Station

  5,345

  139

  280

  Steel Bridging (Phase II)

  3,669

  197

  218

  Shortwave Radio Transmitters

  26,911

  815

  1,373

  (I) Training

  Training in the United Kingdom

  (Annual)

  1,498

  1,125

  1 Under-collection by ECGD in 1992–93

  Rwanda
  Dr. Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many loans requested by Rwanda from the World bank and the IMF since 1989 are being withheld until repayments on existing loans are resumed.

  Mr. Baldry
  All 13 active loans, of which eight have been approved since 1989, from the World bank and one IMF structural adjustment facility programme are currently under suspension. The bank has an emergency reconstruction loan under preparation.

  Dr. Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and under what conditions loans were disbursed to Rwanda by the IMF and the World bank after 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:

  International Development Association (IDA) credits approved1990–93

  date

  March 1990

  Public enterprise reform

  May 1990

  Transport sector

  December 1990

  Communications

  April 1991

  Education sector

  June 1991

  Structural adjustment

  June 1991

  Population

  June 1992

  Food security and social action

  February 1993

  Energy sector rehabilitation

  Note:

  Loans under implementation which were approved before 1990 are not included.

  IMF

  April 1991

  SAF (structural adjustment facility) programme

  Dr. Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Rwanda's outstanding debts to(a) the World bank (b) the IMF and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  As at the end of June 1994, Rwanda had a total of $474 million in loans disbursed and outstanding to the World bank, SDR8.76 million to the IMF and no debt currently owed to the United Kingdom. Arrears to
  121
  the World bank totalled $9.5 million. The bank has received firm indications of support from a number of bilateral donors to assist in clearing these arrears.

TREASURY

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the levels of debt relief for low-income countries for each year since 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The amount of official bilateral debt relief that the United Kingdom has given low-income countries each year since 1991–92 is as follows:

  Debt Rescheduled(£m)

  Debt Reduction(£m)

  1991–92

  558.41

  347.29

  1992–93

  113.43

  61.57

  1993–94

  11.49

  115.27

  Total

  683.33

  524.13

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to expand the provision of information via the Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury's Internet service was launched on 15 November 1994. The information currently provided includes news releases, speeches, minutes of the Chancellor's monthly monetary meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England, reports of the panel of independent forecasters and details of the fundamental expenditure review of Treasury running costs.

  The Budget speech and related material were made available on the Internet for the first time this year. More information will be added in due course.

  The Treasury Internet service can be accessed via the following addresses:

  Adderss

  Email mailing lists

  maillist @hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Email for help

  ftpmail @hm-treasury.gov.uk

  File transfer (FTP)

  ftp.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  World Wide Web

  http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Email for help

  info @ hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Building and Civil Engineering Benefit Scheme
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department last conducted a review of the taxation arrangements for the building and civil engineering benefit scheme.

  Dr. Sir George Young
  Information about the tax affairs of particular taxpayers, including individual pension schemes, is confidential.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the 122
  current operation of the building and civil engineering benefit scheme.

  Dr. Sir George Young
  A number of representations have been received asking that members of this scheme be permitted to contribute to personal pensions and retirement annuities.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has not financed any refurbishment work in the buildings it occupies in Parliament street or Allington Towers. Responsibility for any such work would fall to Property Holdings.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons in the United Kingdom had annual pre-tax incomes of(a) more than £400,000 and (b) between £200,000 and £400,000 at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many such people there were in 1973 and 1983, taking account of changes in prices.

  Dr. Sir George Young
  The table provides estimates of numbers of individuals for 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available at such high levels of income, and for 1983–84 and 1973–74.

  Pre-tax income range (adjusted for changes in prices) £200,000–£400,000 Thousands

  Above £400, 000 Thousands

  1992–93

  16

  4

  1983–84

  3

  1

  1973–74

  4

  1

  The income ranges used for 1983–84 and 1973–74 have been adjusted to take account of changes in retail prices up to 1992–93.

  Income Tax Bands
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the total aggregate cost in a full year of raising the upper limit of the lower rate income tax band from £3,200 to £10,000 and the upper limit of the basic rate band to £30,000 assuming no change in personal allowances from those announced in the Budget;

  (2) what would be the total cost in a full year of raising the upper limit of the lower rate income tax band from £3,200 to £10,000 assuming no change in personal allowances from those announced in the Budget.

  Dr. Sir George Young
  Based on assumptions in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1995–96, the full-year cost, at 1995–96 income levels, of extending the width of the lower-rate band to £10,000 is estimated to be £5.3 billion. If the basic rate limit were also increased to £30,000, the total cost would be £6.9 billion. These costs do not take into account any behavioural changes which might result for the introduction of the new regime.

  Gross Debt Internet
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions for interest rules underlie the Red Book projections for general Government gross debt interest of £26.6 billion for 1996–97.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is not conventional to publish market-sensitive projections such as interest rates.

  EEC Contributions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount paid in contributions(a) net and (b) gross to the EEC since 1972.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on Tuesday 29 November,Official Report, columns 608–10.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what plans Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has to increase the technical assistance it provides to overseas administrations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs intends, on a full cost recovery basis, to increase the amount of technical assistance which it provides on the existing Government-to-Government basis and in association with business. This would include the secondment of skilled staff to firms providing services in the areas of customs and indirect taxation.

  This expansion will help to improve the opportunities for consultancy and training delivered on overseas development aid programmes. It will also increase the advice that we can give the emerging democracies of central Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and to drug-source countries. It will extend the United Kingdom's influence around the world, thereby adding to the indirect benefits which can be produced for our economy.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase public service pensions from April 1995.

  Mr. Aitken
  Under the legislation governing them, public service pensions are increased annually by the

  Registered disabled staff

  HMT

  PAYMASTER

  CSO1

  ROYAL MINT

  VALUATION OFFICE*

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1990

  30

  1.0

  35

  3.9

  —

  —

  21

  2.1

  —

  —

  1991

  29

  1.0

  34

  3.7

  16

  1.5

  20

  2.0

  59

  1.1

  1992

  26

  0.9

  31

  3.2

  16

  1.4

  14

  1.3

  48

  0.9

  1993

  12

  0.6

  29

  3.2

  24

  1.8

  14

  1.4

  63

  1.2

  1994

  12

  0.9

  27

  3.2

  24

  1.7

  15

  1.5

  65

  1.3

  1 Information is not available prior to 1991 when the CSO and valuation Office become Executive Agencies.

  Taxation
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total raised in Wales from forms of taxation, other than income tax and VAT,(a) in 1990, (b)
  124
  same percentage as state earnings-related pensions, additional pension. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 29 November, Official Report column 629x2013;30, that additional pension will be increased by 2.2 per cent., in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index up to September. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 2.2 per cent. from 10 April 1995. Pensions which have been in payment for less than a year will receive a pro-rata increase.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the budget allocated by his Department and associated agencies for each of the next five years for, and how many staff or staff hours equivalent have been allocated to achieve the objectives of, the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for disabled people.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 December 1994]: Expenditure by the Treasury and its associated agencies in support of the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for disabled people comprises a number of cost elements in respect of staff numbers, training, recruitment advertising, special equipment,modification of buildings and accommodation. This expenditure cannot be disaggregated from that allocated to other items in the Department's and agencies' equal opportunities budgets. The number of staff or staff-hours equivalent allocated specifically to achieve the objectives of the programme for action cannot be estimated, since successful implementation will require the commitment not only of equal opportunities officers and disabled persons officers but of a variety of staff in the personnel function together with individual line managers.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and percentage of disabled people employed by his Department and associated agencies over the past five years; and what are the projected figures for the next five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 December 1994]: Figures are available only for those staff who are registered as disabled, but the Treasury and its associated agencies employ a number of people with disabilities who have chosen not to register. The information in respect of the number of registered disabled people for the years 1990 to 1994 is shown in the table. Projected figures are not available.

  in 1991, (c) in 1992, (d) in 1993 and (e) in the first six months of 1994.

  (2) what was the total raised in Scotland from forms of taxation, other than income tax and VAT, (a) in 1990, (b)

  125
  in 1991, (c) in 1992, (d) in 1993 and (e) in the first six months of 1994.

  Dr. Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide information via the Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The broadband communications Command Paper, published on 22 November, was the first Command Paper to be made available on Internet. DTI press notices are already available on Internet. The DTI Internet cable is:http://www.open.gov.uk/dtibroadband_comms.htm.

  The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency recently announced an initiative on the wider use of Internet in government. Department officials are considering how effective Internet would be for the distribution of departmental information.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants since 4 May 1979 have left the Export Credits Guarantee Department and have within two years joined companies engaged in contracts with his Department.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 4 May 1979, 82 civil servants have, following their retirement or resignation from ECGD, obtained prior approval under the civil service rules governing outside business appointments to join companies that have business contacts with the Department.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration is given to human rights in the allocation of cover by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Needham
  The ECGD's function is to underwrite payment risks associated with capital goods and project exports. A separate export licensing process takes account of broader issues such as the human rights record of overseas Governments. The issue of export licences is the responsibility of the DTI's export licensing unit. ECGD's cover is conditional on export licences being obtained where required.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available a complete list of all payments made under the auspices of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in relation to defence contracts signed from 1979 onwards with(a) Jordan, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Oman, (d) Kuwait, (e) Brunei, (f) Malaysia and (g) Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 December 1994]: The ECGD's information systems, which reflect the Department's business needs, do not provide such a sectoral analysis. Extracting the data with reasonable accuracy would involve disproportionate expense.

  Advisory Bodies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the Overseas Projects Board in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The Overseas Projects Board met five times in 1992, four times in 1993 and three times in 1994, including one scheduled for 7 December. The DTI provides a small secretariat. The only costs are those associated with arrangements for meetings, which are marginal. The board provides advice to Ministers and to Government officials in plenary meetings and, occasionally, in smaller ad-hoc groups. It does not currently produce submissions and reports.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the engineering technology advisory committee in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The engineering technology advisory committee—ETAC—was established in 1990 to advise the DTI on its support policy for engineering technology. Its only report was produced in 1993 and contained the committee's views on future strategy in this area.

  The committee met on six occasions from 6 September 1991 until its dissolution in October 1993. Secretarial support for it was provided by the Department. The actual expenditure incurred by the 14 members of the Committee related to travel expenses only and amounted to a total of £4,918.70 over its two-year life.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the monitoring committee on misleading price indications in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The monitoring committee on misleading price indications was disbanded in May 1993. The committee reported to Ministers in December 1991 and subsequently convened once in February 1992 to discuss its report with the then Minister for Consumer Affairs. A working group formed from the committee to examine service charges in hotels and restaurants met once, in February 1992, and reported to Ministers in August 1992. Both the committee and the working group were chaired and serviced by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry. No other costs were incurred.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will itemise the refurbishment works
  127
  undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Over the past three years we have carried out only three refurbishment projects. These are listed by year of completion:

  Year

  Project

  £ Thousands

  1991–92

  No projects completed in this year

  1992–93

  No projects completed in this year

  1993–94

  Partial refurbishment of Ashdown House to enable additional staff to be accommodated following the closure of 1–19 Victoria Street

  4,532

  Full refurbishment of Kingsgate House to convert to open plan accommodation

  4,211

  Refurbishment of sub-standard parts of Eastcote site

  720

  Car Sales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals for the deregulation of car sales dealing the European Commission has made; and what is the United Kingdom Government's policy on those proposals.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The European Commission has put a number of proposals to member states to renew and amend Commission regulation 123/85, which governs the selective and exclusive dealership agreements for motor vehicles. These proposals would prohibit a number of restrictions on competition which are permissible under the current regulation in order to increase the competition in the trade. They would, in particular, provide dealers with the opportunity to sell more than one make of vehicle on sites which were separate and distinct. Restrictions on dealers advertising outside their contract territory would be prohibited. Dealers would also be permitted to purchase spare parts from any source, provided that they were of equivalent quality.

  The Government welcome these proposals, which are in many respects similar to the recommendations contained in the 1992 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. Member states have put their views on the draft to the Commission, which will consider whether to amend the text before publishing the draft for public consultation shortly.

  Rowntree
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors Her Majesty's Government took into account when Nestle took over Rowntree; what representations he has received on the performance of this company with particular reference to United Kingdom based employment since that take over; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading's advice to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry remains confidential. All relevant factors were taken into account in reaching the decision not to refer this merger to the Monopolies and Mergers 128
  Commission in May 1988. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received no representations specifically concerning employment matters at Nestle since the merger.

  Fuel Bills
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many customers have been disconnected by British Gas for non-payment of bills in the most recent year for which he has figures; and what was the figure in the last year before privatisation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The number of disconnections by British Gas for non-payment of bills for the year to the end of June 1994 was 15,420. This compares with 42,468 disconnections in the year to the end of September 1986.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many customers have been disconnected by regional electricity companies for non-payment of bills in the most recent year for which he has figures; and what were the figures in the last year before privatisation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Disconnection figures are kept by the Office of Electricity Regulation. However, I can confirm that 3,297 electricity customers were disconnected by regional electricity companies in 1993—the lowest number on record. In comparison, 67,421 customers were disconnected in the 12 months to 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how prices, including VAT, for domestic consumers of electricity have changed in(a) the past 10 years and (b) the past two years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Between the third quarter of 1984 and the third quarter of 1994, prices of electricity, including VAT, for the domestic consumer have increased by 54.7 per cent. in cash terms and fallen by 4.7 per cent. in real terms. Between the third quarter of 1992 and the third quarter of 1994, prices have increased by 4.2 per cent. in cash terms and fallen by 1.1 per cent. in real terms. These price trends are published regularly in the Department of Trade and Industry's statistical bulletin, "Energy Trends", table 28.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how prices, including VAT, for domestic consumers of gas have changed in(a) the past 10 years and (b) the past two years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Between the third quarter of 1984 and the third quarter of 1994, prices of gas, including VAT for the domestic consumer, have increased by 30 per cent. in cash terms and fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms. Between the third quarter of 1992 and the third quarter of 1994, prices have increased by 4 per cent. in cash terms and fallen by 1.3 per cent. in real terms. These price trends are published regularly in the Department of Trade and Industry's statistical bulletin, "Energy Trends", table 28.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 1 December Official Report, column 809 what was the number of successful applications for regional selective assistance in each development and intermediate area in the north-west.
  129
  Mr. Eggar
  The information is given in the table:

  Travel to work area

  Number of offers made (1 April 1993–1 March 1994)

  Accrington and Rossendale

  21

  Barrow-in-Furness

  12

  Blackburn

  22

  Bolton and Bury

  40

  Liverpool

  63

  Manchester

  73

  Oldham

  18

  Rochdale

  19

  Sheffield

  1

  Whitehaven

  1

  Widnes and Runcorn

  15

  Wigan and St. Helens

  38

  Wirral and Chester

  26

  Workington

  14

  Total

  363

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications for regional selective assistance in each development and intermediate area in London and the Eastern region for the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is given in the table for London, the south-east and eastern regions.

  Travel to work area

  Offers made1

  Applications rejected1

  Clacton

  3

  1

  Great Yarmouth

  3

  2

  Harwich

  1

  0

  Wisbech

  4

  0

  Heathrow

  3

  0

  London

  3

  0

  Dover and Deal

  1

  0

  Folkestone

  3

  1

  Hastings

  2

  0

  Isle of Wight

  7

  0

  Sittingbourne and Sheerness

  7

  0

  Thanet

  3

  0

  Total

  40

  4

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 December 1994]: Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  I also seek advice from time to time on an unpaid and informal basis from Sir Peter Levene.

  Hallmarking
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to European Union proposals affecting the hallmarking of silver; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 2 December 1994]: In negotiations on the proposed European Union directive, the Government continue to argue for the preservation of traditional third-party hallmarking arrangements for precious metals, including silver. The Government are opposed to the principle of manufacturers' marking, which would also be allowed under the directive as drafted.

  Nursery Furnishings
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he took to verify that toxic fire retardant chemicals used in nursery furniture were not harmful to babies before the regulations came into force;

  (2) what tests Government laboratories undertook on the toxicity of fire resistant chemicals in nursery furniture, and their likely effect on babies prior to the introduction of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended, do not require the use of specific fire retardants. The regulations are made in terms of a series of ignition resistance tests for different furniture components. Under section 10—the general safety requirements—of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to use materials which are reasonably safe having regard to the circumstances of their use. However, before introducing the regulations the Department ascertained both from industrial research and advice from the Department of Health that there was a number of safe ways in which manufacturers could comply with the regulations.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tests DTI laboratories are currently carrying out on the toxicity of cot mattresses.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The theory that flame retardants in cot mattresses and covers released noxious gases, and that this caused sudden infant death syndrome, was thoroughly investigated by an expert working group set up by the chief medical officer of health in 1990. The working group concluded that this theory was not supported by the evidence and a copy of its report—the Turner report—has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The chief medical officer of health has recently set up another working group of experts to study the questions which were raised by research contained in the Rubens Institute study. The Department will closely follow their deliberations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will make it his policy to enable hon. Members who use the parliamentary data and
  131
  video network to have access via the Internet to the United Kingdom Government world wide web server known as "open.gov.uk."

  Mr. Waller
  The Information Committee is shortly to consider the possibility of enabling Members who use the parliamentary data and video network to have access via the Internet to the United Kingdom Government world wide web server known as "open.gov.uk". The Committee will need to satisfy itself that there can be adequate safeguards of the parliamentary data and video network and hence of hon. Members' computer systems. Any proposals for additional expenditure will also need to be considered by the Finance and Services Committee as appropriate.

  Old Palace Yard
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is his latest estimate of he total cost of the works taking place at 7 Old Palace Yard; and what is its future planned use.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  In return for allocating its planned accommodation in 7 Millbank to this House, the other place has assumed control of 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard. The cost of works and the future use of the building are matters for that House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rent-to-mortgage Scheme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many local authority properties in each local authority have been sold under the rent-to-mortgage scheme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  So far, local authorities in England have reported two completed rent-to-mortgage sales. One sale took place in east Devon and the other in the City of London. About 40 applications are still being processed.

  Wolves and Hybrid Wolves
  Dr. Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many import permits were issued for(a) wolves and (b) hybrid wolves entering the United Kingdom for each of the last four years; and what was the total number of (i) wolves and (ii) hybrid wolves involved.

  Dr. Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1991, my Department issued one permit under the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—CITES—allowing the import, by a zoo, of two grey wolves, canis lupis occidentalis, from Canada for breeding purposes.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to discuss the effectiveness of the Zoo Licensing Act 1984.

  Dr. Sir Paul Beresford
  On 4 October 1994, officials from my Department chaired a meeting of the Department's standing advisory group, which includes senior 132
  representatives of the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland. The meeting considered a number of issues relating to the operation and management of zoos in the United Kingdom.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a White Paper before introducing legislation based on proposals contained in the consultation paper, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions".

  Mr. Atkins
  The only specific proposals for legislative change were those in paragraph 194 of the consultation document, relating to the regulatory powers of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The necessary amendments to the Radioactive Substance Act 1993 have been included in the Environment Bill, which received its First Reading on Thursday 1 December in another place.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his timetable for acting upon recommendations contained in the consultation document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions".

  Mr. Atkins
  A statement of future policy will be made in due course.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether local authorities, the Local Authorities Waste Disposal Contractors Association or private owners of refuse tips will have the right to refuse radioactive waste from authorised disposers under proposals contained in the consultation document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions".

  Mr. Atkins
  Under section 18 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, local authorities have a duty to accept radioactive waste for controlled burial if the regulatory bodies authorise disposal to sites provided by them. The consultation document contained no proposals to alter or extend this duty.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the differences between proposals contained in the consultation document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", with regard to the disposal of radioactive waste from the nuclear industry, and the proposals considered in 1987 for the disposal of such waste at four sites; and what considerations underlay the decision to withdraw the 1987 proposals.

  Mr. Atkins
  The four sites referred to were investigated by UK Nirex Ltd. to ascertain their suitability for the development of a shallow repository for radioactive waste. The consultation document's proposals in relation to near-surface disposal concern British Nuclear Fuels' existing facility at Drigg in Cumbria and the controlled burial of low-level waste in landfill sites. The decision by Nirex to end its investigations in 1987 is a matter for the company.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the financial costs of
  133
  undertaking trials with compulsory water metering organised by his Department and Ofwat; what has been (a) the amount and (b) the proportion of the costs met from public funds and water charges; and what other trials with alternative water sewerage charging systems have been sponsored or supported by his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  The national metering trials cost £19 million. The Department of the Environment funded just under half this amount. The water companies involved funded the rest. There are no proposals to undertake trials on other alternative charging methods.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the Director General of Ofwat's statement that 33 per cent. of domestic households will be metered by 2015.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General's forecast assumes the continuation of metering on a selective or voluntary basis. Metering encourages customers to avoid waste and would therefore contribute to the sustainable use of water in the longer term. It encourages action to reduce leakage and excessive water abstraction. It would reduce the need to build costly and environmentally intrusive reservoirs. The Director General estimates that metering, leakage reduction and reduced demand from industry should limit demand for water in 2015 to the present level.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what best estimates the ratio between fixed and variable costs in the water industry were the K factors for water supply determined in the 1994 periodic review, both in general and for each company;

  (2) on what best estimate of the ratio between fixed and variable costs were the K factors for the delivery of a sewerage service determined in the 1994 periodic review, both in general and for each company.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

  Toxic Materials
  Dr. Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what precautions are being taken to protect local populations from possible emissions from sites being used for experimental work on the use of toxic materials as fuels, following the United States Environmental Protection Agency's recent report on the toxicity of very low level dioxins and in particular their effect on foetal development.

  Mr. Atkins
  I announced Government policy on the burning of substitute fuels in kilns on 23 June 1994,Official Report, column 261–2. Strict conditions of compliance with agreed trials schedules, progress reports, control procedures and continuous monitoring have been put in place. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is responsible for protecting the environment under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and has been closely supervising these tests.

  Results obtained so far indicate no cause for concern. The emissions of dioxins and heavy metals are well within the limits that HMIP will impose on incinerators. Milk monitoring by MAFF for dioxins has indicated no ill effects from the burning of Cemfuel.
  134
  HMIP is keeping a close watch on the emissions from the trials and will shut them down if the environment is being damaged.

  Dr. Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what EC waste regulation procedures apply to the sites which are currently being used for experimental work on the use of toxic materials as fuels.

  Mr. Atkins
  To the extent that these materials are judged to constitute waste, the relevant requirements of Council directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by 91/156/EEC, will apply. Plants for the production of cement and rotary kiln lime production are categories of process subject to the Council directive 84/360/EEC on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants.

  Dr. Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites are currently being used for experimental work on the use of toxic materials including chloro-cresol as fuels; and if he will list existing and proposed sites, their exact locality and the chemicals involved.

  Mr. Atkins
  The only plant undertaking trials with substitute fuel whose specification contains chloro-cresol is Redland Aggregate's plant at Thrislington, West Cornforth, Ferryhill, County Durham.

  Dr. Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what regulations and monitoring procedures the sites currently being used for experimental work on the use of toxic materials as fuels are operating.

  Mr. Atkins
  Environmental protection control in England and Wales is effected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Trials of the substitute fuels in kilns are being carried out under this Act.In carrying out the trials the operators must comply with the following monitoring requirements.
  Before trials commence, satisfactory data on baseline operations must be provided to HMIP. This must include not only emission data but also kiln operating characteristics.
  Only those substitute fuels that meet a specification agreed in advance with HMIP may be used. All deliveries must meet the specification.
  Continuous monitors for particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and oxygen, calibrated to HMIP satisfaction must be installed.
  Manual sampling and analysis of other pollutants such as heavy metals and dioxins must be provided.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Yvonne Sleightholme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will carry out the recommendations made by Judge Stephen Tumim in respect of Yvonne Sleightholme; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 6 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the recommendations made by Judge Stephen Tumin

  135
  in respect of Yvonne Sleightholme in the report of his short inspection of Durham in September 1992.
  Miss Sleightholme was convicted of the murder of her former fiance's wife and sentenced to life imprisonment in May 1991. She had an unsuccessful appeal against her conviction in January 1992. She is currently serving her sentence on the female wing of Durham prison. Following her arrest Miss Sleightholme became blind and in his report Judge Tumim commented on the justification for holding her at Durham and suggested that a transfer to Askham Grange open prison in York would make visiting easier for her elderly parents.
  As a life sentence prisoner Miss Sleightholme will not be considered for a transfer to an open prison until her first formal review by the Parole Board. This review is not until September 1997 when she will have been detained for seven years. It will then be the Parole's duty to decide what risk she presents to the public and whether she is suitable to be transferred to an open prison. This decision will be based on the reports submitted on Miss Sleightholme during her time in prison, written by staff who will have been able to assess her risk over a prolonged period through a series of interviews, review boards and outside activities.
  Despite Miss Sleightholme's blindness there is certainly no prospect of her being moved to an open prison in the foreseeable future. While it could be argued that it is unlikely that a blind person would be able to escape, even from an open prison, Miss Sleightholme is known to have many supporters who believe she is innocent and it is conceivable that they could assist her. I also understand that there remains considerable animosity towards Miss Sleightholme within the victim's community. As far as her own safety is concerned, it would therefore probably not be in her best

  Police Expenditure and Strength since 1980

  £thousands

  Force

  Expend 1978–79

  Strength 1978–79

  Expend 1979–1980

  Strength 1979–80

  Expend 1980–81

  Strength 1980–81

  Expend 1981–82

  Strength 1981–82

  Avon and Somerset

  26,266

  2,825

  33,984

  2,892

  40,187

  2,953

  48,099

  3,011

  Bedfordshire

  9,298

  902

  12,087

  943

  14,537

  961

  16,909

  984

  Cambridgeshire

  10,183

  1,064

  13,556

  1,081

  15,370

  1,091

  18,088

  1,131

  Cheshire

  16,130

  1,778

  20,242

  1,789

  25,839

  1,839

  29,724

  1,847

  City of London

  10,405

  829

  12,528

  840

  15,747

  846

  17,739

  855

  Cleveland

  12,589

  1,334

  13,453

  1,420

  19,098

  1,478

  23,188

  1,474

  Cumbria

  9,310

  1,056

  13,071

  1,093

  15,013

  1,108

  17,014

  1,121

  Derbyshire

  16,635

  1,563

  20,825

  1,793

  25,747

  1,821

  29,429

  1,776

  Devon and Cornwall

  25,313

  2,660

  36,158

  2,651

  39,566

  2,720

  46,539

  2,713

  Dorset

  10,706

  1,128

  15,024

  1,154

  16,908

  1,169

  19,323

  1,166

  Durham

  12,805

  1,312

  16,464

  1,324

  18,689

  1,334

  20,870

  1,342

  Dyfed-Powys

  7,615

  910

  10,016

  926

  11,698

  932

  13,709

  920

  Essex

  21,554

  2,461

  30,034

  2,567

  36,413

  2,596

  41,825

  2,631

  Gloucestershire

  9,073

  1,076

  11,401

  1,105

  14,178

  1,123

  16,267

  1,129

  Greater Manchester

  61,431

  6,419

  78,914

  6,713

  94,541

  6,929

  111,678

  6,957

  Gwent

  8,511

  965

  10,971

  967

  12,826

  972

  15,014

  964

  Hampshire

  27,361

  2,949

  36,187

  3,039

  40,580

  3,052

  48,798

  3,062

  Hertfordshire

  14,747

  1,462

  18,564

  1,487

  21,859

  1,534

  25,497

  1,559

  Humberside

  18,177

  1,849

  23,293

  1,917

  27,780

  1,954

  32,384

  1,947

  Kent

  27,048

  2,724

  34,910

  2,863

  41,732

  2,862

  48,830

  2,862

  Lancashire

  27,482

  3,097

  37,289

  3,100

  43,544

  3,154

  50,924

  3,152

  Leicestershire

  15,652

  1,701

  20,444

  1,702

  22,886

  1,717

  27,538

  1,728

  Lincolnshire

  11,870

  1,171

  14,803

  1,176

  16,964

  1,179

  19,972

  1,179

  Merseyside

  41,306

  4,427

  56,102

  4,525

  65,823

  4,597

  78,120

  4,631

  Norfolk

  11,194

  1,223

  14,187

  1,249

  16,709

  1,246

  19,904

  1,268

  Northamptonshire

  8,976

  905

  11,279

  920

  13,588

  982

  15,991

  1,006

  Northumbria

  30,694

  3,272

  39,727

  3,317

  45,341

  3,339

  53,492

  3,329

  North Wales

  11,672

  1,268

  15,362

  1,275

  17,233

  1,293

  20,060

  1,286

  North Yorkshire

  12,544

  1,342

  17,066

  1,352

  19,586

  1.355

  22,685

  1.354

  Nottinghamshire

  19,811

  2,117

  29,020

  2,145

  29,644

  2,241

  35,953

  2,252

  South Wales

  26,219

  2,936

  35,086

  3,056

  41,527

  3,065

  49,634

  3,103

  South Yorkshire

  24,470

  2,546

  32,134

  2,704

  38,511

  2,865

  44,973

  2,868

  Staffordshire

  18,328

  1,978

  22,955

  2,051

  27,887

  2,096

  32,304

  2,086

  Suffolk

  11,060

  1,064

  13,952

  1,130

  16,643

  1,119

  19,478

  1,120

  Surrey

  14,249

  1,440

  18,534

  1,512

  21,785

  1,586

  25,481

  1,587

  Sussex

  25,153

  2,758

  33,118

  2,782

  37,572

  2,820

  43,746

  2,829

  Thames Valley

  27,646

  2,639

  35,967

  2,802

  43,458

  3,093

  50,747

  3,098

  Warwickshire

  7,839

  841

  10,427

  895

  12,599

  915

  14,957

  922

  West Mercia

  16,478

  1,743

  21,812

  1,847

  25,626

  1,925

  31,058

  1,926

  136
  interests to be moved to an open prison close to her home area so soon after the offence was committed.
  Durham continues to be the most appropriate establishment for Miss Sleightholme not because of the security of the prison but because of the more enclosed and protective environment it offers. Durham provides safer surroundings for a blind person and. Miss Sleightholme is receiving professional training in mobility and rehabilitation. It also has prison staff with the training and experience to help a life sentence prisoner through the early stages of their sentence.
  Miss Sleightholme has been offered the opportunity to be transferred to New Hall prison near Wakefield to be closer to her home area. However, she remains reluctant to go there as she feels the establishment is too dispersed. She has asked to remain at Durham until the Parole Board have recommended her transfer to open prison and will have the opportunity to extend her mobility training outside the prison as her review approaches.

  Police
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the annual budget and the number of police officers for each police authority in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table gives information from 1978–79 for each police authority's expenditure and the number of officers for each force as at 31 March. Details for 1970 to 1978 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  137

  Police Expenditure and Strength since 1980

  £ thousands

  Force

  Expend 1978–79

  Strength 1978–79

  Expend 1979–1980

  Strength 1979–80

  Expend 1980–81

  Strength 1980–81

  Expend 1981–82

  Strength 1981–82

  West Midlands

  56,096

  5,981

  74,446

  6,243

  87,014

  6,549

  102,556

  6,679

  West Yorkshire

  44,131

  4,727

  57,909

  4,805

  68,645

  5,084

  77,773

  5,147

  Wiltshire

  8,952

  997

  11,309

  1,002

  13,689

  1,030

  16,342

  1,040

  Metropolitan Police

  296,881

  22,214

  381,673

  22,804

  452,730

  24,006

  552,224

  25,429

  Police Expenditure and Strength since 1980

  £ thousands

  Force

  Expend 1982–83

  Strength 1982–83

  Expend 1983–1984

  Strength 1983–84

  Expend 1984–85

  Strength 1984–85

  Expend 1985–86

  Strength 1985–86

  Avon and Somerset

  53,642

  2,970

  56,860

  2,997

  61,191

  2,982

  65,919

  2,958

  Bedfordshire

  18,637

  985

  20,202

  1,006

  21,893

  990

  22,278

  985

  Cambridgeshire

  20,201

  1,137

  21,902

  1,138

  24,252

  1,137

  26,832

  1,136

  Cheshire

  32,299

  1,839

  35,283

  1,830

  37,123

  1,799

  37,755

  1,806

  City of London

  19,791

  828

  21,179

  806

  22,646

  789

  24,396

  774

  Cleveland

  25,718

  1,454

  27,993

  1,470

  29,468

  1,446

  31,029

  1,470

  Cumbria

  19,338

  1,107

  21,098

  1,114

  21,996

  1,092

  25,769

  1,127

  Derbyshire

  33,601

  1,757

  35,593

  1,772

  58,084

  1,752

  40,154

  1,753

  Devon and Cornwall

  51,413

  2,730

  55,810

  2,724

  60,118

  2,722

  64,862

  2,739

  Dorset

  21,743

  1,174

  24,502

  1,175

  26,344

  1,160

  29,418

  1,199

  Durham

  23,882

  1,328

  26,456

  1,302

  35,647

  1,279

  28,150

  1,293

  Dyfed-Powys

  15,052

  927

  16,301

  921

  19,134

  910

  18,813

  930

  Essex

  45,843

  2,641

  51,218

  2,624

  55,150

  2,650

  57,904

  2,666

  Gloucestershire

  18,282

  1,137

  20,331

  1,143

  22,398

  1,132

  23,320

  1,146

  Greater Manchester

  124,367

  6,996

  128,994

  6,917

  138,094

  6,736

  147,491

  6,768

  Gwent

  16,379

  963

  18,455

  962

  20,120

  964

  20,619

  978

  Hampshire

  55,261

  3,075

  59,333

  3,073

  62,962

  3,057

  68,241

  3,062

  Hertfordshire

  28,371

  1,554

  30,325

  1,562

  32,703

  1,562

  34,572

  1,565

  Humberside

  37,196

  1,965

  38,736

  1,961

  59,701

  1,913

  43,976

  1,933

  Kent

  53,688

  2,882

  58,170

  2,829

  75,696

  2,833

  66,276

  2,870

  Lancashire

  55,798

  3,155

  60,062

  3,128

  65,008

  3,029

  66,740

  3,021

  Leicestershire

  30,829

  1,723

  36,603

  1,729

  48,047

  1,695

  37,382

  1,737

  Lincolnshire

  21,879

  1,178

  22,761

  1,182

  23,562

  1,146

  25,594

  1,139

  Merseyside

  85,488

  4,631

  92,766

  4,603

  101,430

  4,588

  103,660

  4,543

  Norfolk

  22,292

  1,261

  24,428

  1,268

  26,161

  1,248

  27,628

  1,263

  Northamptonshire

  18,652

  1,003

  20,608

  1,019

  24,345

  1,015

  23,450

  1,025

  Northumbria

  61,413

  3,325

  65,907

  3,349

  76,618

  3,295

  78,227

  3,357

  North Wales

  22,314

  1,296

  25,200

  1,290

  27,838

  1,271

  27,567

  1,253

  North Yorkshire

  25,912

  1,366

  26,952

  1,359

  41,355

  1,332

  29,410

  1,361

  Nottinghamshire

  41,139

  2,249

  47,464

  2,229

  90,852

  2,150

  47,427

  2,210

  South Wales

  55,399

  3,091

  59,667

  3,071

  66,756

  3,073

  68,001

  3,066

  South Yorkshire

  51,215

  2,863

  56,295

  2,860

  86,208

  2,866

  63,589

  2,848

  Staffordshire

  36,679

  2,080

  39,519

  2,090

  43,328

  2,066

  44,521

  2,087

  Suffolk

  21,375

  1,123

  22,770

  1,123

  24,335

  1,129

  26,836

  1,121

  Surrey

  27,978

  1,589

  30,269

  1,582

  32,312

  1,590

  34,673

  1,614

  Sussex

  50,905

  2,810

  52,030

  2,800

  56,261

  2,803

  57,617

  2,790

  Thames Valley

  56,747

  3,123

  64,274

  3,176

  68,839

  3,259

  75,787

  3,297

  Warwickshire

  16,607

  919

  17,903

  910

  29,906

  921

  21,922

  929

  West Mercia

  35,622

  1,916

  38,613

  1,920

  41,578

  1,919

  43,851

  1,939

  West Midlands

  112,962

  6,673

  121,870

  6,679

  129,488

  6,544

  141,015

  6,520

  West Yorkshire

  88,548

  5,145

  94,912

  5,109

  109,004

  4,991

  106,412

  5,145

  Wiltshire

  17,856

  1,029

  19,628

  1,035

  21,757

  1,034

  23,270

  1,043

  Metropolitan Police

  718,458

  26,499

  795,376

  26,706

  861,052

  26,751

  748,660

  26,813

  Police Expenditure and Strength since 1980

  £ thousands

  Force

  Expend 1986–87

  Strength 1986–87

  Expend 1987–1988

  Strength 1987–88

  Expend 1988–89

  Strength 1988–89

  Expend 1989–90

  Strength 1989–90

  Avon and Somerset

  70,292

  3,009

  76,356

  3,013

  83,093

  3,014

  95,221

  3,094

  Bedfordshire

  24,085

  984

  26,507

  999

  29,011

  1,025

  32,079

  1,050

  Cambridgeshire

  27,661

  1,142

  30,675

  1,171

  33,312

  1,187

  38,444

  1,193

  Cheshire

  43,386

  1,830

  47,201

  1,837

  49,327

  1,879

  57.810

  1,870

  138 139

  Police Expenditure and Strength since 1980

  £ thousands

  Force

  Expend 1986–87

  Strength 1986–87

  Expend 1987–1988

  Strength 1987–88

  Expend 1988–89

  Strength 1988–89

  Expend 1989–90

  Strength 1989–90

  City of London

  26,549

  771

  28,222

  787

  30,891

  801

  35,285

  799

  Cleveland

  35,131

  1,462

  38,836

  1,466

  42,613

  1,470

  46,995

  1,467

  Cumbria

  27,055

  1,118

  29,810

  1,141

  32,320

  1,135

  35,858

  1,166

  Derbyshire

  43,105

  1,777

  48,502

  1,790

  51,652

  1,784

  58,972

  1,795

  Devon and Cornwall

  73,315

  2,774

  76,630

  2,787

  85,227

  2,849

  93,697

  2,852

  Dorset

  33,140

  1,202

  34,195

  1,234

  38,058

  1,251

  42,908

  1,269

  Durham

  31,020

  1,307

  34,,182

  1,329

  36,841

  1,351

  41,893

  1,375

  Dyfed-Powys

  20,699

  932

  23,831

  917

  25,293

  931

  29,522

  935

  Essex

  65,161

  2,718

  73,266

  2,728

  78,974

  2,746

  92,207

  2,822

  Gloucestershire

  25,187

  1,152

  28,035

  1,153

  31,071

  1,166

  36,299

  1,170

  Greater Manchester

  160,950

  6,780

  174,925

  6,965

  189,973

  6,935

  213,529

  6,992

  Gwent

  22,213

  973

  24,096

  979

  27,170

  996

  30,444

  1,008

  Hampshire

  75,583

  3,098

  82,274

  3,103

  91,177

  3,167

  100,459

  3,154

  Hertfordshire

  38,428

  1,579

  40,851

  1,603

  47,394

  1,638

  51,968

  1,657

  Humberside

  48,175

  1,964

  52,566

  1,953

  58,417

  1,992

  63,700

  1,995

  Kent

  70,993

  2,879

  78,338

  2,908

  89,907

  2,985

  98,455

  2,984

  Lancashire

  73,268

  3,314

  84,703

  3,139

  88,410

  3,177

  99,392

  3,201

  Leicestershire

  41,811

  1,712

  45,464

  1,735

  49,660

  1,745

  57,279

  1,769

  Lincolnshire

  27,964

  1,173

  30,242

  1,168

  34,108

  1,194

  37,548

  1,188

  Merseyside

  113,410

  4,598

  121,405

  4,647

  133,864

  4,689

  147,251

  4,714

  Norfolk

  31,135

  1,312

  33,806

  1,308

  37,817

  1,340

  42,875

  1,363

  Northamptonshire

  26,508

  1,047

  28,953

  1,093

  32,928

  1,095

  37,553

  1,126

  Northumbria

  85,207

  3,402

  92,058

  3,467

  98,274

  3,508

  110,667

  3,529

  North Wales

  30,257

  1,286

  32,961

  1,300

  36,812

  1,327

  41,084

  1,337

  North Yorkshire

  32,625

  1,353

  34,785

  1,372

  40,650

  1,370

  43,887

  1,379

  Nottinghamshire

  53,428

  2,226

  55,547

  2,252

  60,048

  2,298

  68,609

  2,316

  South Wales

  72,723

  3,100

  78,957

  3,126

  86,312

  3,102

  97,275

  3,135

  South Yorkshire

  66,255

  2,862

  73,135

  2,912

  80,007

  2,940

  91,700

  2,923

  Staffordshire

  49,111

  2,113

  53,772

  2,135

  59,282

  2,164

  65,688

  2,187

  Suffolk

  28,972

  1,166

  30,787

  1,188

  34,912

  1,181

  40,113

  1,194

  Surrey

  37,804

  1,609

  41,221

  1,649

  45,755

  1,636

  52,623

  1,645

  Sussex

  64,897

  2,830

  68,290

  2,894

  78,147

  2,946

  84,408

  2,949

  Thames Valley

  85,349

  3,421

  95,496

  3,490

  104,334

  3,600

  119,989

  3,659

  Warwickshire

  22,867

  965

  25,399

  979

  27,803

  969

  31,761

  975

  West Mercia

  47,219

  1,929

  51,616

  1,946

  55,443

  1,948

  62,268

  1,991

  West Midlands

  151,675

  6,656

  166,971

  6,639

  185,032

  6,761

  206,518

  6,855

  West Yorkshire

  115,178

  5,142

  129,109

  5,184

  149,384

  5,278

  167,025

  5,260

  Wiltshire

  25,998

  1,044

  28,074

  1,095

  30,904

  1,101

  35,676

  1,130

  Metropolitan Police

  810,228

  26,890

  879,803

  27,688

  965,151

  28,058

  1,076,767

  28,362

  Police Expenditure and Strength since 1980

  £ thousands

  Force

  Expend 1990–91

  Strength 1990–91

  Expend 1991–92

  Strength 1991–92

  Expend 1992–93

  Strength 1992–93

  Expend 1993–94

  Strength 1993–94

  Avon and Somerset

  102,351

  3,092

  111,509

  3,081

  124,322

  3,068

  132,421

  3,033

  Bedfordshire

  35,599

  1,105

  39,212

  1,093

  44,210

  1,168

  47,958

  1,151

  Cambridgeshire

  42,364

  1,201

  47,116

  1,250

  50,027

  1,265

  55,776

  1,263

  Cheshire

  62,370

  1,895

  66,960

  1,874

  72,966

  1,908

  79,593

  1,902

  City of London

  37,074

  813

  40,820

  808

  44,246

  825

  49,858

  893

  Cleveland

  51,560

  1,489

  54,802

  1,477

  59,802

  1,478

  63,156

  1,429

  Cumbria

  39,961

  1,184

  45.080

  1,179

  49,501

  1,196

  51,698

  1,174

  Derbyshire

  61,261

  1,741

  66,048

  1,706

  75,750

  1,830

  78,207

  1,820

  Devon and Cornwall

  105,660

  2,873

  117,436

  2,898

  128,271

  2,910

  136,654

  2,914

  Dorset

  49,024

  1,281

  52,006

  1,289

  55,644

  1,302

  57,564

  1,297

  Durham

  44,964

  1,368

  48,589

  1,389

  53,226

  1,381

  57,065

  1,383

  Dyfed-Powys

  30,878

  935

  35,150

  947

  38,896

  967

  41,518

  965

  Essex

  104,703

  2,889

  115,540

  2,898

  125,833

  2,936

  134,545

  2,937

  Gloucestershire

  40,236

  1,162

  44,611

  1,174

  48,067

  1,149

  50,295

  1,159

  Greater Manchester

  228,550

  7,014

  248,813

  7,061

  272,190

  7,060

  296,016

  6,967

  Gwent

  33,286

  999

  36,682

  1,009

  38,965

  1,004

  41,406

  993

  Hampshire

  111,152

  3,179

  124,970

  3,211

  135,434

  3,275

  143,157

  3,270

  Hertfordshire

  58,743

  1,666

  62,868

  1,965

  68,523

  1,700

  72,520

  1,682

  Humberside

  69,697

  1,998

  77,396

  2,026

  84,119

  2,032

  88,934

  2,039

  Kent

  109,013

  3,005

  128,734

  3,074

  137,696

  3,146

  143,045

  3,145

  Lancashire

  108,135

  3,212

  122,019

  3,198

  128,669

  3,207

  138,730

  3,170

  Leicestershire

  61,274

  1,818

  68,366

  1,845

  72,784

  1,805

  75,852

  1,825

  140 141

  Police Expenditure and Strength since 1980

  £ thousands

  Force

  Expend 1990–91

  Strength 1990–91

  Expend 1991–92

  Strength 1991–92

  Expend 1992–93

  Strength 1992–93

  Expend 1993–94

  Strength 1993–94

  Lincolnshire

  41,597

  1,209

  47,235

  1,196

  51,065

  1,200

  54,121

  1,205

  Merseyside

  160,697

  4,689

  178,884

  4,621

  189,280

  4,669

  202,485

  4,693

  Norfolk

  48,115

  1,405

  54,100

  1,414

  59,084

  1,440

  62,209

  1,447

  Northamptonshire

  40,084

  1,139

  45,499

  1,158

  50,617

  1,199

  53,410

  1,170

  Northumbria

  121,364

  3,541

  132,826

  3,464

  136,534

  3,563

  154,875

  3,598

  North Wales

  44,725

  1,349

  50,700

  1,347

  55,897

  1,360

  58,387

  1,352

  North Yorkshire

  47,396

  1,387

  51,679

  1,398

  58,444

  1,393

  61,464

  1,318

  Nottinghamshire

  75,709

  2,336

  82,629

  2,331

  89,507

  2,327

  95,723

  2,328

  South Wales

  106,257

  3,137

  118,537

  3,168

  127,300

  3,176

  130,885

  3,131

  South Yorkshire

  94,778

  2,991

  103,166

  3,008

  117,544

  3,032

  124,637

  3,023

  Staffordshire

  74,272

  2,217

  82,163

  2,176

  87,742

  2,179

  93,993

  2,208

  Suffolk

  43,008

  1,209

  48,069

  1,218

  50,731

  1,241

  54,460

  1,208

  Surrey

  57,125

  1,657

  63,421

  1,706

  70,879

  1,693

  74,649

  1,669

  Sussex

  92,991

  2,969

  106,178

  2,984

  115,114

  3,008

  119,678

  3,009

  Thames Valley

  134,111

  3,714

  149,414

  3,772

  160,512

  3,840

  173,938

  3,908

  Warwickshire

  36,082

  1,020

  39,842

  990

  42,489

  1,020

  46,084

  1,046

  West Mercia

  68,707

  2,026

  77,230

  2,034

  82,670

  2,054

  89,633

  2,059

  West Midlands

  229,256

  6,876

  250,816

  6,941

  284,274

  6,953

  292,273

  7,014

  West Yorkshire

  181,186

  5,268

  197,226

  5,087

  208,784

  5,037

  219,225

  5,046

  Wiltshire

  40,885

  1,165

  46,215

  1,221

  51,400

  1,265

  53,547

  1,264

  Metropolitan Police

  1,197,964

  28,230

  1,339,605

  28,154

  1,453,959

  27,867

  1,515,054

  27,699

  Murders and Manslaughters
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of(a) murders and (b) manslaughters (i) with or (ii) without diminished responsibility, recorded in each year since 1970 in each police force area, indicating the sex of the victims and the numbers of these crimes where there is still no conviction.

  Offences initially recorded as homicide by outcome (Female victims)

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Outcome

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Offences initially recorded as homicide

  268

  239

  254

  272

  272

  250

  244

  244

  237

  307

  258

  245

  Offences no longer recorded as homicide1

  10

  12

  13

  16

  19

  16

  18

  21

  23

  19

  22

  14

  Offences currently recorded as homicide1

  Decided at court to be homicide:

  Murder

  77

  72

  79

  90

  96

  92

  81

  88

  75

  89

  71

  46

  Sec 2 manslaughter

  70

  51

  53

  51

  48

  39

  40

  43

  36

  47

  45

  25

  Other manslaughter

  46

  50

  53

  58

  53

  45

  57

  49

  48

  66

  61

  30

  Infanticide

  4

  4

  1

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1

  3

  3

  4

  2

  Total

  197

  177

  186

  200

  198

  176

  181

  181

  162

  205

  181

  103

  Court decision pending

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  7

  79

  Proceedings not initiated or concluded without conviction:

  Suspect found by the court to be insane

  1

  1

  4

  2

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  Suspect died

  1

  2

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  6

  1

  2

  Suspect committed suicide

  33

  22

  31

  32

  32

  36

  30

  22

  27

  39

  25

  26

  Proceedings discontinued or not initiated

  5

  2

  7

  7

  3

  4

  2

  2

  2

  6

  1

  2

  Total

  40

  27

  42

  43

  39

  42

  33

  27

  32

  53

  30

  32

  142
  Mr. Maclean
  The tables show for 1982 to 1993 the number of offences of homicide involving (i) male victims and (ii) female victims by outcome. Information for earlier years is not available, and information for each police force area separately could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The third table gives the information which can be provided on the total number of homicides recorded by the police, by police force area and year for 1982 to 1993.
  143

  Offences initially recorded as homicide by outcome (Female victims)

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Outcome

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Currently no suspect:

  All suspects acquitted

  3

  5

  2

  2

  3

  2

  6

  4

  6

  11

  3

  3

  No suspects charged

  18

  18

  11

  11

  13

  14

  6

  11

  14

  13

  15

  14

  Total

  21

  23

  13

  13

  16

  16

  12

  15

  20

  24

  18

  17

  Total offences currently recorded as homicide

  258

  227

  241

  256

  253

  234

  226

  223

  214

  288

  236

  231

  1 As at 5 August 1994; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by police and by courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Offences initially recorded as homicide by outcome (male victims)

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Outcome

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Offences initially recorded as homicide

  350

  313

  365

  353

  388

  436

  401

  382

  426

  419

  424

  430

  Offences no longer recorded as homicide1

  51

  58

  69

  73

  75

  70

  78

  80

  82

  76

  66

  55

  Offences currently recorded as homicide1

  Decided at court to be homicide:

  Murder

  85

  81

  86

  77

  109

  105

  93

  91

  102

  99

  119

  70

  Sec 2 manslaughter

  38

  32

  31

  24

  34

  46

  34

  39

  45

  35

  36

  28

  Other manslaughter

  114

  99

  126

  118

  118

  148

  137

  102

  117

  134

  117

  91

  Infanticide

  2

  7

  1

  7

  2

  1

  4

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Total

  239

  219

  244

  226

  263

  300

  268

  232

  265

  270

  274

  190

  Court decision pending

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  10

  18

  142

  Proceedings not initiated or concluded without conviction:

  Suspect found by the court to be insane

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  5

  1

  —

  4

  —

  Suspect died

  2

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Suspect committed suicide

  16

  9

  9

  15

  14

  22

  13

  13

  8

  10

  14

  3

  Proceedings discontinued or not initiated

  6

  7

  10

  9

  2

  8

  3

  1

  4

  5

  3

  3

  Total

  24

  17

  21

  25

  20

  32

  17

  19

  16

  16

  22

  8

  Currently no suspect:

  All suspects acquitted

  6

  7

  4

  7

  9

  14

  10

  13

  24

  20

  17

  8

  No suspects charged

  30

  12

  27

  22

  21

  20

  28

  37

  36

  27

  27

  27

  Total

  36

  19

  31

  29

  30

  34

  38

  50

  60

  47

  44

  35

  Total offences currently recorded as homicide

  299

  255

  296

  280

  313

  366

  323

  302

  344

  343

  358

  375

  1 As at 5 August 1994;figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Offences of homicide recorded by the police1 force area and year

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  14

  9

  15

  12

  18

  8

  8

  10

  15

  11

  19

  Bedfordshire

  3

  11

  7

  4

  7

  9

  7

  8

  6

  6

  12

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  4

  4

  5

  6

  6

  10

  3

  6

  4

  8

  4

  Cheshire

  6

  11

  7

  6

  10

  5

  12

  6

  6

  11

  11

  13

  Cleveland

  10

  5

  10

  4

  5

  9

  8

  11

  10

  10

  8

  7

  Cumbria

  6

  4

  1

  3

  6

  3

  4

  3

  5

  4

  4

  4

  144 145

  Offences of homicide recorded by the police1 force area and year

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Derbyshire

  6

  7

  8

  8

  4

  4

  6

  9

  4

  9

  8

  9

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  17

  13

  11

  11

  13

  12

  8

  12

  18

  13

  16

  Dorset

  2

  4

  8

  4

  7

  1

  4

  3

  5

  6

  11

  4

  Durham

  5

  8

  7

  3

  5

  3

  4

  5

  6

  4

  7

  10

  Essex

  10

  6

  16

  20

  15

  13

  14

  14

  11

  13

  6

  12

  Gloucestershire

  4

  1

  3

  7

  4

  1

  1

  12

  2

  12

  3

  9

  Greater Manchester

  28

  23

  37

  28

  38

  45

  49

  35

  28

  49

  46

  41

  Hampshire

  14

  8

  9

  15

  19

  15

  8

  8

  11

  12

  12

  17

  Hertfordshire

  11

  6

  7

  4

  7

  10

  11

  9

  5

  9

  5

  6

  Humberside

  14

  6

  8

  9

  5

  8

  12

  11

  9

  11

  6

  4

  Kent

  9

  15

  23

  14

  20

  25

  18

  21

  18

  19

  16

  24

  Lancashire

  12

  13

  17

  18

  11

  27

  23

  21

  17

  21

  10

  25

  Leicestershire

  8

  7

  3

  9

  6

  7

  5

  6

  11

  11

  6

  9

  Lincolnshire

  6

  3

  3

  3

  4

  8

  3

  6

  2

  8

  3

  2

  London, City of

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Merseyside

  19

  14

  11

  15

  20

  15

  21

  17

  19

  21

  22

  15

  Metropolitan Police District

  192

  149

  164

  187

  210

  193

  148

  176

  184

  184

  172

  159

  Norfolk

  5

  4

  7

  5

  12

  4

  7

  5

  12

  10

  9

  5

  Northamptonshire

  5

  8

  9

  5

  10

  11

  4

  5

  4

  5

  9

  7

  Northumbria

  10

  17

  26

  19

  17

  19

  14

  19

  27

  28

  24

  31

  North Yorkshire

  16

  2

  4

  5

  5

  6

  3

  10

  5

  3

  9

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  9

  12

  12

  12

  11

  11

  10

  13

  27

  14

  16

  South Yorkshire

  14

  19

  14

  13

  12

  11

  18

  16

  21

  15

  20

  20

  Staffordshire

  12

  5

  8

  4

  11

  4

  8

  9

  11

  8

  4

  9

  Suffolk

  2

  9

  5

  6

  5

  5

  4

  9

  6

  2

  5

  3

  Surrey

  3

  1

  5

  2

  4

  12

  7

  5

  6

  11

  8

  5

  Sussex

  11

  8

  20

  16

  18

  14

  12

  21

  19

  20

  16

  13

  Thames Valley

  17

  16

  23

  21

  17

  37

  18

  16

  18

  17

  16

  19

  Warwickshire

  5

  6

  1

  5

  —

  9

  5

  4

  3

  2

  4

  3

  West Mercia

  8

  14

  8

  6

  9

  8

  7

  5

  10

  11

  6

  15

  West Midlands

  45

  43

  49

  45

  42

  38

  44

  31

  37

  40

  56

  40

  West Yorkshire

  30

  24

  29

  26

  25

  31

  26

  33

  43

  34

  34

  27

  Wiltshire

  6

  7

  4

  2

  4

  5

  5

  6

  11

  4

  7

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  4

  5

  1

  6

  1

  3

  7

  6

  9

  4

  8

  4

  Gwent

  9

  3

  3

  9

  7

  6

  6

  7

  3

  5

  7

  3

  North Wales

  11

  3

  8

  6

  1

  5

  10

  3

  3

  5

  10

  9

  South Wales

  11

  10

  10

  11

  17

  11

  20

  20

  21

  17

  18

  16

  England and Wales

  618

  550

  621

  616

  661

  688

  624

  641

  669

  725

  687

  670

  1 Because of differences in recording practice the figures in this table do not always agree exactly with those given in the other tables.

  Mohammad Riaz
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what prison sentence he has set for Mohammad Riaz; what was the trial judge's recommendation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The period for retribution and deterrence in this case was originally set in 1988. At the time, the trial judge recommended 10 years, the Lord Chief Justice of the day recommended a minimum period of 16 years and the Minister then set a period of 20 years. In doing so, he would have had regard to the statement by Sir Leon Brittan, as Home Secretary in 1983, that terrorists and certain other specified categories of murderer could normally expect to serve at least 20 years.

  Following the Doody judgment of June 1993, the above details were disclosed to Mr. Riaz. He subsequently made representations and his case was considered afresh in December 1993. My right hon. and learned Friend concluded that there were no grounds to justify disapplying the policy set out in the Brittan statement. He therefore confirmed the existing period of 20 years.

  Transitional Crime
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on proposals put forward by the United Kingdom to, and decisions taken at, the United Nations ministerial conference on organised transnational crime, held in Naples 21 to 23 November.

  Mr. Maclean
  The conference, which was attended by representatives of 138 countries, was convened by the United Nations for the purpose of examining the problems and dangers posed by organised transnational crime in all regions of the world and of identifying the most effective forms of international co-operation for its prevention and control. The conference adopted a political declaration and a global action plan. The political declaration sends a clear message about the determination of the international community to co-operate to tackle the problem of organised transnational crime and stresses the need for assistance to the developing countries and countries in transition against the threat which organised crime may pose to their social and economic development.

  The global action plan emphasises the national, legislative and other measures which may be effective in

  147
  dealing with organised transnational crime and commends the adoption and implementation of all states of the international instruments which are already available to strengthen efforts against such crime—for example, in relation to money laundering and control of the proceeds of crime. It also recommends that the UN's commission on crime prevention and criminal justice should seek the views of states on the feasibility and value of developing an international convention or conventions against organised transnational crime.

  In a separate resolution, the conference acknowledged an offer by the Italian Government to organise and host, at their own expense, an international task force, which would examine the feasibility of an Italian proposal for setting up an international training centre for law enforcement and criminal justice personnel. The results of the task force's work will be submitted to the fourth UN commission on crime prevention and criminal justice next year.

  The United Kingdom delegation, which I led, played its full part in the conference, and the Government fully support the conference conclusions. Copies of the political declaration, the global action plan and the resolution will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ian Lumb
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the United Kingdom branch of Interpol has received a report on attempts to locate Mr. Ian Lumb;

  (2) if he will meet the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen to discuss the case of Mr. Ian Lumb; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when his Department last discussed the case of Mr. Ian Lumb with the Greater Manchester police;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which his Department intervenes in police operational matters.

  Mr. Maclean
  Police operational matters are entirely the responsibility of individual chief constables.

  Home Office officials consulted Greater Manchester police and the United Kingdom National Central Bureau of Interpol about the case of Mr. Ian Lumb on 1 December 1994.

  The United Kingdom National Central Bureau of Interpol has not received a report on attempts to locate Mr. Ian Lumb.

  Number of offenders convicted at magistrates' courts in the Metropolitan Police District and City of London Police Force Areas and England and Wales for offences involving carrying weapons 1991–1993

  Area/Offence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Metropolitan Police District

  Carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or excuse1

  860

  632

  663

  Carrying article with blade or point in public place2

  736

  750

  771

  City of London

  Carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or excuse1

  12

  11

  6

  Carrying article with blade or point in public place2

  1

  3

  4

  England and Wales

  Carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or excuse1

  3,499

  3,200

  2,808

  Carrying article with blade or point in public place2

  1,736

  1,846

  1,853

  1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Section 1. May include a small number of offences involving truncheons etc.

  2 Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 139.

  148
  In all the circumstances, I do not believe that a meeting would contribute towards the efforts of the police to locate Mr. Lumb, and I cannot add to the information that the hon. Member has already been given.

  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State far the Home Department how many applicants there were for membership of the Metropolitan police committee; and when the appointments will be announced.

  Mr. Maclean
  One hundred and six applications have been received from persons wishing to be considered for membership of the Metropolitan police committee. The Home Secretary announced during the debate on the policing of London on 2 December that Sir John Quinton will chair the committee. The other 11 members will be appointed shortly, in consultation with the chairman.

  Extending Baton
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in England and Wales have undertaken trials of the extending baton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Twelve forces in England and Wales conducted trials of the expandable side-handled baton between 1 March and 31 May. Six forces have trialled other types of expandable baton. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply oil 23 November,Official Report, column 158–9.

  Asylum
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases are currently pending which are of more than six years duration; and for what reasons they have taken so long to process.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 31 October 1994—the latest date for which the information is available—the estimated number of applications outstanding is 53,300. Information on the number of these cases waiting longer than six years and the reason for the delay is not collated centrally.

  Knife Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of convictions in magistrates courts covering the Greater London area over the carrying of a knife as an offensive weapon in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Shotgun Certificates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shotgun certificates were issued by Welsh police forces in each year from 1989 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published annually in Home Office statistical bulletins, "Firearms certificate statistics, England and Wales", table 4, copies of which can be found in the Library. The bulletin references are: 26/90, 23/91, 19/92, 23/93 and 22/94.

  Police Authorities
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the budgeted capital expenditure cost for setting up each of the new police authorities of England and Wales; and if he will list any planned items of capital spending over £10,000 by any of the new police authorities in their first year.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not centrally available. Police authorities are not required to notify the Home Office of detailed expenditure plans.

  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much will be spent on members' allowances by the new police authorities of England and Wales in their first year; and how much was spent on members' allowances by the old police authorities of England and Wales in their final year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The allowances paid to councillor and independent members of new police authorities depend on the amount of work they undertake on behalf of the authority. If all members undertake sufficient work to claim the maximum amount of allowances available, the total expenditure would be £1,863,000 in a financial year.

  Magistrate members of new police authorities may claim a financial-loss allowance and the total expenditure will depend on the amount of their loss.

  Table 1.1 Crimes(1) recorded by the police-main developed countries

  Percentage increase

  Country

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1987–92

  1991–92

  England and Wales

  3,892,200

  3,715,800

  3,870,700

  4,543,600

  5,276,200

  5,591,700

  44

  6

  Northern Ireland

  63,860

  55,890

  55,417

  57,200

  63,500

  67,532

  6

  6

  Scotland

  481,230

  469,986

  493,385

  535,864

  592,774

  589,562

  23

  -1

  Republic of Ireland

  85,358

  89,544

  86,792

  87,658

  94,406

  95,391

  12

  1

  France

  3,170,970

  3,132,694

  3,266,442

  3,492,712

  3,744,112

  3,830,996

  21

  2

  Belgium

  293,631

  314,778

  336,377

  353,492

  382,667

  386,474

  32

  1

  Germany

  4,444,108

  4,356,726

  4,358,573

  4,455,333

  (2)5,302,796

  (2)6,291,519

  (3)—

  —

  Austria

  391,291

  400,621

  423,025

  457,623

  468,832

  502,440

  28

  7

  Netherlands

  1,042,120

  1,056,740

  1,066,130

  1,052,510

  1,083,730

  1,168,490

  12

  8

  Norway

  198,877

  220,338

  237,319

  235,256

  223,122

  234,992

  18

  5

  Sweden

  949,367

  955,043

  1,003,910

  1,076,289

  1,045,306

  1,051,770

  11

  1

  Denmark

  524,323

  536,880

  536,564

  527,421

  519,755

  563,821

  8

  8

  Finland

  317,290

  336,595

  391,259

  438,094

  391,940

  393,109

  24

  —

  Portugal4

  251,588

  252,204

  261,931

  281,200

  315,300

  332,344

  32

  5

  Italy

  1,867,035

  1,894,327

  2,053,522

  2,501,640

  2,647,735

  2,390,539

  28

  -10

  Greece

  303,182

  311,179

  287,177

  330,803

  —

  —

  19

  —

  U.S.A5

  13,509,000

  13,923,000

  14,251,000

  14,756,000

  14,873,000

  14,438,000

  7

  -3

  150
  Existing police authorities are part of the local government structure. Information is not held centrally about the level of allowances paid to existing councillors.

  Pepper Sprays
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the use of pepper sprays on deportees;

  (2) whether the use of capsicum pepper sprays was considered during the joint Home Office and Metropolitan police review of deportation procedures.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Those conducting the joint Home Office and Metropolitan police review of deportation procedures were aware of the existence of capsicum pepper sprays. However, such sprays have never been used in connection with removal from the United Kingdom and they were not referred to in the conclusions of the review, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 12 January 1994.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis he has made of the reasons for the increases in crime levels from 1987 to 1992 shown in the 1993 crime statistics.

  Mr. Maclean
  Changes in crime levels are regularly monitored through analysis of recorded crime rates and the British crime survey. Successive studies over a long period have shown a wide range of factors which can influence levels of recorded crime, including the willingness of victims to report offences and the availability of opportunities to commit crime.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what comparison he has made of the rate of increase in crime in England and Wales and other developed nations between 1987 and 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information showing international comparisons of the rate of increase in recorded crime was published for the first time, in "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 1993" on 2 November 1994. A copy of table 1.2 follows:
  151

  Table 1.1 Crimes1recorded by the police-main developed countries

  Percentage increase

  Country

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1987—92

  1991—92

  Canada(5)

  2,368,956

  2,390,007

  2,425,936

  2,627,193

  2,899,006

  2,848,091

  20

  -2

  Japan

  1,577,954

  1,641,310

  1,673,268

  1,636,628

  1,707,877

  1,742,366

  10

  2

  Australia(5)

  1,070,367

  1,987,273

  1,125,661

  1,149,478

  1,274,893

  1,273,948

  19

  —

  New Zealand

  406,627

  418,928

  425,623

  449,479

  484,507

  499,003

  23

  3

  Notes:

  (1) More serious offences. In many countries defined as against the 'penal code' or 'criminal code' and excludes less serious crimes (misdemeanours). The range of offences covered differ between each country and some countries (eg Portugal) acknowledge double counting in the collection of such statistics. Comparisons based upon absolute figures are therefore misleading.

  (2) Includes former East Germany in 1992 but part of East Germany in 1991.

  (3) 1987–1990 only.

  (4) FBI Uniform Crime Index covering murder and non-negligent manslaughter, manslaughter by negligence, forcible rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny-theft of motor vehicles, theft and arson, but excludes offences such as drugs, included in other countries figures.

  (5) Data for financial years 1992=1991–92 etc.

  Source:

  Mainly stat,istical contacts in each country.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to Devon and Cornwall police of providing escorts and protection for those transporting live animals for export from Millbay docks in Plymouth.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the chief constable that police officers have been deployed at Millbay docks to prevent the possibility of a breach of the peace. Police officers are not being used to escort loads to the docks.

  The operation began on 28 November, and continues whenever necessary. No estimate has been made of the total cost, but the force is handling the matter by redeployment of officers and extra costs to the police budget are not expected.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates of British prisons without a previous involvement with hard drugs have died in prison from heroin or methadone use or became infected with HIV in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 6 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners without a previous involvement with hard drugs who have died from heroin or methadone, or who became infected with HIV in each of the past ten years.
  I am afraid that the information requested is not available.

WALES

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been unemployed for two years or more up to the latest available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  In October 1994 the number of claimants in Wales who had been unemployed for over two years was 23,398.
  152
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed people there are in(a) Clwyd and (b) Alyn and Deeside.

  Mr. Redwood
  In October 1994 the number of claimants who had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks in Clwyd and Alyn and Deeside were 4,538 and 785 respectively.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in each county of Wales under the age of 24 years have been out of work for more than a year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of claimants aged 24 and under, who at October 1994 had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks, for each county in Wales, are shown in the following table:

  County

  Persons

  Clwyd

  869

  Dyfed

  724

  Gwent

  1,338

  Gwynedd

  790

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,727

  Powys

  144

  South Glamorgan

  1,517

  West Glamorgan

  998

  Source:

  NOMIS.

  Since October 1993 the total number of claimants in this category in Wales has fallen by over 16 per cent.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures he has instituted to monitor the expenditure and effectiveness of the £2.3 million divested by his office to local health authorities in Wales for the prevention of drug misuse this year.

  Mr. Richards
  Action to tackle drug misuse is included in the annual plans of health authorities and is a priority for attention in 1995–96. Achievements against health plan objectives are monitored regularly by the Welsh Office and are discussed at annual review meetings with health authorities.

  Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist women and to promote their training on their return to the labour market after having children.

  Mr. Richards
  The eligibility rules for training for work allow women returning to the labour market to enter the programme immediately provided that an individual has not been in the labour market for a continuous period of two years for domestic reasons.

  The out of school childcare grant initiative is stimulating the childcare market in Wales for school-age children by pump-priming the setting up costs of after school and holiday arrangements.

  The Welsh Office provides a grant to Chwarae Teg to assist its work in expanding the role of women in the workforce by raising awareness of equal opportunities and encouraging good practice by employers.

  More generally, the consultation document, "People and Prosperity: A Challenge to Wales" has stimulated debate about developing the potential of women in the workforce. My right hon. Friend will shortly be publishing an action plan to follow up "People and Prosperity".

  Water Rates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of the level of water rates in Wales in 1991, 1992, 1993 and the current year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of representations received are as follows:

  1991: 31

  1992: 25

  1993: 44

  1994: 37

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will permit Alyn and Deeside district council to use 100 per cent. of the moneys accrued from the sale of council houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As between debt redemption and new expenditure, Alyn and Deeside district council is able

  Proportion of qualifications gained by those leaving youth training

  April 1991–March 1992

  April 1992–March 1993

  TEC

  All Leavers Per cent

  complents Per cent

  All Leavers Per cent

  complents Per cent

  Gwent

  34.2

  48.5

  45.5

  78.4

  Mid Glamorgan

  38.3

  53.9

  47.8

  79.4

  North East Wales

  41.2

  31.4

  89.4

  94.0

  North West Wales

  43.5

  58.2

  40.8

  67.7

  Powys

  30.3

  39.2

  31.4

  64.9

  South Glamorgan

  28.1

  45.4

  39.1

  71.7

  West Wales

  32.8

  46.0

  40.6

  59.9

  Wales

  35.8

  50.3

  46.7

  72.4

  Source:

  Employment Department YT Follow-up Survey.
  154
  to use 100 per cent. of the moneys accrued from the sale of council houses.

  Beaches
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beaches in Wales have been awarded a blue flag to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since the scheme's introduction in 1987, a total of 14 blue flags have been awarded to beaches in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many blue flag awards were awarded to Welsh beaches in each year from 1991 to 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  1991: 3

  1992: 2

  1993: 3

  Entertainment Budget
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his Department's budget for entertainment in each year from 1990 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure figures for Welsh Office hospitality were given in my answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) 24 October,Official Report, column 421–22.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of those leaving youth training today gained qualifications in Wales; and what was the figure two years ago in each of the counties of Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available in the format requested. Youth training is delivered by the seven training and enterprise councils in Wales, whose boundaries do not correspond with the eight counties. West Wales TEC covers the counties of both west Glamorgan and Dyfed; North West Wales TEC covers the county of Gwynedd plus the districts of Rhuddland and Colwyn of the county of Clwyd; North East Wales TEC covers the remaining districts of Clwyd.

  The following figures therefore relate to the areas served by the seven TECs and to the last two years for which information is available. Figures for 1990–91 are not comparable.

  Library Books
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost per head of the population for expenditure on library books in each of the counties of Wales.

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

  Gross current expenditure on library books by county area, 1992–93(1)

  £ per head

  Clwyd

  1.36

  Dyfed

  2.46

  Gwent

  1.54

  Gwynedd

  1.59

  Mid Glamorgan

  3.65

  Powys

  1.57

  South Glamorgan

  2.03

  West Glamorgan

  1.87

  Source:

  Local authority outturn returns.

  Note:

  (1) Expenditure on books which has been identified separately from other library expenditure. Includes expenditure by those district councils which provide library services.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tenancies were provided by housing associations in each of the districts and boroughs of Wales in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on new lettings and re-lettings in the financial year 1993—94 are set out in the following table, taken from the report of the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations. It includes transfers by existing tenants to a new address—where no new tenancy is created—and mutual exchanges—transfers between existing tenants of different social landlords. Lettings in sheltered accommodation are included, but not lettings for special needs. The table also excludes shared ownership and deferred ownership tenancies.

  Lettings by local authority districts in 1993–94

  Local Authority

  Tenancies

  Aberconwy

  174

  Afan

  114

  Alyn and Deeside

  135

  Arfon

  223

  Blaenau Gwent

  209

  Brecknock

  95

  Cardiff

  1,793

  Carmarthen

  155

  Ceredigion

  160

  Colwyn

  167

  Cynon Valley

  330

  Delyn

  182

  Dinefwr

  147

  Dwyfor

  91

  Glyndwr

  145

  Islwyn

  221

  Llanelli

  208

  Lliw Valley

  150

  Meirionnydd1

  38

  Merthyr Tydfil

  354

  Monmouth

  200

  Montgomery

  227

  Neath

  127

  156

  Lettings by local authority districts in 1993–94

  Local Authority

  Tenancies

  Newport

  615

  Ogwr

  368

  Preseli

  168

  Radnor

  103

  Rhondda

  228

  Rhuddlan

  244

  Rhymney Valley

  281

  South Pembrokeshire

  106

  Swansea

  931

  Taff-Ely

  260

  Torfaen

  384

  Vale of Glamorgan

  330

  Wrexham Maelor

  287

  Ynys Mon

  90

  Total

  2210,040

  1 Provisional figure.

  2 Includes Transfers (1,423) and exchanges and Exchanges (550).

  Tree Preservation
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether tree preservation order policy is sufficient to enable local authorities to protect woodland areas in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have recently reviewed various proposals for changes to the present arrangements for tree preservation. We have concluded that the system in use now enables local planning authorities to provide sufficient protection to woodlands and that they should continue to be able to place preservation orders on woodlands. Copies of the Government's conclusions on the review are available in the Library of the House.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the jobseeker's allowance scheme as it may affect Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The introduction of the jobseeker's allowance will help unemployed people in Wales into jobs, will help to secure better value for money for taxpayers and will improve services for unemployed people themselves.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed on a full-time basis in horticulture in Wales at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is not available on the numbers of people working specifically in horticulture. However, according to the 1993 June agricultural and horticultural census there were, at 1 June, 558 people working whole-time on main holdings classified as horticultural holdings whole-time refers to those workers whose main occupation is farming and who work, on average, more than 39 hours per week. A holding is classified as horticultural if more than two thirds of its standard gross margin results from horticultural enterprises. Results at this level of detail are not yet available for the June 1994 census.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses were built in 1993 by each of the local authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is published in table 2.6 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 14 1994", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Housing associations are able to attract private finance contributions in building housing. In 1991 the Welsh Office set a target of housing associations providing 10,000 homes over three years and this target has been exceeded.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were directly employed in agriculture in Wales at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Provisional results from the 1994 June agriculture and horticultural census show that there were an estimated 64,500 people working on holdings in Wales on 1 June. This total comprises: all farmers, partners and directors and their spouses; salaried managers; family and hired workers normally employed on a holding for some part of each month throughout the year, and any seasonal or casual workers employed at the time of the census. The figure includes estimates for small holdings not surveyed in the June census.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job vacancies there are in the county of Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  309

  392

  225

  629

  834

  East Dyfed

  255

  154

  179

  215

  252

  Gwent

  551

  753

  639

  451

  796

  Gwynedd

  189

  281

  208

  223

  279

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,005

  700

  1,181

  1,010

  789

  Pembrokeshire

  62

  51

  103

  117

  144

  Powys

  14

  13

  9

  13

  24

  South Glamorgan

  2,082

  1,984

  962

  1,326

  1,348

  West Glamorgan

  554

  414

  538

  500

  206

  Wales

  6,021

  4,742

  4,044

  4,484

  4,672

  Colleges of Further Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish any details for the latest available three years of increases in salaries of(a) principals, (b) other senior staff and (c) junior staff of colleges of furtiher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The salaries of staff in further education colleges were the responsibility of the local education authorities until 1 April 1993. Since that date, it has been a condition of grant to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales that the sector takes into account the Government's requirements on public sector pay. However, colleges are free to negotiate their own pay and conditions arrangements with their employees. Details of salaries are not held centrally, although it is also a
  158
  Mr. Redwood
  There were 1,758 unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in Clwyd on 7 October 1994. This represents an increase of 7 per cent. on the October 1993 figure. The vacancy figures do not represent the total number of vacancies. Latest estimates suggest that nationally about one third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres; and about one quarter of all placings are made through jobcentres.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secondary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people who have been treated for addiction to tranquillisers; and if will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office has no information on which to base an estimate of the number of people who have been treated for addiction to tranquillisers.

  NHS Staffing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of redundancies among national health service staff(a) by grade and (b) by reason for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Operating Theatre Sessions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operating theatre sessions have been cancelled in each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Richards
  The number of operating sessions cancelled and unused, for Wales and each district health authority area,is given in the following table.

  condition of grant to the funding council that the institutions it funds must disclose the salaries of senior staff in their annual accounts. The first set of accounts for the colleges since they became independent will be for the period 1 April 1993 to 31 July 1994.

  Osteoporosis
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many instances there have been in the last year of patients with osteoporosis at the Wrexham Maelor hospital having(a) a limb or (b) more than one limb accidentally broken while in the hospital.

  Mr. Richards
  While this is a matter for the Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS trust, I understand that during 1994 3
  159
  patients with osteoporosis have suffered a fracture of a limb with, sadly, one of these suffering fractures of two limbs.

  School of Governors
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide the most up to date figures on all the costs relating to the preparation, publishing and distribution of all literature and letters sent to(a) governors of grant-maintained schools and (b) governors of all schools.

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not available.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has already received from health authorities on their plans to meet the standards required in the code of practice for the identification and assessment of children with special educational needs; and what guidance he has sent them to ensure that the additional needs of all children are met whether or not they have statements.

  Mr. Richards
  In response to the code of practice, planning guidance was issued in DGM(94)96 which advises health authorities to agree with local authorities the provision to be made for children, including those with special educational needs.

  Commissioners' health plans should be submitted to the Welsh Office by the end of March 1995 for consideration and approval by the Department.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of capital spending per pupil per annum at constant prices at(a) grant-maintained and (b) local authority schools in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest available information on outturn expenditure and pupil numbers implies per capita expenditure on grant-maintained, voluntary aided and local authority schools as in the table. The figures are in 1993–94 prices.

  Grant maintained schools £

  Local authority schools £

  Voluntary aided schools £

  1984–85

  —

  86.6

  49.3

  1985–86

  —

  88.6

  59.0

  1986–87

  —

  95.0

  50.0

  1987–88

  —

  102.4

  55.7

  1988–89

  —

  127.1

  70.4

  1989–90

  157.2

  144.7

  88.1

  1990–91

  203.4

  125.9

  90.5

  1991–92

  104.3

  122.1

  84.5

  1992–93

  108.3

  117.6

  102.1

  1993–94

  157.6

  N/A

  100.7

  (1) It is not possible to make a direct comparison between per pupil expenditure at local authority, voluntary aided and grant maintained schools because of the differences in the capital spending regimes under which the three types of school operate. For example, grant-maintained and voluntary schools are liable to VAT whereas local authority schools are outside the scope of VAT.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many submissions were made to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on its consultation paper on the national curriculum proposals at key stage 4; how many expressed a view on physical education; and how many submissions expressed a view on the imposition of compulsory participation in competitive team games, indicating the numbers of (i) those in favour and (ii) those against.

  Mr. Forth
  The total number of written responses on the proposals for physical education was 4,072, of which 173 agreed that it should be compulsory for 14 to 16-year-old pupils to be taught a competitive game, while 529 disagreed. In weighing all the responses, including those views expressed at conferences, and in reaffirming the proposal, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority took the view that pupils' and schools' choices were not unduly restricted, that it ensured progression throughout compulsory schooling in a key activity, and that it reflected existing practice in most schools. The total number of responses on the national curriculum proposals at key stage 4 is not available.

  Disabled Students' Awards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the number of disabled students' awards in each of the last three years; and what has been the cost in each year.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number and gross value of disabled students' allowances made by local education authorities in England and Wales as part of mandatory awards in the academic years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93—the latest year for which figures are available—are shown in the table:

  Number1 and gross value of disabled students' allowances— England and Wales: 1990–91 to 1992–93

  Academic year

  Number of allowances

  Gross value of allowances £ million

  1990–912

  640

  0.9

  1991–92

  1,430

  2.0

  1992–93

  2,490

  3.7

  1 The table shows the number of awards, not the number of students. Students can receive more than one type of disabled students' allowance.

  2 Data for 1990£91 are incomplete and are not directly comparable with the two later years.

  South Tyneside College
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the salary of the chief executive of South Tyneside college.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected by the Department. The Further Education Funding Council guidelines on accounting policies recommend that colleges should disclose the emoluments of the principal and other senior postholders in their accounts, which are publicly available.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what considerations led to the inclusion of payments for child maintenance ordered by the courts under the Children Act 1975 or the Children Act 1989 as being eligible for deduction against gross income when calculating residual income for mandatory grant assessment purposes and the exclusion of payments for child maintenance made under the Child Support Act 1991;

  (2) how many parents benefit from the provision in the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 enabling the deduction from gross income of child maintenance payments ordered in the courts in order to calculate residual income for grant purposes.

  Mr. Boswell
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  A8
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse to be upgraded to motorway standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The line orders and compulsory purchase order for the section of the M8 motorway between Baillieston and Newhouse were published in November 1993 and May 1994, respectively. Those proposals are being taken forward in phases and, subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the availability of finance, it is provisionally planned that the first of these, from Drumpark junction to Chapelhall, will start between April 1995 and March 1997.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Dr. Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons Scottish farmers have not yet been paid the sheep annual premium payments for this year that are due to them.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for agriculture and the environment gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 24 November,Official Report, column 343.

  Factory Units, Glasgow
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many factory units Glasgow development agency has constructed since its inception.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of the provision of industrial premises by local enterprise companies is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Secret Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) top secret and (b) secret files his Department holds.
  162
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 30 November 1994]: The most recent estimates show that there are around 35 top secret and around 800 secret paper files held within my Department. That is less than 0.06 per cent. of all paper files currently held.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the reduction in the number of persons by grade and gender employed by his Department and associated offices and agencies, nationally and regionally over the next three years, as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement of 29 November, indicating which branch, agency and region will be affected and stating his estimate of the number of job losses in each year which will be by(a) natural wastage, (b) voluntary redundancy and (c) compulsory redundancy; and what estimate he has made of the yearly total of savings in wages and associated costs as a result of these reductions in each Department, branch and agency.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 December 1994]: The information requested is not yet available. My Department's staffing plans for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 will be set out in the 1995 departmental report, to be published in early March 1995.

  The Government's aim has been, and will continue to be, that reductions in the size of the civil service should as far as possible be achieved without compulsory redundancies.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the allocation to individual programmes in Northern Ireland of the public expenditure totals announced on 29 November.

  Dr. Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In his unified Budget statement on 29 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced total public expenditure planning figures for the Northern Ireland programme. I have now decided on the allocations to individual programmes as shown in the following table. Copies of a more detailed statement have been placed in the Library. Those allocations reflect my assessment of how best to distribute the Northern Ireland public expenditure totals in response to local needs and circumstances.

  Programme

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Northern Ireland Office:

  Law, Order, Protective and Miscellaneous Services

  889

  890

  880

  Northern Ireland Departments:

  Northern Ireland Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Services and Support

  137

  140

  140

  Industry, Trade and Employment

  460

  440

  440

  Energy

  56

  40

  30

  163

  Programme

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Roads and Transport

  176

  180

  180

  Housing

  246

  250

  260

  Environmental and Miscellaneous Services

  231

  220

  220

  Law, Order and Protective Services (Fire Service)

  41

  40

  40

  Education, Arts and Libraries

  1,354

  1,390

  1,410

  Health and Personal Social Services

  1,510

  1,550

  1,580

  Social Security Administration

  161

  160

  160

  Other Public Services

  61

  60

  60

  NI Block (excluding Social Security Benefits)

  5,320

  5,360

  5,390

  Social Security Benefits

  2,224

  2,330

  2,450

  NI Block

  7,544

  7,690

  7,840

  National Agriculture and Fisheries Support

  172

  180

  190

  NI Programme

  7,716

  7,880

  8,020

  Notes:

  (1) Figures are rounded to nearest £1 million in 1995–96 and to nearest £10 million in 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  (2) The figures for 1995–96 will form the basis for preparation by Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office of Main Estimates for the coming year. These will be presented to Parliament in due course.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what undertaking his Department gave to the Data Protection Registrar that the national insurance number would be restricted to tax and benefit-related purposes; if he has been able to keep to that undertaking; what plans he has to introduce legislation to allow the use of the number by the private sector in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  The Data Protection Registrar has been advised that it is departmental policy to restrict use of the national insurance number to national insurance, tax and social security benefit related purposes. As to the application of that policy, a private sector organisation has requested permission to use the national insurance number for personal injuries claims purposes and this is being considered within the terms of the policy. There are no plans to introduce legislation to allow the use of the national insurance number by the private sector.

  Urban Development Grants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many urban development grants have been approved in each of the district council areas by the International Fund for Ireland since this fund commenced operations in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Sir John Wheeler
  The International Fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed jointly by the two Governments. All decisions on disbursements by the fund are a matter for that board and questions regarding disbursements should be directed to the fund's chairman, Mr. William T. McCarter, PO Box 2000,164
  Belfast, BT4 3SA. I understand, however, that the fund provides full details of all offers of assistances in its annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library. In addition, I have arranged for a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry to be forwarded to the chairman of the fund.

  Rate Collection Agencies
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations took place in respect of the recommendations to close eight regional rate collection agencies and to centralise housing benefit in Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Rate Collection Agency under its chief executive, Mr. D. W. Gallagher. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. W. Gallagher to Mr. Eddie McCrady, dated 6 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Question about consultations in respect of the recommendations to close 8 local Rate Collection offices and to centralise Housing Benefit in Belfast.
  The recommendations were drawn up after widespread consultation within the management tiers of the RCA. The fact that they became public knowledge very quickly after they had been made known more widely to Agency staff precluded any outside consultation. Since the news became public, there have been representations from Members of Parliament, District Council Officers, and members of the public.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much in criminal injuries compensation has been paid to victims of IRA disciplinary procedures in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and 1994 to date.

  Dr. Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Denis Stanley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 6 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your recent Question about criminal injuries compensation in Northern Ireland.
  The Compensation Agency has no way of ascertaining the motives of a victim's assailants until the outcome of any subsequent prosecution is known. As there would have to be a high degree of speculation in respect of the many cases where the assailants are unknown or where no prosecution has taken place, the Agency could not accurately compile the information you seek.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Security Expenditure
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide details of the reduction in expenditure on law, order and protective services from the £56,963,966 outturn for the year 1993–94 to the forecast of £39,709,000 for the year 1994–95.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The forecast figure for 1994–95 of £39,709,000 under law, order and protective services referred only to expenditure on fire services which is borne on the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. The
  165
  outturn figure for 1993–94 was £38,947,000. Expenditure on other law, order and protective services—for example, police and prisons—is borne on the United Kingdom consolidated fund. The outturn figure used in the Northern Ireland financial statement includes prior year fire service cash issues from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund and, incorrectly, cash issues for water and sewerage. The classifications used in the Northern Ireland financial statement are currently under review.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Dr. Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide further details on the difference between his Department's forecast for social security expenditure of £279,751,000 during the year 1993–94 and the official outturn of £1,350,527,594.

  Dr. Sir John Wheeler
  The figures in the question are taken from the Northern Ireland financial statement, which is an abstract based on cash issues from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. There were inconsistencies in the classification of social security and Social Security Agency expenditure in table IV of the statement, and these resulted in the discrepancies referred to. The classifications used are currently under review. The figures for cash issues for social security and Social Security Agency expenditure, taken together, were however correct.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to establish a commission on disability with enforcement powers and the capacity to make compensation payments for disabled people who have been discriminated against; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, 24 November,Official Report, columns 740–44. Detailed proposals will be contained in a policy statement to be published, in addition to a Bill, in the near future. It is the Government's intention that policy and legislation in Northern Ireland will be consistent with that elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Trials
  Mr. Peter Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further progress has been made to reduce delays in coming to trial in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The arrangements we have put in place in recent years to reduce delays are yielding clear benefits, although we must and will continue to seek further ways of attacking the problem.

  I set out on 23 November last year, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Belfast, South, (Rev. Martin Smyth) Official Report, columns 19–20, the results of the first year's operation of the scheme introduced in 1992 to reduce the time defendants spent on custody awaiting trial on indictment for scheduled cases. I also announced a reduction to 11 months in the overall target set by the scheme for cases to move from first remand to arraignment, the formal start of the trial, and its extension to non-scheduled cases tried on indictment.
  166
  I can now report on the scheme's first two years of operation, up to 30 June 1994. Overall, 86 per cent. of defendants in custody awaiting trial in scheduled cases who had reached arraignment had met the overall reduced target of 11 months; and 95 per cent. of such defendants in non-scheduled cases did so. Figures for the average time taken to process scheduled cases show a substantial improvement since the introduction of the scheme. In 1991, the last full year before its introduction, average aggregated time from first remand to arraignment for defendants remanded in custody on scheduled charges was 44 weeks; in the two years ending 30 June 1994, the average for such cases in the scheme was 35 weeks, an improvement of 20 per cent. It is too early yet to present reliable comparative figures for non-scheduled cases.

  I believe that those results are much to the credit of the agencies which have operated the scheme, and we have decided to extend its life until at least the end of June next year.

  The results do, however, also reflect the fact that there are a significant number of cases in Northern Ireland of a particularly complex nature, whose preparation is necessarily prolonged. Nevertheless I believe that it is important to explore all further means by which delay may be averted. My Department, in partnership with others more directly involved in the criminal justice process in Northern Ireland, is therefore investigating ways in which procedures may be further streamlined.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Welsh Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General on what grounds the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with prosecutions for fraud or embezzlement in respect of the Welsh health promotion authority.

  The Attorney-General
  The evidence was insufficient to justify criminal proceedings.

  Extradition
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General on what occasions and for what purposes he has intervened with the Irish Attorney-General about the conduct in respect of the extradition warrant in force in respect of Brendan Smyth.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answers I have given to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 21 November,Official Report, columns 37–38, 25 November, Official Report, columns 388–89 and 28 November, Official Report,column 512.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when British Government Ministers have visited Indonesia since 1979; and on what dates.
  167
  Mr. Goodlad
  Since 1979, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have made the following visits to Indonesia:

  Name

  Date

  Mr. Blaker

  September-October 1979

  Secretary of State

  January 1982

  Mr. Renton

  November 1985

  Secretary of State

  October 1986

  Mr. Renton

  December 1986

  Lord Glenarthur

  September 1987

  Mr. Patten

  November 1987

  Lord Glenarthur

  April 1989

  Lord Brabazon

  June 1990

  Lord Caithness

  April 1991

  Mr. Goodlad

  October 1992

  Secretary of State

  April 1993

  Mr. Goodlad

  April 1994

  No central record is kept in the FCO of overseas travel by Ministers from other Government Departments.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is as follows:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office main building (old public offices, Whitehall)

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  12,973,778

  1992–93

  11,150,596

  1993–94

  12,564,053

  The above figures represent a series of contracts within a rolling programme. This is the first comprehensive restoration and refurbishment of this grade I listed building since 1875. On completion in March 1997 it will provide 25 per cent. more space, allowing leased buildings to be given up, thus reducing future running costs and improving operational efficiency.

  Hanslope Park, Buckinghamshire (i) Building 15 (workshops, technical stores, some offices)

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  137,882

  1992–93

  2,122,575

  1993–94

  322,527

  This facility was originally erected in 1958. The expenditure listed here has been on re-roofing, structural repairs, replacement of all services and re-configuration of internal space.

  (ii) Building 20 (workshops, stores, some offices)

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  77,297

  1992–93

  340,204

  1993–94

  25,852

  168
  This is a grade II 17th century listed building. This expenditure was for re-roofing, structural repairs and replacement of all services. The courtyard has also been roofed over to provide additional internal space.

  Overseas Diplomatic Residences
  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of each overseas diplomatic residence owned by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested will not be available until the systematic valuation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's overseas estate is further advanced. This work, at present being planned, is in preparation for the introduction of revised Government accounting methods—resource accounting—later in the 1990s.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of upkeep of each overseas diplomatic residence owned by Her Majesty's Government in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of renting each overseas diplomatic residence not owned by Her Majesty's Government in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested is not immediately available. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it has been obtained.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the allegations that Vietnamese boat people being returned form Hong Kong to Vietnam in September 1994 were sedated and placed in straitjackets.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To prevent injury to themselves and others, two Vietnamese migrants were sedated and placed in straitjackets before their repatriation from Hong Kong to Vietnam on 22 September 1994. This measure was based on a medical decision, taken after the two migrants had been hospitalised with self-inflicted injuries.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance is issued to entry clearance officers at British overseas posts as to the gross weekly income sufficient for(a) a male spouse sponsor and (b) a female spouse sponsor, each with up to two children, to maintain a spouse applying to join his or her spouse in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Entry clearance officers are not given instructions on the gross weekly income necessary to meet the maintenance requirements of the immigration rules: each case is considered on its individual merits, having regard to the total financial resources available and likely to become available to the parties. These vary considerably from case to case. Entry clearance officers are further guided by the rulings of adjudicators, the tribunal and the higher courts.
  169
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what social security, and other public financial assistance, is deemed public funds by entry clearance officers when considering applications by spouses to enter the United Kingdom for settlement with their spouse; what will be the effect of the Chancellor's Budget statement on the assessment of such public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  In line with the statement of changes in immigration rules laid before the House on 23 May 1994, the following are deemed public funds by entry clearance officers:

  (a) housing under part III of the Housing Act 1985, part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 or part II of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988;

  (b) income support, family credit, council tax benefit and housing benefit under Part VII of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and

  (c) income support, family credit, and housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

  This list was not altered by the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  UN Year of Tolerance
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for Her Majesty's Government to contribute to the United Nations year of tolerance in 1995.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government have no plans at present to engage in specific activity to mark the United Nations year of tolerance in 1995. While we are content that non-governmental organisations should play an active role in the activities of the year, it is not our policy, given heavy demands on public expenditure, to commit scarce resources to the marking of United Nations years dedicated to specific themes.

  Zaire
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what contribution he has given to the UN Secretary General's report concerning security arrangements in the refugee camps in the Kivu region of Zaire; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will give support to the UN Secretary General's proposed security force for the refugee camps in Kivu, Zaire.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The President of the United Nations Security Council issued a statement on 30 November in response to the UN Secretary General's report on the refugee camps. The United Kingdom played a constructive role in the negotiation of that statement, which it fully supports. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the changes in(a) administration and (b) policy in UNESCO since Britain ceased to be a member.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the United Kingdom ceased to be a member in 1985, we have recognised that some welcome changes have taken place both in the organisation's administration and overall policy. This 170
  includes budgetary reform and the carrying out of good work in its programme sectors. But this is not to say that nothing remains to be done. We were, for example, disappointed that little progress was achieved at the recent executive board session in which the board failed to deal adequately with proposals—including one to stop subsistence payments to board members and one relating to the size of board membership—which would lead to a more efficient and cost-effective governing body.

  We are keeping the question of our return to UNESCO closely under review but as of yet have taken no decision.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the United States of America Government, (b) other EU countries and (c) the Secretary-General of UNESCO about the renewal of Britain's membership of UNESCO.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not had any discussions with the United States of America Government, other EU countries or with the Secretary-General of UNESCO about the renewal of Britain's membership of UNESCO. However, my officials, here and in Washington and Paris, are in regular contact with their US counterparts and those in Paris keep in touch with their EU counterparts on a regular basis.

  We are keeping the question of a return to UNESCO under close review. For the moment, however, we have taken no decision.

  Murmansk Naval Base
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when British officials last visited the Murmansk naval base; under what auspices they were present; and from which Government agencies they were drawn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The main naval base in the Murmansk region is in Severomorsk, some 15 km to 20 km from Murmansk. Royal Navy officers visited Severomorsk on 5 June at the invitation of the commander of the Russian northern fleet. On 22 October officers of the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and HM diplomatic service, and 11 British veterans visited Murmansk at the invitation of the regional governor.

  UN Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) of 24 November,Official Report, column 305, if he will make it his policy to raise co-operation with a UN standby force planning team at any meeting of EU Foreign Ministers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom's policy is to encourage all those member states of the United Nations which have been approached by the UN Secretary General to co-operate with his UN standby force planning team. We do not intend to raise this issue at any meeting of EU Foreign Ministers.

  Peacekeeping
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the establishment of peacekeeping skills centres at certain African military staff colleges; which staff colleges are expected to be involved; and if his
  171
  Department will provide financial or personnel resources for this initiative.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary proposed in his speech to the UN General Assembly on 28 September that the international community should, working through the Organisation of African Unity and the UN, set up a structure of support systems running from early warning and preventive diplomacy through to peacekeeping deployments. As part of this framework, he mentioned that regional peacekeeping skills centres might be established in certain locations in Africa. These proposals have been enthusiastically welcomed by the UN and the OAU and by the African countries which we have consulted. We are working with African countries and other troop contributors on detailed proposals for discussion in both organisations. Decisions on the location of any skills centres will depend on the outcome of those discussions.

  International Organisations (Financial Contributions)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's current financial contribution to the United Nations and to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the 1993 calendar year—the most recent figures available—the United Kingdom's172
  financial contribution to the United Nations was £312,116,430. This included both assessed and voluntary contributions.

  The United Kingdom's current financial contribution to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is £1.5 million.

  East Timor
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits to East Timor have been made by diplomatic staff attached to the embassy in Jakarta at any time since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 30 November 1994]: Since 1979, embassy staff in Jakarta have visited East Timor on the following occasions:

  Month

  Year

  October/November

  1980

  December

  1984

  January

  1988

  February; March; October

  1989

  February; September; November

  1991

  April

  1992

  March; May (twice); November

  1993

  January; August; September

  1994

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement a noise control scheme governing aerodromes.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 30 November,Official Report, column 763–4.

  Fishing Vessels (Inspections)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspections have been completed, region by region, since 1 April 1994, in respect of fishing vessels over 12 m; how many vessels have been issued with a valid certificate; and how many are currently outside the three month validation period.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M Bradley to Ms Joan Walley, dated 6 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the inspection and certification of fishing vessels.
  In view of the reference to certification I have assumed that the first part of the Question refers to surveys, rather than inspections, of fishing vessels of 12 metres and over. The attached table shows, by District, the number of vessels of 12 metres and over which completed survey and in respect of which a UK Fishing Vessel Certificate (UKFVC) was issued during the period 1 April to 30 October 1994.
  Turning to the final part of the Question, I am afraid I do not understand the reference to a "three month validation period". If you could clarify the request I would be happy to try to provide the information you seek.

  United Kingdom Registered Fishing Vessels not holding a valid UKFVC (as at 1 November 1994)

  District

  UKFVC expired 0–3 months

  UKFVC expired 3–6 months

  UKFVC expired over 6 months

  Totals

  East of Scotland

  17

  5

  13

  35

  West of Scotland and Northern Ireland

  29

  28

  14

  71

  North West of England and Wales

  6

  7

  11

  24

  North East and East of England

  9

  3

  6

  18

  London

  3

  6

  3

  12

  South and South West of England

  13

  3

  30

  46

  Totals

  77

  52

  77

  206

  174

  UK Fishing Vessel Certificates (UKFVCs) issued between 1 April and 30 October

  District

  UKFVCs issued 1 April 1994–30 November 1994

  East of Scotland

  211

  West of Scotland and Northern Ireland

  85

  North West of England and Wales

  17

  North East and East of England

  53

  London

  13

  South and South West of England

  54

  Totals

  433

  Fishing Vessel Safety Rules
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that copies of the fishing vessel safety rules of 1975 are(a) publicly available and (b) distributed to representatives of the South Western Fish Producers Organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Ms Joan Walley, dated 6 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the public availability of copies of the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975.
  The Rules were published as Statutory Instrument 1975 No. 330. Copies of Statutory Instruments are normally available to the public through HMSO Bookshops but SI 1975 No. 330 is now out-of-print. However, photo-copies of out-of-print Parliamentary, statutory and regulatory publications can be obtained through HMSO Books (Photocopies Section), PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT at a cost £4.70 (inc. VAT) per complete copy required.
  I will arrange for this information to be passed on to the Chief Executive of the South Western Fish Producers Organisation and also to the Fishermen's Federations.

  Northolt Airport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the report of the Adam Smith Institute on Northolt airport; and if he will make a statement about the number of business, civilian and military flights.

  Mr. Norris
  I have taken note of the institute's report, "Plane Common Sense". We are considering responses to the recent consultation paper on increasing business use of RAF Northolt.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the cost involved and the nature of the refurbishments.
  175
  Mr. Norris
  The list of refurbishment works undertaken by my Department is as follows:

  Building and Location

  Nature of Refurbishment

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Test Centre Hayes

  Internal Alteration

  15,000

  —

  —

  Test Centre Barnet

  Major Alteration

  46,500

  —

  —

  DSA Cardington

  New Windows

  42,000

  —

  —

  Test Centre Hither Green

  New Windows and Cladding

  18,000

  —

  —

  Test Centre Barking

  Major Internal Alteration

  —

  23,000

  —

  Test Centre Nottingham

  Major Internal Alteration

  —

  26,000

  —

  Test Centre Saltcoats

  Major Alterations

  —

  —

  20,000

  AAIB Farnborough

  New Windows in Computer Room

  4,113

  —

  —

  AAIB Farnborough

  Update Flight Data Room

  —

  3,550

  —

  MSA Cardiff

  Upgrade Toilets

  —

  24,500

  —

  MSA Newcastle

  Upgrade Security System

  —

  4,000

  —

  MSA Orpington

  Energy efficient lighting

  —

  —

  6,500

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Swansea

  Upgrade 16th Floor

  445,000

  —

  —

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Swansea

  Upgrade F Block and convert to stores

  —

  280,000

  —

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Swansea

  Upgrade Microfilm Library and post facilities

  —

  —

  100,000

  Vehicle Registration Office Gloucester

  Major Internal Alteration

  —

  100,000

  —

  DOT HQ Lambeth Bridge House London

  Office

  14,000

  —

  —

  DOT Eastcote Office Services

  Accommodation Rationalisation

  26,000

  —

  —

  DOT HQ Romney House London

  Record Service Rationalisation

  17,000

  —

  —

  Highways Agency St Christopher House London

  Accommodation Rationalisation

  —

  723,000

  —

  DOT Personnel Unit Westgate House Newcastle

  Accommodation Rationalisation

  —

  12,700

  —

  DOT Personnel Unit County House Bristol

  Accommodation Rationalisation

  —

  22,400

  —

  DOT Personnel Unit 5 Ways House Birmingham

  Accommodation Rationalisation

  —

  40,600

  —

  DOT Personnel Unit Howard St Bedford

  Accommodation Rationalisation

  —

  1,500

  —

  DOT Personnel Unit City House Leeds

  Accommodation Rationalisation

  —

  16,000

  —

  HMCG Ballywater

  Conversion of CRE to garage and training room

  24,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Killough

  Conversion of boathouse to IRT Station

  16.500

  —

  —

  HMCGPortrush

  Conversion of Jackstay House to training room

  6,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Milford Haven

  Replace felted roof with fibre glass

  2,200

  HMCG Swansea

  Alterations to Operations Room

  500

  —

  —

  HMCG Forth

  Operations Room

  25,500

  —

  —

  HMCG Dover

  Operations Room and Office

  50,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Dover

  Security Barrier

  11,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Deal

  Office upgrade

  22,000

  —

  —

  176

  Building and Location

  Nature of Refurbishment

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  HMCG Ventnor IoW

  Renew floor, windows and ceilings

  21,000

  —

  —

  HMCG St Ives Gwennap Head

  Enhance securit

  5,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Penzance

  Change garages to Sector Base

  31,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Brixham

  Upgrade ventilation and domestic facilities

  33,000

  —

  —

  HMCGLooe

  Conversion to include training room

  6,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Porthscatho

  Upgrade to provide domestic facilities

  15,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Highcliffe

  Window replacement

  25,000

  —

  —

  HMCG Benbecula

  Convert garage to training room

  —

  22,000

  —

  HMCG Tarbert Harris

  Convert garage to training room

  —

  16,000

  —

  HMCG Lamlash

  Convert garage to training

  —

  12,000

  —

  HMCG Yarmouth

  New rest area

  —

  6,100

  —

  HMCG Liverpool

  Renew kitchen units and toilet floors

  —

  1,400

  —

  HMCG Liverpool

  Replace windows

  —

  2,000

  —

  HMCG Aberdeen

  Operations Room

  —

  30,000

  —

  HMCG Bawdsey

  Security fence

  —

  5,000

  —

  HMCG Lee on Solent

  Upgrade fire alarm system

  —

  5,000

  —

  HMCG St Mary's Scilly

  Refurbish old tower and domestic facilities

  —

  50,000

  —

  HMCG Falmouth

  Staff rest room and registry facilities

  —

  13,000

  —

  HMCG Highcliffe

  Refurbish training area

  —

  45,000

  —

  HMCG Dover

  Refurbish toilets and mess room

  —

  4,000

  —

  HMCG Dover

  Conference Room

  —

  10,000

  —

  HMCG SAR Flight Solent

  Kitchen, mess and showers

  —

  6,000

  —

  HMCG Thames

  Internal refurbishment

  —

  25,000

  —

  HMCG Oban

  Convert Station Office to Emergency Planning Room

  —

  —

  7,000

  HMCG Tobermory

  Convert CRE storage to training room

  —

  —

  16,000

  HMCG Yarmouth

  Heating and cooling system

  —

  —

  29,400

  HMCG Tyne Tees

  Ceiling and lighting

  —

  —

  13,500

  HMCG Presili

  Enlarge and modernise

  —

  —

  15,000

  HMCG Liverpool

  Convert storeroom to office

  —

  —

  5,000

  HMCG Milford Haven

  Improve acoustics in Operations Room

  —

  —

  5,000

  HMCG South Cumbria

  Replace windows, upgrade kitchen and toilets

  —

  —

  25,000

  HMCG Shetland

  Operations Room

  —

  —

  33,000

  HMCG Forth

  Upgrade ventilation

  —

  —

  10,000

  HMCG Thames

  New windows, fire alarm, toilets and showers

  —

  —

  13,000

  HMCG Thames

  Air-conditioning to Operations Room

  —

  —

  12,000

  HMCG New Romney

  Energy control switching

  —

  —

  2,000

  HMCG Totland IoW

  Toilets and heating

  —

  —

  5,000

  HMCG Lee on Solent

  Shower and conference room

  —

  —

  7,000

  HMCG Littlehampton

  Improve security

  —

  —

  2,000

  HMCG St Austell

  Improve facilities and partitioning

  —

  —

  8,000

  HMCG Brixham

  Provide conference room

  —

  —

  15,000

  HMCG Highcliffe

  Canteen and offices

  —

  —

  50,000

  Vehicle Inspectorate Berkeley House Bristol

  Upgrade security of entrance and reception area

  —

  25,000

  —

  Vehicle Inspectorate Berkeley House Bristol

  Ground floor toilets and disabled facilities

  —

  10,000

  —

  177

  Building and Location

  Nature of Refurbishment

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  TAO Portcullis House Manchester

  Resite and upgrade public counter

  8,925

  —

  —

  TAO Portcullis House Manchester

  Ground floor entrance and foyer

  40,496

  —

  —

  TAO 83 Princess St Edinburgh

  Finance and Admin offices

  32,600

  —

  —

  TAO 83 Princess St Edinburgh

  Entrance, reception, personnel and passenger sections

  18,000

  —

  —

  TAO Caradog House Cardiff

  Typing pool, Finance, Admin and Goods Operators Licensing

  —

  62,363

  —

  TAO Cumberland House Birmingham

  Furniture upgrade

  —

  29,112

  —

  TAO Cumberland House Birmingham

  Furniture upgrade

  —

  69,804

  —

  TAO Hillcrest House Leeds

  Double glazing, new doors, lights and ceiling

  6,024

  —

  —

  TAO Hillcrest House Leeds

  Carpeting and blinds

  6,316

  —

  —

  TAO Hillcrest House Leeds

  Partial interior reconstruction

  4,714

  —

  —

  TAO Hillcrest House Leeds

  Traffic Commissioners, Clerks and Board Rooms

  5,900

  —

  —

  TAO Hillcrest House Leeds

  Court Room, Typing Pool and glazing

  —

  —

  53,660

  Vehicles (Definitions)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a definition of mowing machine as listed in the leaflet INF 27 issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  A mowing machine, not defined in legislation, is considered to be a vehicle designed and constructed purely for cutting grass.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a definition of the terms digging machine, works truck, concessionary trailer and agricultural machines, listed in the leaflet INF 27 issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:"digging machine" is a vehicle designed, constructed and used on public roads, only for digging trenches, or for any kind of excavating or shovelling work.
  "works truck" is a goods vehicle designed for use in private premises and is used on public roads only for carrying goods in the immediate vicinity of premises or the site of road works.
  "concessionary trailer" is an administrative term referring to trailers hauled by showmen's vehicles as opposed to trailers pulled by other heavy good vehicles (HGVs).
  "agricultural machine" is an umbrella tax class for the following:

  locomotive ploughing engines

  tractors

  agricultural tractors

  agricultural engines

  fisherman's tractors

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had with local authority associations to discuss the imposition of vehicle excise duty on local authority vehicles, including mowing machines, gritters and snowploughs.
  178
  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the meetings he has had with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution on the imposition of vehicle excise duty on lifeboat haulage vehicles; and what consideration has been given to the increased financial and administrative burden this will place on the RNLI.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide an estimate of the number of vehicles in each of the new tax classes, special vehicles, special concessionary and emergency vehicles, set out in leaflet INF 27 issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of vehicles in each of the proposed new tax classes is as follows:

  special vehicles class 92,000

  special concessionary 281,000

  emergency vehicles class 39,000

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the extra financial burden on the farming industry as a result of his decision to introduce vehicle taxation for agricultural machines.

  Mr. Norris
  Taxation is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his Budget statement, he announced no change to the rate of duty for agricultural machines, which remains at £35.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of meetings he has had with representatives of the emergency services to discuss the imposition of vehicle excise duty on some emergency vehicles; and what consideration has been given to the increased financial and administrative burden.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Passenger Rolling Stock
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the number of units, class and age of all passenger rolling stock used on(a) Kent coastal lines, (b) the former Network SouthEast south-eastern division and (c) the former Network SouthEast area as a whole in November 1989, November 1991, currently and the expected age profile in November 1995.

  Mr. Watts
  The full set of information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent cost benefit research his Department has carried out for lighting on motorways.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 6 December 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent cost benefit research his Department has carried out for lighting on motorways. As this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I am replying to your question.

  179
  Current policy on motorway and trunk road lighting rests on a statement in 1986 by the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, on which I attach a copy. You will see that the decision whether lighting should be provided is always based on an economic assessment of the costs and benefits throughout the life of the proposed lighting scheme, together with a full assessment of environmental factors. Account is also taken of any significant unquantifiable road safety factors.
  The cost benefit appraisal is similar in form to those conducted for other highway investment proposals, and takes into account the same values, for example on the costs of accidents. No specific research on road lighting appraisal has been undertaken recently, although the effectiveness of road lighting and other measures in reducing accidents is kept under review.

  Vehicle Safety
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the monitoring and preventive measures carried out directly or indirectly by his Department, or other agencies, giving their locations and frequency for the routine safety testing of commercial and heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Norris
  The Vehicle Inspectorate conducts checks on the adequacy of commercial and heavy goods vehicle operators' maintenance arrangements every five years prior to the renewal of licences. Other ad-hoc checks on maintenance are made when the operator seeks a variation to his licence or when a vehicle is prohibited following a roadside spot check and there is evidence of a significant

  Year

  All reported HGV Accidents

  HGVs examined by Vehicle Inspectorate after accidents

  HGVs examined with defects considered likely to have contributed to the accident1

  Percentage of HGVs with likely contributory defects1

  1989

  17,894

  710

  176

  24.7

  1990

  16,524

  707

  154

  21.7

  1991

  15,235

  725

  184

  25.3

  1992

  14,496

  (616)

  111

  18

  —

  725 (109)

  19

  18.2

  1993

  14,416

  565

  123

  14.1

  1 Since late 1992 Vehicle Examiners have been asked to state specifically where in their judgement the defect definitely contributed to or caused the accident.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what co-ordination of policy exists between his Department and the metropolitan and county police authorities for the random roadside checks on heavy goods vehicles for ascertaining their operational safety; and what uniformity of practice obtains in this area.

  Mr. Norris
  All police forces support Vehicle Inspectorate roadside enforcement checks by providing police officers to stop vehicles. At the start of each year, the inspectorate's area managers liaise locally with forces to agree road check programmes. Most police forces also employ specially authorised officers who can prohibit vehicles with defects which render them dangerous. Many of these officers have been trained by the Vehicle Inspectorate and all use the same manual for deciding which defects are prohibitable.

  Smoking
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to reduce tobacco smoking(a) on public transport and (b) in restaurants.
  180
  failure of maintenance. About 60,000 vehicles each year are inspected for roadworthiness as part of these checks.

  Commercial and heavy goods vehicles are tested for roadworthiness each year at the Vehicle Inspectorate's heavy goods vehicles testing stations or at other premises designated for annual testing.

  About 150,000 other roadworthiness enforcement spot checks are carried out on vehicles in service either at the roadside or in the inspectorate's heavy goods vehicle testing stations.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish figures, derived from the Vehicle Inspectorate or elsewhere showing the extent to which vehicle mechanical faults or defects were significant contributory factors in the cause of serious road accidents involving lorries and other heavy goods vehicles in each of the last full five years.

  Mr. Norris
  Data on accidents involving heavy goods vehicles with likely contributory defects were obtained from all Vehicle Inspectorate examinations at the request of the police where a contributory defect was alleged or suspected. The inspectorate's sample is, therefore, biased towards vehicles with defects and includes slight injury and damage only as well as fatal and serious accidents. For comparison purposes, the column "All reported HGV accidents"—data taken from the Department's annual publication, "Road Accidents Great Britain"—also includes slight injury and damage-only accidents.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government continue to support and encourage the voluntary introduction of smoking policies on public transport and in public places, including restaurants. When a suitable opportunity arises, we will also bring in legislation to allow taxi drivers to refuse a passenger who is smoking. The provision of no-smoking areas is becoming more widespread in line with changing public attitudes to smoking and the dangers of passive smoking.

  Dulwich College Toll Road
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutes govern the management of the toll road on the Dulwich college estate; what representations she has received about them; and if she will bring forward proposals to amend them to provide for greater participation by local residents in decisions on the management of the toll road and decisions affecting local residents whose homes are subject to the scheme of management.
  181
  Mr. Norris
  College road, Dulwich, is a private road managed under the royal charter which established the estate in 1619. It is not the responsibility of the Department of Transport or of the local highway authority and I understand that no statutory provisions apply specifically to its management. We have no plans to alter that situation.

  Taxis
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for any deregulation of the taxi trade.

  Mr. Norris
  These matters were covered in the report of the Transport Select Committee on taxis and private hire vehicles. The Government hope to reply to the Select Committee very shortly.

  Shipping (Safety)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents' report following the investigation by Oceaneering Technologies into the wreck of M V Derbyshire.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is considering the chief inspector's submission. His deliberations will include consideration of placing relevant material in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the frequency of inspection of United Kingdom merchant ships by the underwriters.

  Mr. Norris
  The frequency of inspection by underwriters of merchant ships of any flag is a commercial decision for the organisations involved.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to raise the standards of safety on United Kingdom merchant ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We believe that the standards of safety on United Kingdom registered merchant vessels are among the highest in the world. We shall continue to maintain and, where necessary, to raise those standards by national or international action.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions with the European Transport Ministers on the loss of the Estonia and related matters including safety standards of roll-on roll-off ferries.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's statement on the Transport Council, of 30 November Official Report columns 659–60. The Government will play an active role in the development of the detailed initiatives on ferry safety both in the European Community and at the International Maritime Organisation.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Freight
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to ensure that railway wagons running to and from the channel tunnel are not overloaded.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 1 December 1994]: Prime responsibility for this matter rests with the railway operators concerned. The design, construction and
  182
  designated use of wagons assists proper loading. Weighing equipment is provided at the loading points for bulk materials whose density can give rise to loading problems.

  The goods carried on international freight services do not come into this category. Before such services are handed over to the driver, the train is signed off by a railway loads inspector. Drivers can decline to accept the train if they are not satisfied that weights have been properly declared.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to prevent channel tunnel freight trains from exceeding speed limits within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 1 December 1994]: Prime responsibility for this matter rests with the railway operators concerned. The train reporting system shows the time trains pass certain signals, and radar equipment can be deployed if there is a suspicion of speeding. The Railway (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 prohibit an employer from allowing any of his employees to carry out safety critical work unless they are competent and fit. Exceeding vehicle or line speed limits is also a severe disciplinary offence.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Household Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average equivalent household income at April 1994 prices for(a) the poorest 20 per cent. and (b) the richest 20 per cent. from the latest households below average income analysis, before and after housing costs, in 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988–89, 1990–91, 1991–92, according to economic status categories (i) single or couple self-employed, (ii) single, in full-time work, (iii) couple, both in full-time work, (iv) couple, one in full-time, one in part-time work, (v) couple, one in full-time work, one unemployed or not employed, (vi) couple, one or both in part-time work, (vii) single retired pensioner, (viii) couple, both retired pensioners, (ix) single, unemployed or non-employed, (x) couple, both unemployed or non-employed, (xi) three or more adults, all unemployed or not employed and (xii) others.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is provided in the tables. It should be noted that the results do not track the income of individuals over time but compare the average median income for each group in each year shown. Changes in the average for each group over the whole period —1979 to 1991–92—are more reliable than those over shorter periods.

  Care should be taken in the use of these single estimates as some are based on a small number of cases. Estimates which are particularly uncertain are shown in brackets. These are based on a sample of less than 100 benefit units.
  183

  Median equivalised household income of bottom and top quintiles for selected groups (in £'s per week in April 1994 prices)

  1979 Bottom

  1979 Top

  1981 Bottom

  1981 Top

  1987 Bottom

  1987 Top

  Before Housing Costs

  Single or couple self-employed

  3(91)

  3(412)

  92

  414

  89

  522

  Single in full-time work

  143

  328

  140

  348

  163

  462

  Couple both in full-time work

  187

  378

  172

  374

  202

  500

  Couple one in full-time work one in part-time work

  132

  277

  127

  294

  154

  379

  Couple one in full-time work one unemployed or not employed

  113

  272

  108

  285

  121

  346

  Couple one or both in part-time work

  3(72)

  3(243)

  3(63)

  3(260)

  3(88)

  3(335)

  Single retired pensioner

  91

  227

  96

  231

  99

  269

  Couple both retired pensioners

  90

  207

  94

  224

  103

  291

  Single unemployed or non-employed

  79

  213

  85

  226

  89

  242

  Couple both unemployed or non-employed

  3(60)

  3(168)

  3(56)

  3(148)

  3(82)

  3(174)

  Others1

  3(87)

  3(242)

  3(96)

  3(261)

  97

  301

  Three or more adults all unemployed or not employed2

  3(58)

  3(208)

  3(85)

  3(175)

  3(79)

  3(243)

  After Housing Costs

  Single or couple self-employed

  3(75)

  3(358)

  74

  388

  61

  458

  Single in full-time work

  125

  301

  122

  314

  140

  420

  Couple both in full-time work

  158

  324

  149

  328

  172

  430

  Couple one in full-time work one in part-time work

  110

  241

  108

  258

  129

  334

  Couple one in full-time work one unemployed or not employed

  95

  234

  91

  247

  97

  294

  Couple one or both in part-time work

  3(57)

  3(217)

  3(53)

  3(230)

  3(69)

  3(311)

  Single retired pensioner

  83

  213

  86

  222

  88

  276

  Coupled both retired pensioners

  75

  188

  81

  205

  88

  274

  Single unemployed or non-employed

  63

  190

  69

  203

  66

  210

  Couple both unemployed or non-employed

  3(39)

  3(143)

  3(43)

  3(124)

  3(56)

  3(153)

  Others1

  3(75)

  3(217)

  3(76)

  3(239)

  75

  290

  Three or more adults all unemployed or not employed2

  3(39)

  3(145)

  3(68)

  3(157)

  3(57)

  3(160)

  Notes:

  1 This group includes singles in part-time work and some pensioners.

  2 This group is selected on the basis of individuals in such households whereas all others are based on individuals in benefit units.

  3 Bracketed figures are particularly uncertain as they are based on less than 100 samples benefit units. Ninety-five times in 100, the true value will lie within a given range. As an example, for the bottom quintile of single or couple self-employed in 1979 this will be £76 to £100, before housing costs, in April 1994 prices. For the bottom quintile of three or more adults all unemployed or not employed in 1979 the range is £40 to £94, before housing costs, in April 1994 prices.

  Median equivalised household income of bottom and top quintiles for selected groups in (£'s per week in April 1994 prices)

  1988–89 Bottom

  1988–89 Top

  1990–91 Bottom

  1990–91 Top

  1991–92 Bottom

  1991–92 Top

  Before Housing Costs

  Single or couple self-employed

  87

  565

  76

  581

  84

  575

  Single in full-time work

  173

  467

  168

  497

  172

  494

  Couple both in full-time work

  210

  518

  222

  584

  226

  588

  Couple one in full-time work one in part-time work

  162

  396

  161

  409

  162

  433

  Couple one in full-time work one unemployed or not employed

  126

  387

  124

  424

  126

  441

  Couple one or both in part-time work

  3(84)

  3(358)

  3(77)

  3(397)

  3(77)

  3(339)

  Single retired pensioner

  96

  289

  98

  319

  101

  335

  Couple both retired pensioners

  101

  295

  100

  336

  107

  351

  Single unemployed or non-employed

  83

  249

  83

  269

  86

  265

  Couple both unemployed or non-employed

  67

  204

  3(67)

  3(201)

  68

  198

  Others1

  101

  334

  94

  355

  97

  356

  Three or more adults all unemployed or not employed2

  3(78)

  3(210)

  3(73)

  3(172)

  3(74)

  3(179)

  After Housing Costs

  Single or couple self-employed

  56

  494

  41

  511

  50

  510

  Single in full-time work

  150

  424

  144

  454

  147

  455

  Couple both in full-time work

  183

  452

  185

  517

  192

  521

  Couple one in full-time work one in part-time work

  135

  348

  135

  359

  134

  377

  Couple one in full-time work one unemployed or not employed

  103

  337

  96

  371

  99

  381

  Couple one or both in part-time work

  3(70)

  3(324)

  3(43)

  3(370)

  3(50)

  3(313)

  Single retired pensioner

  86

  299

  90

  333

  93

  346

  Couple both retired pensioners

  88

  283

  87

  329

  89

  346

  Single unemployed or non-employed

  57

  229

  60

  242

  56

  240

  Couple both unemployed or non-employed

  51

  172

  3(38)

  3(170)

  34

  169

  Others1

  85

  321

  80

  341

  79

  349

  Three or more adults all unemployed or not employed3

  3(49)

  3(186)

  3(53)

  3(142)

  3(49)

  3(148)

  Notes:

  1 This group includes singles in part-time work and some pensioners.

  2 This group is selected on the basis of individuals in such households whereas all others are based on individuals in benefit units.

  3 Bracketed figures are particularly uncertain as they are based on less than 100 samples benefit units. Ninety-five times in 100, the true value will lie within a given range. As an example, for the bottom quintile of single or couple self-employed in 1979 this will be £76 to £100, before housing costs, in April 1994 prices. For the bottom quintile of three or more adults all unemployed or not employed in 1979 the range is £40 to £94, before housing costs, in April 1994 prices.

  184 185
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average equivalent household income at April 1994 prices for(a) the poorest 20 per cent. and (b) the richest 20 per cent. from the latest households below average income analysis, before and after housing costs, in 1979 and 1991–92 for (i) single, unemployed, no children, (ii) couple both unemployed or not employed, no children, (iii) single, unemployed with child(ren), (iv) couple, unemployed with child(ren), (v) three or more adults, all unemployed or not employed, no children, (vi) three or more adults, unemployed or not employed, with child(ren) and (vii) others with children.

  Median equivalised household income of bottom and top quintiles for selected groups (in £'s per week in April 1994 prices)

  1979

  1979

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Before Housing Costs Bottom

  After Housing Costs Top

  Before Housing Costs Bottom

  After Housing Costs Top

  Bottom

  Top

  Bottom

  Top

  Single, unemployed, no children

  3(75)

  3(204)

  3(56)

  3(188)

  70

  270

  35

  244

  Couple both unemployed or not employed, no children

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  3(71)

  3(277)

  3(40)

  (253)

  Single, unemployed with child(ren)

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Couple unemployed with child(ren)

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  3(66)

  3(134)

  3(34)

  3(111)

  Others with children1

  108

  262

  91

  229

  109

  406

  85

  349

  Three or more adults, all unemployed or not employed, no children2

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  3(69)

  3(191)

  3(32)

  3(160)

  Three or more adults, unemployed or not employed with child(ren)2

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1 This group includes couples with one or more employed/self-employed and singles in employment/self-employment.

  2 This group is selected on the basis of individuals in such households whereas all others are based on individuals in benefit units.

  3 Bracketed figures are particularly uncertain as they are based on less than 100 sample benefit units. Ninety five times in 100, the true value will be within a given range. As an example, for the bottom quintile of single, unemployed, no children in 1979 the range is £56 to £90 before housing costs and £42 to £71 after housing costs, in April 1994 prices.

  4 Denotes that no reliable estimate can be made because sample number of benefit units is too small.

  Approximate number of sample benefit units for each group

  1979

  1991–92

  Single, unemployed, no children

  30

  140

  Couple both unemployed or not employed, no children

  10

  40

  Single, unemployed with child(ren)

  less than 5

  10

  Couple unemployed with child(ren)

  10

  50

  Others with children1

  500

  750

  Three or more adults, all unemployed or not employed, no children2

  20

  70

  Three or more adults, unemployed or not employed with child(ren)2

  less than 5

  10

  1 This group includes couples with one or more employed/self-employed and singles in employment/self-employment.

  2 This group is selected on the basis of individuals in such households whereas all others are based on individuals in benefit units.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables to show, for each Child Support Agency office,(a) what percentage of maintenance assessments are incorrect, (b) how many phone calls are lost, (c) the number of phone calls which fail to get through to the CSA office, (d) the number of complaints received and (e) the number of complaints outstanding.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  186
  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables. It should be noted that the results do not track the income of individuals over time but compare the average, median, income for each group in each year shown. Changes in the average for each group over the whole period—1979 to 1991–92—are more reliable than those over shorter periods.

  Care should be taken in the use of these single estimates as some are based on a small number of cases. Estimates which are particularly uncertain are shown in brackets, these are based on a sample of less than 100 benefit units.

  In some cases, sample numbers are too small to make any estimate. The second table shows the sample numbers for each group.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 6 December 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the performance of the Child Support Agency in relation to maintenance assessments; telephone calls and complaints.
  Monitoring indicates that too many assessments are inaccurate and the Agency is examining closely its checking procedures. Information is not yet available for publication.
  During August and September this year a Central call handling system was introduced throughout the Agency's six Centres. Abandoned calls result when the customer is put on the queuing system but hangs up before getting through. Between 3 September and 30 September 1994 the number of such abandoned calls is as follows:

  Centre

  Calls abandoned

  Belfast

  7,845

  Birkenhead

  1,927

  Dudley

  14,326

  Falkirk

  2,653

  Hastings

  7,826

  Plymouth

  8,723

  National Enquiry Line

  388

  Total

  43,688

  187
  From April 1994 to September 1994, over 9,700 complaints had been received which required a written reply. At the end of September fewer than 3,300 were awaiting a reply. We do not differentiate between complaints about the operations of the Agency and those concerning child support legislation.
  From the beginning of September a new system of data collection was introduced and in the future information will be available broken down by Agency Centre.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the amount of arrears involved under orders made by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 6 December 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the amount of arrears owed to the Child Support Agency.
  As at the end of September 1994, the Agency had arrangements with absent parents to pay child maintenance debt totalling an estimated £22.9 million. An estimated £2 million of the arranged debt was overdue and thus was in arrears.
  In addition, an estimated £266.8 million of child maintenance had been assessed but no agreement to pay had been reached with the absent parent. In such cases the Agency clarifies the amount owed by each individual absent parent, and then contacts them to reach an acceptable agreement to pay the appropriate amount.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Grants and Loans (Refusal)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the refusal rate for community care grants and social fund loans for each of the last five years by region.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is set out in the tables. It is by Benefits Agency territories.

  The main reason that community care grants are refused is because the applicant fails to meet the eligibility criteria.

  Southern Territory

  Type

  Refusal rate per cent.

  1990–91

  Community Care Grants

  61

  Budgeting Loans

  41

  Crisis Loans

  8

  1991–92

  Community Care Grants

  73

  Budgeting Loans

  41

  Crisis Loans

  10

  1992–93

  Community Care Grants

  75

  Budgeting Loans

  39

  Crisis Loans

  13

  1993–94

  Community Care Grants

  75

  Budgeting Loans

  37

  Crisis Loans

  15

  188

  Southern Territory

  Type

  Refusal rate per cent.

  1994 to October

  Community Care Grants

  77

  Budgeting Loans

  37

  Crisis Loans

  19

  Wales and Central Territory

  type

  Refusal rate per cent.

  1990–91

  Community Care Grants

  62

  Budgeting Loans

  39

  Crisis Loans

  7

  1991–92

  Community Care Grants

  74

  Budgeting Loans

  39

  Crisis Loans

  8

  1992–93

  Community Care Grants

  74

  Budgeting Loans

  38

  Crisis Loans

  12

  1993–94

  Community Care Grants

  75

  Budgeting Loans

  38

  Crisis Loans

  21

  1994 to October

  Community Care Grants

  77

  Budgeting Loans

  38

  Crisis Loans

  18

  Scotland and Northern Territory

  Type

  Refusal rate per cent.

  1990–91

  Community Care Grants

  62

  Budgeting Loans

  39

  Crisis Loans

  8

  1991–92

  Community Care Grants

  75

  Budgeting Loans

  42

  Crisis Loans

  12

  1992–93

  Community Care Grants

  75

  Budgeting Loans

  42

  Crisis Loans

  17

  1993–94

  Community Care Grants

  76

  Budgeting Loans

  42

  Crisis Loans

  17

  1994 to October

  Community Care Grants

  77

  Budgeting Loans

  42

  Crisis Loans

  25

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what occasions since 1979 civil servants in his Department have been asked to draft speeches of a constituency nature for use in a Minister's own constituency.

  Mr. Hague
  None. Civil servants may provide briefing of a factual nature for Ministers on these matters relating to their own Departments. In addition, Ministers, in preparing for a constituency speech, can draw on material produced by their Department during the normal course of business.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the amount of cold weather payments for each of the last two years in the United Kingdom and in Wales;

  (2) what locations in Wales are used as a basis for the decision on cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Meteorological Office weather stations used for the cold weather payments scheme in Wales are: Aberporth, Cilfynydd, Mumbles, Rhoose, Trawsfynydd and Valley.

  Some 2.5 million payments were made in the United Kingdom at a cost of nearly £15 million in 1992–93 and 2.1 million payments were made at a cost of nearly £12.4 million in 1993–94. No payments were made in Wales during the last two years.

  Quarry House
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out(a) the initial estimated cost and (b) the final cost of building Quarry house, Leeds.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  When the contract for the construction of Quarry house was awarded, it was estimated that the contract price, plus a contingency for design development, would total around £57 million. The final account agreed with the contractor is £55,361,264.

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list those local authorities which under the Social Security Act 1992 disregard only the statutory minimum first £10 of any war widow's pension or war disablement pension when calculating housing or council tax benefit;

  (2) if he will list those local authorities which under the Social Security Act 1992 disregard (a) up to 25 per cent.(b) 26 per cent. to 50 per cent. (c) 51 per cent. to 75 per cent. and (d) 76 per cent. to 100 per cent. of war widow's pension or war disablement pension when calculating housing or council tax benefit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not currently available in the form requested.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the savings from raising the 190
  housing benefit taper from 65 per cent. to (a) 70 per cent. (b) 75 per cent. and (c) 80 per cent.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is in the table:

  Housing benefit taper Per cent.

  Estimated savings £ millions

  70

  185

  75

  345

  80

  485

  Source:

  Estimates based on the 1990–91–92 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1994–95 benefit levels and prices. Savings rounded to the nearest £5 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  Collective Responsibility
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister how many hon. Members are currently covered by the doctrine of collective responsibility.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  All 108 members of the Government are bound by collective responsibility. The position of parliamentary private secretaries is set out in paragraph 47 of "Questions of Procedure for Minsters", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  President Mubarak of Egypt
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposals put to him by President Mubarak of Egypt relating to the Egyptians working in Libya, the responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103, and the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  President Mubarak made no such proposals.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Budapest summit of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Mohamed A1 Fayed
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister what officials met Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed at 10 Downing street on 3 April 1985 and 7 January 1985; and what were the issues discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Both meetings were with the Prime Minister's private secretary for overseas affairs and discussed meetings the Prime Minister was shortly to have with the Sultan of Brunei.
  191
  The meetings took place on 3 April 1985 and on 7 January 1987, and not as previously stated to the hon. Member.

  Scott Report
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to publish the Scott report before 28 July 1995; and if he has yet formed a decision as to the appropriate price to be charged for the report and its related documents;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that the price of the published Scott report be kept to a minimum.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister stated when he announced the terms of reference for the inquiry, Official Report, 16 November 1992, columns 74–75, Sir Richard Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report. The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  It is too early to comment on the price of the report.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 December 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  Sir P. Cradock

  January 1984

  June 1992

  Professor B. Griffiths

  October 1985

  November 1990

  Mr. G. R. J. Guise

  September 1986

  November 1990

  Mrs. T. Gaisman

  February 1987

  February 1989

  Mr. G. D. Bourne

  March 1988

  December 1989

  Mr. A. J. Dunlop

  June 1988

  November 1990

  Mr. I. Whitehead

  June 1988

  August 1990

  Mr. H. Harris-Hughes

  February 1989

  April 1992

  Mrs. A. Ponsonby

  February 1989

  November 1990

  Mr. R. Harris

  January 1990

  November 1990

  Mrs. S. Hogg

  December 1990

  to date

  Miss B. Wallis

  December 1990

  May 1992

  Mr. N. True

  January 1991

  to date

  Mr. J. Hill

  February 1991

  March 1992

  Mr. R. A. Rosling

  February 1991

  November 1993

  Lord Poole

  May 1992

  July 1994

  Sir R. Braithwaite

  June 1992

  December 1993

  Mr. D. Green

  June 1992

  to date

  Mr. K. Ramsay

  June 1992

  to date

  Miss A. Warburton

  January 1994

  to date

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential.

HEALTH

  Drug Tests
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to compel drug manufacturers to disclose the results of tests on the safety and effectiveness of drugs.
  192
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is required by the United Kingdom licensing authority, which has an overriding obligation to safeguard public health. It is supplied in confidence to the Medicines Control Agency and we have no plans to require companies to make it publicly available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to improve dental health among children.

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has published an oral health strategy for England which sets a number of objectives relating to the further reduction in caries in children. Carrying forward dental health is a matter for health authorities.

  The Department has made available £1 million for oral health education for 1994–95. Thirty-six proposals have been approved. A second tranche is currently being considered.

  Victoria Hospital
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next plans to visit Lichfield to discuss developments at Victoria hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am aware of the excellent work done at the Victoria hospital, Lichfield and of the Premier Health national health service trust's plans for further development of the hospital. I look forward to visiting the hospital in the future.

  General Practitioner Support
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the level of support given by family health service authorities to single-handed general practitioners; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  This year, we have made available £674 million of cash-limited moneys to family health services authorities to support general practitioners, including single-handers in the provision of practice premises, staff and computers. Next year the amount will increase to £710 million, a 2 per cent. real increase.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to compensate those who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have great sympathy for those who may have become infected with hepatitis C from contaminated blood products, but have no plans to make payments to patients who may have been infected with hepatitis C as a result of national health service treatment.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about compensation to those who have been infected with hepatitis C.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to make payments to those who have been infected with hepatitis C.

  Single-sex Wards
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the provision of single-sex wards in hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities and national health service trusts must make their own decisions about the use of single sex-wards, but should ensure that all patients are treated in such a way that their dignity, privacy and religious and cultural beliefs are respected. Under a new standard in the revised and expanded patients charter to be published in the new year, patients can expect to be told in advance if they will be treated in a mixed-sex ward. This will allow them to discuss their worries with the hospital, which will, where possible, take account of their views.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of(a) district health authorities and (b) regional health authorities since March 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  In March 1991, there were 189 district health authorities and 14 regional health authorities. The numbers are now 110 and eight respectively.

  This is part of our programme for achieving more effective health authorities, linking primary and secondary care, streamlining management structures and improving the health of the population.

  Hospital Medicines
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support her Department is giving to the dissemination of information concerning hospital medicines; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Product information for all licensed medicines is available in data sheets produced by the manufacturers and authorised by the licensing authority and in the British National Formulary, which is sent free to all doctors. In addition, there is now a requirement that manufacturers of all newly licensed medicines supply leaflets written for patients, for older medicines leaflets will be phased in over five years unless requested sooner. For licensed medicines used in hospital, leaflets will be supplied by the pharmacy on request.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the future availability of herbal remedies.

  Mr. Sackville
  The position of herbal medicines is safeguarded. The exemption from product licensing requirements for certain herbal medicines under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968 will continue. This applies to existing and new products which fall within the terms of the exemption. The exemptions and public health safeguards under section 56 of the Act also remain.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been waiting for treatment longer than one year in the United Health area of south Humberside.
  194
  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest published data are for March 1994.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding any risk to human health from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of representations on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. There is no scientific evidence that BSE presents a risk to human health.

  Smoking
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent on health education to reduce smoking among those under 16.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1994–95, £1.4 million has been allocated to the Health Education Authority's anti-smoking programme aimed specifically at teenagers. In addition, £12 million has been earmarked for the three-year national health education campaign on smoking. Particular emphasis will be placed on addressing parents, whose smoking habits and attitudes have a vital influence on smoking by their children.

  Schools are required to provide education about the dangers of smoking. They allocate resources accordingly from the funding devolved to them. Expenditure on health education programmes in schools is not available centrally.

  Health authority health promotion units are also involved in local campaigns to dissuade teenagers from smoking; however, detailed information on expenditure on these activities is not available centrally.

  Joint Commissioning Authorities
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had concerning the size of population and geographical area to be covered by joint commissioning authorities.

  Mr. Malone
  We have received a number of representations, including correspondence from my hon. Friend.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had in the last month with doctors, nurses and other health service staff on the next pay round.

  Mr. Malone
  The Health Departments, and organisations representing doctors and dentists, nurses and midwives and staff in professions allied to medicine, have each recently presented evidence to the national health service review bodies about pay in 1995–96. Discussions are continuing in the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council, the professions allied to medicine and related grades of staff—professional and technical A—council and with the British Medical Association about local pay arrangements. Agreements have recently been reached in the Whitley councils for other staff which
  195
  include pay increases for 1994–95 together with an enabling provision for local pay schemes.

  Hospital Statistics
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the total cost of closing Guy's hospital; and what is the estimated annual cost of running both Guy's hospital and St. Thomas's hospital.

  Mr. Malone
  There are no plans to close Guy's hospital. The consultation document "Looking to the Future", issued by Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health commission on 14 November, gives details of the various options and running costs under consideration for developing better health services in south-east London. Copies of the document are available in the Library.

  Copyright
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will summarise the legal advice she has received as to whether the use of the NHS number is protected by Crown copyright; if she will place a copy of that advice in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The new national health service number develops a system that has been in place since the commencement of the NHS. The NHS number system is Crown copyright and, as such, unauthorised use can be pursued in the context of Crown copyright and intellectual property rights in general. This position has been confirmed by departmental solicitors. We do not consider it appropriate to publicise advice received in the manner suggested.

  Private Patient Income
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 84, when she expects to be able to publish information on private patient income for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Private patient income by region for 1993–94 is shown in the table.

  Private patient income

  Area

  1993–94 £000

  Northern

  1,539

  Yorkshire

  447

  Trent

  1,853

  East Anglian

  1,291

  N W Thames

  5,794

  N E Thames

  10,049

  S E Thames

  1,747

  S W Thames

  966

  Wessex

  1,878

  Oxford

  7,113

  South Western

  488

  West Midlands

  3,903

  Mersey

  2

  North Western

  3,710

  SHAs

  25,611

  NHS Trusts

  109,918

  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional, district and the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. Trust Accounts summarisation schedules of National Health Service trusts.

  Note:

  Figures are provisional.

  Management Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for which years since 1980 her Department required NHS authorities to operate with a total management cost of less than 4 per cent.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Community Care
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the different policies adopted by local authority social services departments when levying charges for non-residential community care services.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are not required to inform the Department of their charging policies for non-residential social services. In January 1994, an advice note was sent to all directors of social services about the factors that need to be considered when authorities devise their charging policies, including ensuring that charges are reasonable for the generality of users and that the financial circumstances of individual users are recognised. Copies of the advice note are available in the Library.

  Reciprocal Health Arrangements
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those countries with which the United Kingdom has reciprocal health arrangements; and what plans she has to review the arrangements.

  Mr. Malone
  The United Kingdom has reciprocal health care arrangements with Anguilla, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Channel Islands, Czech Republic, Denmark, Falkland Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Isle of Man, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Montserrat, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, St Helena, Sweden, Turks and Caicos Islands, the republics of the former USSR, excluding Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and Yugoslavia and all its successor states.

  We have no current plans to extend the list to other countries or territories.

  Burnley Health Care NHS Trust
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what payment in lieu of notice or remuneration likely from potential employment was offset against the payment made to the former chief executive of Burnley Health Care NHS trust;

  (2) what assessment she has made of compliance with her Department's guidance and codes of practice in the events surrounding the resignation of the chief executive of Burnley Health Care NHS trust;

  (3) if details of the calculation made on the termination of the contract of the former chief executive of Burnley Health Care NHS trust followed the guidance set out in NHS circular Tel (94)3.

  Mr. Malone
  National health service trusts have full power under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to make payments in connection with the termination of employment of their staff. The severance payment to the former chief executive of Burnley Health Care NHS trust was made in accordance with the terms of her contract, which predated Tel (94)2, the Department's
  197
  guidance on such payments, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what reasons the former chief executive of Burnley Health Care NHS trust gave for her resignation;

  (2) which members of the board of Burnley Health Care NHS trust were consulted by the former chairman on the settlement agreed with the former chief executive on her resignation;

  (3) what consideration was given by Burnley NHS Health Care trust to the renewal of the three-year rolling employment contract of the former chief executive Mrs. Maggie Aikman.

  Mr. Malone
  These are matters for Burnley Health Care national health service trust.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assurances the NHS Executive has received from the former chairman of Burnley Health Care NHS trust that the payment of termination of the contract of the former chief executive was made with regard to probity and value for money, applying the guidance and principles of public accountability; and what response has been given;

  (2) what letters she wrote to the former chairman of Burnley Health Care NHS trust prior to his resignation on his position as chairman; and if she will deposit such letters in the Library.

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote privately to the then chairman of Burnley Health Care national health service trust on 15 and 23 November 1994 asking him to account for his actions. The chairman did not give a substantive reply and resigned.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of the Burnley Health Care national health service trust on termination settlements.

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the trust, which has full power under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to make payments in connection with the termination of employment of its staff.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the regulations concerning advertisements in the European Journal when the NHS puts contracts for operations out to tender; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The regulations concerning advertisements in the European Journal are the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993, SI No. 3228.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Capital expenditure on accommodation excluding furniture by the Department of Health over the last three years totalled £4.4 million in 1991–92, £16.6 million in 1992–93 and £3.7 million in 1993–94. Nearly all this expenditure related to the London accommodation 198
  strategy, by which the Department was able to reduce its accommodation in London from 22 buildings to five. Rationalisation of the London estate has made a major contribution to the annual saving of £13 million in the running costs of the Department's offices.

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about policy changes by large food chains in connection with the conditions they require in accepting milk tokens; what investigations she has made of this matter; what has been the Government's response; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of any such policy changes.

  General Practitioners, London
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are practising in the London implementation zone area at the present time; and how many there were in October 1990.

  Mr. Malone
  The London initiative zone was created in April 1993 and information for October 1990 is therefore not available. The latest available information on the number of general practitioners in LIZ, relating to October 1993, is as shown.

  Number

  Brent and Harrow

  148

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  372

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  188

  Barking and Havering

  74

  Camden and Islington

  219

  City and East London

  362

  Enfield and Haringey

  137

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  103

  Greenwich and Bexley

  121

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  426

  Croydon

  106

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  136

  Total in London Initiative Zone

  2,392

  Cancer
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people contract cancer each year in the United Kingdom; and what is the projection for 2015.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 30 November,Official Report, column 791.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to NHS trusts covering minimum standards in providing cancer and palliative care.

  Mr. Sackville
  A number of current initiatives are resulting in the production of guidelines aimed at improving standards and quality of care across the whole range of health care, including cancer and palliative care.

  Job Losses (Quarry House)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the numbers, by grade, of the job losses announced on 3 November for Quarry house, Leeds.
  199
  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service executive will shed 200 posts, not all of which are in Quarry house, in the period up to 31 March 1997. It is likely that there will be reductions in all grades; detailed work has now begun to identify how reductions can be achieved.

  NHS Research and Development
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the consultative process will begin relating to the proposed programme of research into the health of elderly people which was identified by the NHS central research and development committee as a priority for research under the NHS research and development strategy.

  Mr. Malone
  The central research and development committee advised in April 1993 that a review should be conducted into the needs for research into the health of elderly people. It was stated in "Research for Health" in June 1993, copies of which are available in the Library, that such a review would be deferred pending the Medical Research Council's review into the health of the United Kingdom's elderly people. The report of the Medical Research Council's review will be considered by the central research and development committee in due course.

  Taste and Smell (Loss)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will arrange for research to be undertaken into the circumstances leading to people developing a permanent loss of taste or smell, and the treatment and care they subsequently receive; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Commissioning of research of this kind is a matter primarily for the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Toxic Materials
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information and guidance has been given to local medical authorities in areas where sites are currently being used for experimental work on the use of toxic materials including chloro-cresol as fuels;

  (2) what information and guidance the Government have issued to local medical authorities on the effect on human health of the release of dioxins caused by the burning of toxic materials.

  Mr. Sackville
  Controls are in place to ensure that substances discharged into the atmosphere are at levels that have been demonstrated to have no appreciable health effects. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is responsible for controlling the emission of pollutants from major industrial sources.

  Detailed guidance to health authorities and trusts has been issued by the Department in four circulars, HRG(93)18, HRG(93)24, HRG(93)38 and HRG(93)56, the latter of which was issued jointly by the Department of the Environment. These advise on roles and responsibilities within the national health service, and on sources of advice for health care staff in the event of a chemical incident causing the release of toxic substances. Copies of the circulars will be placed in the Library.

  The national poisons information service is available to provide information to doctors, and, on request, clinical advice, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current yearly cost of maintaining the United Kingdom's nuclear capability.

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated running cost of the three Polaris boats remaining in the Deterrent patrol cycle for 1993–94 was £110,000,000. The average annual operating cost of Trident over its life is expected to be about £200,000,000 at 1993–94 prices.

  RAF Elvington
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to publish a consultation document in respect of the future of RAF Elvington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  There would be no requirement to issue a consultation document to the trade unions in respect of RAF Elvington, as the station is not manned.

  Hercules Fleet
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department will formally respond to the British Aerospace proposal to maintain the present Hercules fleet at a lower cost than at present.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Aerospace proposal has been given careful consideration and is being taken into account in our appraisal of the way forward for the Hercules rolling replacement programme.

  Air Cadets
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to require ministerial approval for any further reductions in excess of the 23 per cent. agreed under "Front Line First" to the air cadet air experience flights budget.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 135.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards the participation of United Kingdom forces as part of the deployment of a peacekeeping mission to Nagorno-Karabakh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The possibility of establishing a multinational Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe peacekeeping mission is being discussed at the CSCE summit in Budapest. Any United Kingdom contribution would be judged against a range of factors including whether a political settlement had been reached and whether a clear mandate existed for the mission. It would also need to be considered in the light of our other military commitments.

  Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards the allocation
  201
  of a specific amount of money from the defence budget specifically for peacekeeping operations.

  Mr. Soames
  The funding of peacekeeping operations is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Royal Marines School of Music
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 452, what is his estimate of additional manpower savings over and above those currently planned that could be made at Portsmouth if the Royal Marines school of music was located elsewhere in respect of (a) general administration, (b) supplies, (c) property management and maintenance, (d) catering and accommodation and (e) other manpower in each year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000; and what percentage of total costs at Portsmouth these represent.

  Mr. Soames
  None. There are no plans to employ extra staff in the large Portsmouth naval concentration as a result of the addition of the small musical training facility proposed at HMS Nelson. Nor would it be possible to make staff savings at Portsmouth if the Royal Marines school of music were not to relocate there, since tasks relating to the musical training facility would form only a small percentage of overall duties.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence below what monetary thresholds the costs associated with the option appraisal for the Royal Marines school of music are considered to be negligible and have therefore been excluded from the financial appraisals attached to his consultative document entitled "Future Location of Royal Marines Musical Training".

  Mr. Soames
  The appraisal aims to include all costs significant enough to affect evaluation or decisions. Generally, we follow the materiality concept defined in the publication "Official Terminology of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants".

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report columns 450–51, what are his wastage assumptions by month and by grade at those units to which military personnel would be reassigned if the Royal Marines school of music were to be relocated to Portsmouth in each year from 1996–97 to 1999–2000.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of personnel who would be affected by our proposal are small in comparison with the overall size of the Royal Marines. Such a change would be subsumed within the overall manpower planning process, and wastage assumptions in the level of detail requested would not therefore be necessary.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 451, what is his estimate of the additional savings in property management costs, both capital and non-capital, that could be made at Portsmouth if the Royal Marines school of music was relocated elsewhere in respect of (a) refurbishment to office accommodation, (b) decorating and refurbishing married quarters or (c) decorating and refurbishing other housing owned by his Department or mess accommodation made available to service personnel in each year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000.

  Mr. Soames
  An estimated £47,000 per annum would be saved at Portsmouth by a decision not to relocate there.202
  No other savings under the headings indicated would be available specifically by virtue of a decision not to relocate. As shown in the investment appraisal, this compares with an estimated cost of approximately £500,000 per annum were the Royal Marines school of music to remain at Deal.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the costed plans for the refurbishment of the detention quarters at Portsmouth.

  Mr. Soames
  A detailed statement of requirement for the facilities proposed for a Royal Marines school of music at HMS Nelson in Portsmouth is being prepared, and will in due course be placed in the Library of the House. Beyond the broad order financial figures already indicated, the precise cost of the relevant alterations and refurbishment will of course ultimately be determined by competitive tenders to undertake the work; these figures would be commercial in confidence.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 622, if he will make a statement on the steps he has taken to confirm (a) the availability of suitably qualified music professors in the Portsmouth area, (b) that the remuneration package assumed will be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate music professors and (c) that the costs of recruitment of music professors and other staff will be negligible.

  Mr. Soames
  Preliminary investigations by the Royal Marines band service show that the recruitment of professors of music under the proposed terms and conditions for a school relocated to Portsmouth would present no difficulties. Portsmouth's relative proximity to London and other fairly large concentrations does not disadvantage it by comparison with Deal. It is confirmed that costs of recruitment are expected to be negligible.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date or dates military personnel would be reassigned to other units if the Royal marines school of music were to be relocated to Portsmouth.

  Mr. Soames
  Detailed planning for the reassignment of personnel will not take place until a decision on the future location of the Royal Marines school of music has been taken. Posting orders would probably be issued some four to six months before the relocation, but dates of specific postings would be decided taking account of a number of factors on which it is not possible to generalise. The overall aim will naturally be to achieve maximum cost-effectiveness in the use of manpower.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the number of full-time equivalent personnel at Portsmouth who would provide the range of services currently provided by the three mobile non-industrials, 10 non-mobile non-industrials and 54 industrials employed at Deal if the Royal Marines school of music were relocated to Portsmouth.

  Mr. Soames
  Apart from the music professors and up to 12 other posts to be created at Portsmouth within the RMSM, all tasks presently performed by other staff at Deal as a stand-alone establishment, will be undertaken without increase to the members of staff already needed to support the Royal Navy in the Portsmouth area.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 452, what is his estimate of the additional

  203
  savings in running costs that could be made at Portsmouth if the Royal Marines school of music was located or relocated elsewhere in respect of (a) heating, (b) lighting and (c) telecommunications in each year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000; and what percentage of total costs at Portsmouth these represent.

  Mr. Soames
  Should the Royal Marines school of music not relocate to Portsmouth and the royal naval detention quarters henceforth remain unoccupied as a result, an annual estimated total of £64,000—covering heating, lighting and telecommunications—would be saved. This is less, however, than the comparable expenditure currently incurred at Deal.

  Royal Naval Detention Quarters
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 451, if he will list for all ongoing and planned refurbishments and new build accommodation projects occurring within a 25 mile radius of the Royal Naval detention quarters in Portsmouth (a) the size of the accommodation to be provided in square metres, (b) the number of people to be located in the accommodation, (c) the estimated costs of the project and (d) the estimated start date of the project.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial Contributions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Britain's annual financial contribution to(a) NATO (b) the Western European Union.

  Mr. Soames
  For financial year 1993–94, the United Kingdom's financial contributions to the NATO military and infrastructure budgets were £69,129,000 and £82,495,000 respectively. The United Kingdom's contributions to the NATO civil budget and the Western European Union's budget are the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Military Training
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries that United Kingdom military personnel have visited or will visit to train military students during 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 1 December 1994]: According to available records, United Kingdom military personnel have visited or will visit the following countries during 1994 to train military students:

  Antigua1

  Bahrain

  Barbados1

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Brunei

  British Virgin Islands

  Columbia

  Dominica1

  Egypt

  Ghana

  Grenada1

  Jordan

  Kenya

  204

  Kuwait

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Mexico

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Oman

  Poland

  Saudia Arabia

  South Africa

  Singapore

  St. Kitts-Nevis1

  St. Lucia1

  St. Vincent1

  Swaziland1

  Trinidad and Tobago1

  United Arab Emirates

  Zimbabwe

  Note:
  1Trained by a team based in Barbados.

  In addition, a Royal Marines team has deployed to Latvia in preparation for training the joint Baltic peacekeeping battalion in the new year.

  This list covers those countries to which short-term training teams have been, or will be sent in 1994, as well as those countries in which we have resident loan service personnel or longer term British military advisory and training teams. A short-term training team also deployed to Puerto Rico to assist US forces in training the combined Caribbean Community and Common Market contingent—comprising detachments from Jamaica, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago—and also contingents from Bangladesh and Guatemala to prepare them for operations with the multinational force in Haiti. In addition, forces on exercise overseas often provide limited training to, or train alongside, the armed forces of the host nation. A central record of such training is not, however, maintained.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will complete his review of Territorial Army units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I announced in July that the new role for the Territorial Army would be to act as a general reserve to the Army. It will remain an integral component of our defence forces on mobilisation, and it is intended to make greater use of volunteers in peacetime. We have now completed our examination of the structure of the TA against this background. This process has involved wide consultation, particularly within the TA itself.

  We have concluded that our operational requirement necessitates some adjustments to the current balance of arms and services within the TA. Accordingly, we intend to increase the number of sub-units in the Royal Armoured Corps from 17 to 22; in the Royal Logistic Corps from 69 to 86; in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers from 13 to 16; and in the Adjutant General's Corps from 10 to 11. We propose to reduce the number of rifle companies in the TA infantry from 109 to 87. We intend to maintain the current effective manpower strength of the Special Air Service TA, although there will be some restructuring to enable manpower to be used more flexibly and efficiently. Army medical services units

  205
  will also be restructured to provide a more flexible capability. In all other arms and services, the number of sub-units will be unaffected.

  In the infantry, we shall concentrate the support weapons platoons of the eight battalions currently so equipped into specialist, two company, fire support battalions. These fire support battalions will be available to support all infantry battalions and will, we believe, improve overall infantry training and operational effectiveness. The four battalions which will take on this role are the 5th Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets; the 3rd Battalion, the Prince of Wales' Own Regiment of Yorkshire; the 1/51st Highland Volunteers; and the 3rd Battalion, the Cheshire Regiment. The 1st and 2nd Battalions, the Wessex Regiment, will merge. The 8th
  206
  Battalion, the Light Infantry, will re-role as a national defence reconnaissance regiment in the Royal Armoured Corps, taking over the current role of the Royal Yeomanry which will become the Army's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence Regiment. The Royal Anglian TA will be reduced from three to two battalions, with elements re-roling to form a new independent transport regiment. All other new sub-units will be newly formed.

  The majority of these changes will be implemented by April 1997 within an overall TA size of 59,000 as previously announced. In the months ahead, we shall be considering the implications of these changes for the existing distribution of TA centres.

  These plans offer the TA a structure consistent with its new role founded firmly on the operational requirement. They will, I believe, be widely welcomed in the TA.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Regent's Park: Maintenance and Development
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the work which has been carried out by the private companies responsible for the maintenance and development of Regent's Park.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, we are satisfied with the work that has been carried out by the private companies responsible for the maintenance of Regent's Park. The Royal Parks Agency was established in April 1993 to manage and police the Royal Parks. Its chief executive retains responsibility for the development of Regent's Park.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that under the new management Regent's Park has been transformed? Not only are the recreational and refreshment facilities greatly improved, not only have very fine new gardens been laid out near the rose gardens, but the magnificent Avenue Gardens which are being built at present will be a tourist attraction in their own right. Is it not time that we paid tribute to the success of this policy instead of continually carping and criticising?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's support. Regent's Park is very successful. There are 9 million visitors to the park each year, and 47 million people visit all nine Royal Parks. As my noble friend said, there have been a number of improvements, including Avenue Gardens. There are also projected improvements for the future: finishing Avenue Gardens, improvements to St. John's Lodge Gardens and the water fowl care centre.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what reductions have been made in the staffing levels in the park since privatisation? Are the Government content with the levels of security which now prevail?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the level of staff provided by the contractors is, of course, a matter for the contractors. The important issue is that they do a good job, which they are doing. The Royal Parks Agency monitors the performance of the respective contractors. As regards policing, currently 172
824
policemen are responsible for the Royal Parks. Twenty-five constables, three sergeants and one inspector are responsible for Regent's Park.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is there any significance in the fact that in his first reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, the noble Viscount repeated verbatim the wording of the Question except that he eliminated the words "and development"? In other words, he implied that the Government were not satisfied with the development work. Was that an oversight, or was it deliberate?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for listening so acutely to the Answer that I gave. He picked up a fine point. I was not aware of that. I stick by both my answers.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister gave some interesting figures about the number of people who use the parks. Can he tell the House how those people are counted?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is indeed a very interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I am not entirely sure how they are counted. The answer is that they are not counted individually, but there are estimates of how many people visit the parks. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.

BR Sleeper Service: Scotland-London
2.40 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston Lord Stodart of Leaston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are giving any advice to the director of passenger rail franchising with regard to ensuring the continuance of the overnight sleeper service between Scotland and London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Secretary of State's objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director issued earlier this year made clear that for the initial letting of franchises the specifications for passenger service requirements should be based on the level of services being provided by BR immediately prior to franchising, taking into account the existence of and justification for seasonal variations in service schedules.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving me the hope that, after I have enjoyed sleepless—I beg your pardon, "sleepfull" nights on the train for the past 40 years, it looks as though the service will continue. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the director has been made aware of the advice given by my noble friend Lord Younger of Prestwick (who is the chairman of Scottish Industry Development) on the very grave effects that any diminution of the sleeper services would have on industry and tourism in Scotland? I also congratulate my noble friend on his

825
Statement made about a week ago that the privatisation of the railways would lead to a better service for everyone.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend was not right the first time with his remark about "sleeplessness". I accept that many noble Lords and many people outside the House value the sleeper services. However, they are subsidised, loss-making services and the franchising director will have a responsibility to examine that in the light of the service which is provided.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give an indication of the average occupancy per night of the service?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that if one works out the figures, it comes to an average of about 64 passengers per train.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the immense burden which has been placed upon the staff of British Rail as a result of bringing forward the privatisation of Railtrack? Is he aware that 14,000 separate franchise agreements have to be negotiated before the privatisation is implemented? Further, is there not a danger that essential services like the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will be overlooked in the immense burden of administration that is now being put on the shoulders of British Rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the changes are necessary and that the new franchised railway will provide great benefits in terms of service and choice to its customers. I believe that the employees of British Rail will wish to participate in the reorganisation and to produce a better service.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister have any anxiety about the welfare of passengers on overnight trains who arrive at unattended stations, often outside towns or in areas of social difficulty?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. I shall look into it to see whether public awareness has been brought to the problem which he suggests exists.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the value of the sleeper services to the local social fabric in Scotland—that is, apart from the areas of industry and tourism mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stodart when he put the Question—is much greater than a simple calculation of their cost might imply? Will he further agree that that is particularly true of the West Highland line?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, those are the very considerations which the franchising director will have to take into account when coming to his judgment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if the Minister continually refers under "franchising" to an
826
improvement in service, if the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, sleeps all night between London and Edinburgh, what improvement in service will he notice?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, he might have further opportunities to sleep during the day.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I understand that there are now only seven sleeper services in Britain: six to Scotland and one to Penzance. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made an important point when he said that there was undoubtedly a fall-out to the community from the sleeper service. Will the Minister consider the possibility of "subsidiarity"—I believe that is the word—and allow ScotRail to make the decision and give it the responsibility for running the Scottish sleeper services? I think then the Minister would receive a most sympathetic hearing.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that the point he raised at the end of his question as regards where responsibility for the sleeper services should lie, whether it is with the West Coast main line or with ScotRail, is currently being considered by the franchising director. Of course, the franchising director will take into account the considerations of social benefits which come from services which are less than commercially used.

European Union: Environmental Legislation
2.47 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that implementation and enforcement of European Union environmental legislation will not be adversely affected by the proposed reorganisation of Directorate General XI (Environment) whereby the responsible unit will cease to report direct to the Director General.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government's concern is to ensure that European legislation is invariably implemented on time and in full in each and every member state and that where appropriate the Commission chases and takes action against any laggards.
How the European Commission chooses to organise itself is a matter for the Commission. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that any change in Directorate General XI is likely to lead to a lessening of effort on enforcement of EC environmental legislation.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. Are the Government aware that over the past 10 years substantial and effective action has been taken to implement and enforce environmental law in the United Kingdom, as well as in other member states, when the responsible unit was under the distinguished leadership of Dr. Ludwig Krämer, reporting directly to the Directorate General? Are the Government as anxious now as they have been hitherto—and I take it from the

827
Minister's reply that they are—to see that the European Union environmental law is enforced, as it has been over past years?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, the proper enforcement of European law has always been one of the United Kingdom's priorities. That applies equally in the specific case of environmental law. The noble Lord referred to the changes in Directorate General XI which, as I have already mentioned, are internal matters for the European Commission. Our concern is to ensure that the Commission acts as it ought to and leaves its internal arrangements to itself.
We believe that while there are problems within the European Commission about political priorities in respect of environmental law, we do not believe that the particular matter to which the noble Lord referred is necessarily a cause of it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—no doubt he is—that the European Commission is so busy organising what goes on within member states that it has no time to organise itself?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand the thrust of the noble Lord's remarks, but I believe that if he compares his comments on this occasion with comments that he has made previously he will accept that the European Commission itself finds plenty of time to think up things which perhaps the noble Lord thinks are unnecessary in member states.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend indicated that the power to do anything by way of implementation is in the hands of the commissioners. Is there any way that the British Government are able to convey to the British commissioners what is likely to be in the interests of this country, or do they act on their own individual responsibility as commissioners? Unless they have the sort of guidance that only a government can know it means that the point of view that ought to be of benefit to this country is not being used to the full.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend knows, when the commissioners take office they take an oath of impartiality. Having said that, in the exercise of their impartial discretion it is of course the case that the British Government keep in touch with the members of the Commission who are British citizens to ensure that the British interest is not overlooked.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that the proposed reorganisation mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will improve the Commission's fairly lamentable record in publication of reports on how members of the Union are meeting EC/EU rules? For instance, the Commission is under a duty to publish regular assessments of member states' compliance with five directives on dangerous substances in water, dealing with mercury, cadmium, lindane, DDT, carbon tetrachloride; and something called penachlorophenol. Is the noble Lord aware that not one report has yet been
828
published? What are Her Majesty's Government going to do to make sure that the Commission is less lax in its procedures?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not repeat in extenso the chemicals to which he referred. In the Commission's report to the Brussels summit in 1993 proposals were brought forward that the dangerous substances in water directive might be amended. We await events from the Commission in that regard.
As the noble Lord pointed out, and as I have already mentioned, there is a series of concerns about the political priority which the Commission has in respect of promoting and bringing forward environmental matters. That was identified in the report of the Institute for European Environmental Policy commissioned by this Government. I assure the noble Lord that at the forthcoming environment council this is one of the matters which the British Government will bring forward vigorously.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister agree that we have one specific and particular interest in the efficient functioning of DGXI; namely, the supervision of the Mediterranean structural funds, which frequently are used to embark on large projects that do great environmental damage? Does the Minister further agree that in this respect we surely need a strong and effective DGXI? Will he please continue to work to ensure that the directorate is strong and forceful in this regard?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows and as, again, I mentioned earlier, it is one of the priorities of the Government that there is proper scrutiny of environmental legislation throughout the whole of the European Union and that it is not confined merely to the area that the noble Lord mentioned. He can rest assured that this is a matter that the Government take very seriously and on which they place priority.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that any implementation and enforcement of European Union environmental legislation is less likely to be affected by any reorganisation within the Commission than by the fact that many countries in the Communities give the responsibility for environmental legislation to the local level of government rather than to the national level of government? I place Germany, Spain and Holland in that category. Is my noble friend further aware that, for instance, in the execution of the two European water directives this country has so far spent more than £9,000 million—most of it, in my view, wasted—and we are unable to find out from the Commission what any other country in the Communities has spent or what they have done about them at all?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the amount of money spent on the water directives is proof positive of the commitment that this Government have to the adherence to European Community law. So far as the matter of enforcement of European legislation in member states is concerned, as is the normal procedure in the matters of the European

829
Community it is for each member state to determine what is the best way in which these decisions are taken and the enforcement procedures can be implemented. The important matter is that European Community law is not something that is à la carte. We cannot in the Community have legal no-go areas. What is of paramount importance is that there are proper enforcement procedures and that they are implemented universally.

Ocean Currents: Data
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are arranging to gather information about ocean currents and winds, which may assist shipping and fisheries, from the odyssey now being made by the fleet of floating toys accidentally spilled at sea in 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, this odyssey may make for a good story, but I am afraid that it does not make for good science. I can assure my noble friend that we do not have to rely on plastic ducks for data. British oceanographers are among the best in the world, and there are already a number of proven ocean current computer models in this country. The World Ocean Circulation Experiment has its international headquarters here, and definitive data from that work will allow the models to be developed further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. While plastic flotsam is not normally to be encouraged, is there not an opportunity to obtain useful information, already achieved by American scientists, as these durable coloured toys pass through the North Polar region and the Atlantic during the next five years? Does my noble friend agree that the traditional concern of the British public for the protection of birds is likely now to be extended to these yellow ducks as they perform this helpful service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that the release of various ducks—I assure my noble friend that it is not only a matter of yellow ducks but of red beavers, blue turtles and green frogs—is of very limited scientific value since, although we know the position of their release, the exact time of their arrival on the sparsely populated beaches in Alaska and the path they take is not known. Further, there are four different types of plastic bath toy—some 30,000 ducks, turtles, beavers and frogs. Since they are of different shapes and
830
therefore have different windage and stability characteristics, again, the data is of limited use. We can obtain such data by other means.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government are too much engaged in playing ducks and drakes in other fields?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that this is an occasion for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to try to score political points, but no doubt he cannot restrain himself.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that today in the conference hall there was a commemoration of the need for plain English speaking? Is he further aware that I have not been able to understand one word of the exchanges on this matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only apologise to my noble friend. I thought that what I was saying was as plain as a pikestaff. I shall take my noble friend to one side afterwards and try to explain in simpler language. The rest of the House, who, I believe, are of equal intelligence to my noble friend, certainly seemed to understand what I was saying.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that we, as sitting ducks, might be very lucky to be struck by a flotilla of yellow ducks, beavers, frogs and so on?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend will have to wait a very, very long time before she sees the sitting ducks, yellow ducks, turtles, beavers or frogs on our own shores. I understand that it will take some five or 10 years for them to work their way through the polar ice. Even then, they might appear on the shores of Scotland or wherever somewhat squashed.

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is drawn from three reports by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The reports are all in the field of private international law; that is to say, the area of our law which enables our courts to deal with cases which contain a foreign element. I am sure that the implementation of the reports will be welcomed by the many noble Lords who support the valuable work that the commissions have done and are doing.
I hope that the Bill will follow the Jellicoe trail to the statute book, blazed during the last Session by the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, I shall move that it be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee. The first use of this procedure for the Law of Property Bill was, I believe, a success. I consider the present Bill

831
to be equally suited to consideration by such a committee because of its uncontroversial and generally technical nature.
The Bill comprises 18 clauses and one schedule and is divided into four parts. Full explanation of the current law and the proposed reforms is to be found in the three reports from which the Bill derives. Notes on clauses are also available in the Printed Paper Office. Part I implements recommendations in the report on Foreign Money Liabilities (Law Commission paper No. 1124) and is based on the draft clause appended to that report. This part extends only to England and Wales. It changes the law regarding the rate of interest payable on judgment debts and arbitral awards in foreign currency. At present, interest on High Court and county court judgments and arbitral awards is prescribed at a fixed rate, currently 8 per cent. This statutory rate, which is altered from time to time, reflects generally the level of interest rates currently prevailing in the United Kingdom. It does not reflect the rate appropriate to any particular foreign currency. Indeed, the statutory rate will often be entirely inappropriate to the foreign currency in question.
Clause 1 makes provision for the High Court and county courts respectively to direct that a sum awarded by a judgment given by the court which is expressed in foreign currency should carry interest at such a rate as the court thinks fit instead of at the statutory rate. Clause 3 makes analogous provision in relation to sums directed to be paid as an award by an arbitrator. Clause 4 makes various consequential amendments to certain enactments which contain provisions dealing with interest on judgment debts.
Part II and the schedule implement recommendations in the joint Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission reports on Polygamous Marriages (Law Commission Report No. 146 and Scottish Law Commission Report No. 96) and derive from the commissions' draft Bill. This part, which extends to England and Wales and Scotland, concerns the validity under English and Scottish law of marriages contracted by those domiciled in England and Wales or Scotland which are in fact monogamous but which have been celebrated abroad under laws that permit polygamy.
Clauses 5 and 7(1) implement the law commissions' main recommendation in this part of the Bill that persons of either sex domiciled in England and Wales or in Scotland should have the legal capacity—provided, of course, there is no other impediment—to enter into a valid marriage outside the United Kingdom which, although celebrated in a form appropriate to polygamous marriages, is not actually polygamous. All marriages validly celebrated in the United Kingdom are necessarily monogamous in character, so there is no need for this proposition to apply to marriages in the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 ensures that that clause only affects the internal law of England and Wales. This means that where, under the rules of English private international law, the relevant law of another country is applied for the purpose of determining the validity of a marriage, those rules will still apply.
832
Clause 6 applies only to England and Wales and ensures that the reforms in Clause 5 should in general apply retrospectively. Subsection (1) extends the rule laid down in Clause 5(1) to marriages celebrated before the date on which this part of the Bill comes into force and deems it always to have applied to such marriages. This has the effect that such marriages are to be regarded as always having been valid. This effect is qualified by various exceptions and savings with the result that the rule in subsection (1) does not apply where either party to a potentially polygamous marriage has remarried or obtained an annulment and does not affect certain property and related rights, such as succession to a dignity or title of honour, which have accrued before the commencement of this part.
Clause 7(2) clarifies the effect in Scots law of a valid potentially polygamous marriage abroad which is at present an area of doubt and uncertainty. Marriages entered into abroad in polygamous form where there is in fact only one husband and wife are to be regarded as effective marriages for all purposes of the law of Scotland so long as they remain in fact monogamous. This provision brings Scots law into line with the present position under English law.
Finally, in this part, Clause 8 provides that the reforms in Part II are not to affect any rule or custom in relation to the marriage of members of the Royal Family. This is in line with the previous enactments in this general area of the law.
Part III of the Bill implements reforms proposed by the two law commissions on Choice of Law in Tort and Delict (Law Commission paper No. 193 and Scottish Law Commission paper No. 129) and also derives from the commissions' draft Bill. These rules relate to any action brought in a part of the United Kingdom in respect of a tort or delict which has a foreign element.
Clause 9 deals with the purpose of the choice of law rules contained in this part. That purpose is to specify the system of law, according to which the rights and liabilities of the parties must be determined, in relation to issues which the courts in this country decide are issues relating to tort or delict, as opposed, for example, to contract or some other basis of liability. This system of law is referred to in this part as "the applicable law". These rules are to take the place of the present common law rules abolished by Clause 10. Other choice of law rules which apply in particular classes of cases, such as torts committed on the high seas (which are governed by the principles of maritime law), are not affected by the Bill.
Clause 11 establishes a new general rule that, when a dispute arises in one part of the United Kingdom out of a tort or delict committed in another part of the United Kingdom or in a foreign country, the country whose law will be used to decide the dispute is that in which the events constituting the tort or delict occur. This general rule should identify the most appropriate applicable law in the majority of cases. It is likely to correspond with the reasonable expectations of the parties involved in the tort or delict. Where significant elements of the events constituting the tort or delict have occurred in different countries, the tort or delict is to be taken to have occurred in the country either where the plaintiff was

833
injured, or where the property was damaged, or, in other cases such as an international conspiracy to commit a tort, where the most significant elements in the sequence of events occurred.
An exception to the general rule is laid down in Clause 12 so as to displace that rule in any case in which it appears to be substantially more appropriate for the applicable law to be the law of another country. Let me emphasise the word "substantially". The exception is not intended to operate every time another applicable law might be more appropriate but only where it would be substantially so.
This seems an appropriate moment in my description of Part III to mention an exception to the rules recommended by the law commissions which the Government have decided not to implement. The law commissions proposed that where conduct constituting a tort or delict takes place in the United Kingdom the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom should apply, irrespective of what law would apply under the new general rules. They sought to justify this exception on the ground that a person who acts in the United Kingdom should not, by the application of a foreign law, be held liable in a United Kingdom court for consequential injury, loss or damage which occurs elsewhere and would not be recoverable under our law.
The Government consider this proposal to be objectionable in that it would reintroduce the nationalistic attitude which the law commissions are otherwise seeking to obviate. Further, it might not in fact protect defendants who act in the United Kingdom. In the context of the European Economic Area plaintiffs may, under the Brussels Convention of 1968 or the Lugano Convention of 1988 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, legitimately bring their proceedings in the country where they suffered the damage instead of in this country, and the courts of the other country might well apply their own law to the case. If the plaintiff is successful, the courts in this country would be obliged under those conventions to enforce the judgment against the defendant here, notwithstanding the terms of the law commissions' proposed exception.
Clause 13 ensures that the reforms in this part do not have retrospective effect. It also saves the effect of various procedural rules, the application of the principles of public policy and certain mandatory domestic rules, which are regarded as so important that, as a matter of construction or policy, they must apply to any action before our courts, even where the issues would otherwise in principle be governed by a foreign law selected by the new choice of law rules. These are important safeguards for defendants against liabilities and remedies under foreign law that for one reason or another it would not be tolerable to enforce here.
Clause 14 removes from the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 and the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 two references to the common law abolished by Clause 10.
834
Part IV of the Bill deals with commencement, extent and Short Title. It also, in Clause 16, modifies the Northern Ireland Act 1974 so as to facilitate the extension of the reforms in Part II to Northern Ireland.
The Bill represents a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform which has attracted the support of the legal profession. I am grateful to the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission for the careful work they have put into the preparation of the reports on which the Bill is based. Accordingly, I invite noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we welcome all three aspects of the Bill. When the noble and learned Lord invited me to say whether or not I considered the Bill suitable for the Jellicoe procedure, I confirmed that I did. I even suggested that its then title, "Private International Law Bill", might give the wrong impression in foreign places. It might be thought that it was a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole of our private international law and therefore intended, for our country, to serve the purpose which Switzerland's Private International Law Act 1987 serves there—an Act running to a mere 200 articles and 154 pages. I suggested the title, the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. In the spirit of co-operativeness which will accompany the passage of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord was good enough to agree. From time to time I have persuaded him to accept amendments that I have moved but never before to alter the title of a Bill. This is plainly the summit of my legislative achievements thus far.
As the noble and learned Lord said, Part I will give the courts welcome flexibility in the case of foreign currency judgments to order, at their discretion, a rate of interest other than the one prescribed under the 1838 Judgments Act. As I understand it, that rate can be fixed or variable in the court's discretion and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that present rates may not reflect commercially appropriate rates in the relevant currency.
Part II ensures the validity of marriages, in fact monogamous though contracted under a law permitting polygamy. Part III abolishes the double actionability rule which provided that where a civil wrong was allegedly committed in a foreign country, it could be sued on here only if it was a civil wrong under our law and also a civil wrong under the law of the country where it was done. The new general rule that the applicable law should be the law of the country where the wrong is committed—subject to sensible qualifications where significant elements of the events constituting the wrong occur in different countries —is welcome. The Bill will bring our law into line with the laws of most other countries.
The Bill is a tribute to the work of the law commissions—of "both" commissions, as the noble and learned Lord said. At the end of September the sad fact was that of 27 Bills published by the law commissions since March 1989 only three had by then reached the statute book. I do not underestimate the difficulties in

835
finding parliamentary time. For far too long non-controversial reports by the law commissions have been gathering dust in Whitehall. I cannot do better than quote my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell who, in your Lordships' House on 2nd November, said:
"Between 1967 (when the Law Commission was established) and 1981, 40 Law Commission reports have been wholly or partly implemented—about half on the initiative of the government of the day and about half on the initiative of private Members in one or other of the Houses. Since 1981 only 33 have been wholly or partly implemented. Moreover, since 1989 there has been what Sir Henry Brooke"—
the present chairman of the English Law Commission—
"has described as a grade one disaster area: only one Bill has been implemented on government initiative since that time. In 1981, 13 reports were awaiting implementation. That figure had doubled to 26 by 1985. The figure now stands at 36 reports and represents the hard work of some of our most talented people—hard work which has borne no fruit of any kind".—[Official Report, 2/11/94; col. 874.]
I desire to take the opportunity of this Second Reading debate to state as clearly as I can the position of my party on law reform. It was the Labour Government of 1964, under its distinguished Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, which set up the two law commissions. It is only possible to keep increasingly complicated and far-reaching law efficient, fair and up to date by making full and effective use of the law commissions. As Sir Henry Brooke recently observed,
"a nation which neglects the ordinary care of its laws is neglecting something which is very important to its national well-being".
The commissions have an impressive record in achieving clarification and reform of the law, but in recent years both have expressed increasing concern at government failure to implement their recommendations. Many much-needed reforms that have been fully reviewed and considered by the commissions remain unimplemented. In many cases the Government have not even troubled to give a public indication of whether they accept or reject the commissions' proposals.
The importance and momentum of law reform must be restored by enhancing the status of the commissions and putting in place arrangements for the implementation of their proposals. What is required is not merely talk about law reform, but the action that has been lacking in recent years. No government, of course, can be bound by the proposals of the commissions or undertake always to implement them. But where government disagree with those independent bodies, democracy demands that the reasons for that disagreement be stated openly and be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. To put law reform back with a high place on the political agenda, basic changes, as a matter of urgency, are essential.
The reports of the two commissions are usually impressive documents with proposals formulated after full consultation with all interested and informed parties. A Labour Government would regard the commissions' reports as the agenda for government response and action and not as an excuse for delay through the government themselves undertaking more consultation. The important public status of the commissions should
836
be reinforced by government accepting an obligation to respond publicly within six months of publication of any commission report, giving full reasons for non-implementation or delay in the implementation of the commissions' proposals.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not the action being called for by the noble Lord still capable of being applied through the normal parliamentary procedures? There is nothing to stop the noble Lord, for example, under the many opportunities that our procedures give, from commenting that something is being neglected or not answered.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, that is an opportunity which can be, and frequently is, availed of. The important point is that government should not leave the reports to gather dust unnoticed in Whitehall, without any statement as to whether they have simply failed to read them or to consider them or whether, on considered grounds, they are opposed to them for whatever reason. I am proposing a more rational approach with an obligation upon government to respond in the interests of democracy. Of course, I support, in the current state of our procedures, the suitability of the Jellicoe procedures for carrying out much needed law reform. The noble and learned Lord is well aware that that is so.
A new obligation of government to respond publicly to Law Commission reports would be important. It could be reinforced by the creation of a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, perhaps along the lines of the Ecclesiastical Committee, with a remit to oversee government action on law reform. The committee would draw on the combined legal expertise in the other place and in this House. The Government's response to law reform reports would be monitored by the committee, and Ministers would give evidence to the committee about that response. That would be an important obligation of government.
Many law reform proposals will be controversial and will need full parliamentary debate. Many others, however, should not require that time-consuming and delaying process. One of the tasks of such a joint committee would be to indicate which recommendations, and which parts of them, are in effect technical, and which raise issues of policy and substance. Active steps should be taken to expedite the implementation of proposals that the joint committee regards as non-controversial and, fortified by the opinion of that committee, all parties in Parliament would be expected to co-operate in the rapid enactment of such proposals. That would leave more time for the full debate of law reform proposals involving issues of greater sensitivity.
There is one further consideration. Although the law commissions would be the main engine of law reform, it is not practicable, or suitable, for the law commissions to undertake all of the work themselves. In recent years too much use has been made of ad hoc committees, or of interdepartmental studies, without reference to the expertise of the law commissions. The position originally envisaged by Lord Gardiner should be restored: the law commissions should once again advise

837
government of the most suitable body to undertake any particular piece of law reform; and where law reform is contemplated by other government agencies the law commissions should give advice on procedures and approach. That should avoid duplication. It should lead to a coherent programme throughout government and ensure that all law reform work, wherever performed, is conducted to a high standard.
I have taken the opportunity to emphasise the major importance my party attaches to law reform and its conviction that it must be pushed significantly higher on the political agenda and that both law commissions must be supported and encouraged by putting the fruits of their labours, so far as possible, on the statute book. Meanwhile, we support the expeditious passage of the Bill.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission are excellent institutions, created, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has just reminded us, almost 30 years ago by Lord Chancellor Gardiner as his great innovation, supported, as I recall, by Home Secretary Jenkins. The law commissions have rightly expressed anxiety recently about the way their work has been consistently neglected by Parliament, an anxiety shared by many other people concerned with the quality of our laws. I endorse what has been said about that just now by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is therefore most welcome that the Government have introduced this Bill to give effect to three of the law commissions' reports in the field of conflict of laws. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, however, I must say that Part III of the Bill is highly controversial, as were some of the law commissions' own recommendations on choice of law in tort and delict. Since most noble Lords are not lawyers, I shall try to explain why in words which even I understand.
Part I of the Bill will allow an English court to order that interest on a judgment given in foreign currency is set at the rate appropriate to that currency. Until now the interest rate has been the same, no matter what currency the judgment was given in. It may come as a surprise to some noble Lords that our courts do not have this power at the moment; but they do not, and it is high time that they did. Part I of the Bill is therefore wholly sensible and entirely uncontroversial.
Part II of the Bill deals with overseas marriages in which one of the parties is domiciled in a country where polygamy is permitted. It makes a limited, sensible proposal. Just because the husband happens to be domiciled in a country where polygamy is permitted, the marriage should not be automatically invalid if the wife is domiciled in England. The present law has developed in a rather unsatisfactory way. If a man from this country wishes to marry a woman from, let us suppose, Pakistan, and goes to Pakistan for the marriage ceremony, the marriage will not be treated as polygamous, and will not be void. But if the roles are reversed, and a British woman goes to Pakistan to marry a man domiciled there, the marriage will be treated as
838
potentially polygamous and will therefore be automatically void. It is an accident that the law has evolved in this way, but the law now discriminates between men and women in a way which is wrong in principle. Of course, if the marriage is actually polygamous, it will not be affected by the Bill. But the limited and principled measure proposed in Part II of the Bill is entirely welcome.
I regret that the same cannot be said in respect of Part III. It proposes to abolish in their entirety the carefully developed common law rules about choice of law in tort and delict cases. One of the most controversial proposals is the removal of the present rule that a plaintiff may succeed in the courts of the United Kingdom only if the conduct complained of would have amounted to a tort under our own law. The version of the Bill drafted by the law commissions did not go as far in this direction as does the present Bill and the law commissions' version provided a better balance of conflicting policy considerations. It is unfortunate that the Government have departed from the law commissions' more balanced proposals.
Some examples may help to illustrate my real concern about Part III. First, let us suppose that a complaint is made against a United Kingdom power generator that its emissions have damaged forests in Norway or that a nuclear power station has injured the livelihood of fishermen in Ireland. Let us suppose that both generators have carried out their operations in scrupulous compliance with UK common law and statute law. Under the law as it stands today, a plaintiff could not recover damages in England because the conduct would not be tortious in England or Scotland. But Clauses 10 and 11 would probably permit them to do so. At present, if proceedings are brought in Norway or Ireland, the judgment may be enforced in the United Kingdom. That is, in my opinion, a more appropriate way of dealing with the problem than to require a court in the United Kingdom simply to apply foreign law to a question like this and to displace our own statutory scheme under which the power generators have lawfully operated.
Next, let us suppose that a British newspaper or broadcaster has published truthful but damaging material about an elected politician or public officer and the publication occurs abroad as well as in this country. At present, if the plaintiff were to attempt to sue in England for libel he would fail, because it is a defence in English libel law for the publisher to prove that what he published was true. But under this Bill the plaintiff will be able to obtain damages or even an injunction in the United Kingdom if in the foreign country where the publication also took place truth would be no defence.
The same applies to the defence of qualified privilege for libel about the way in which someone has discharged, or failed to discharge, his or her public functions. That defence of qualified privilege may well be recognised as part of English common law, as it is in the United States or Australia or India, but it may not be recognised in the plaintiff's country—say, Canada, Malaysia or Singapore. The newspaper or broadcaster will not be able, under Part III of the Bill, to rely on

839
the English defence. A foreign government or a foreign politician will be able to use a more draconian foreign libel law as a sword against the British media.
The law commissions carefully considered this problem and concluded that, where the UK is the country of origin of the defamatory statement, UK law should apply regardless of where the alleged wrong was subsequently published. The law commissions did not support this new exposure of the British media to foreign libel claims in this country which will arise if Part III of the Bill is enacted in its present form.
I believe that there is an important point of principle here. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are vital civil rights and liberties which, as the Law Lords have also made clear in the Spycatcher and Derbyshire cases, are restricted under English law only where necessary in a democratic society in accordance with the common law and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Surely, in this age of global communications, it would be quite wrong for the freedom of the press in this country and elsewhere to be chilled or restricted by applying in English courts the laws of foreign countries which are far more repressive of freedom of expression. I hope that your Lordships will think that there is nothing narrowly nationalistic about my saying so.
There is a third example. Suppose that an auditor acts without proper care and as a result an investor in the company suffers loss. As a matter of English law recently and clearly established by the Law Lords in the Caparo case, there is no liability to such a stranger for what is purely economic loss. By what if the investor lives in and loses money in a country under whose law the auditor would be liable to him? Is it right that such an investor should have a claim which would be denied to an English or a Scottish investor in exactly the same boat?
Fourthly and lastly, there are some foreign torts which sound very strange indeed to English ears, such as "insult" or "infringement of self-esteem". It would be very dangerous to require an English court to give effect to such laws which may differ very greatly from the fundamental values of English and Scots law.
I realise that some may say: if a UK court is prepared to enforce a contract governed by foreign law, why should it be reluctant to give damages for a tort under foreign law? One answer is that all contracts are agreements, and all agreements are much alike. Torts are very different, much more variable, and enshrining disparate national views as to freedoms, duties and the extent of compensation. They need more careful scrutiny than foreign contracts usually do.
Others may point out that Clause 13(3) (a) (i) allows a foreign law to be displaced if it is found to conflict with public policy. But surely it is invidious for a judge to have to find, and to say that he has found, the law of another country to be so objectionable that it offends English or Scottish public policy. Yet there is a danger that this will be more and more often what is required of our judges if the Bill is enacted in this form, and in a manner which protects our civil rights and liberties. I suggest that that is a recipe for a divisive jurisprudence —the very opposite of the aims of a fair
840
and reasonable system for resolving conflicts of law—in which our judges are compelled to find, say, the libel law of Canada, Malaysia or Singapore to conflict with English or Scottish principles of public policy.
I should add that I do not regard Clause 12 as solving the problems to which I have referred. It is too vague to secure reference to English or Scots law in the situations to which I have referred.
I hope I shall be forgiven for having taken so long. I would like to conclude by saying this. Liability in tort raises important issues which go right to the root of civil liberty and civic responsibility. Part III of this Bill proposes making the freedoms and standards of English and Scots law largely irrelevant when the tort occurred wholly or mainly overseas. Even though this matter was examined at some length by the law commissions, it cannot be regarded as uncontroversial, and ought to be given very careful and detailed scrutiny if the new law is not to be much less satisfactory than it is today.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, like both noble Lords who have just spoken, I greatly welcome the fact that this Bill takes up the reports of the Law Commission and implements its recommendations. It is therefore with considerable regret, and indeed embarrassment, that I cannot welcome Part III of the Bill. On that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rather than with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine.
I do not see how it can possibly be said that this is a an uncontroversial part of the Bill. As the noble Lord made clear, it is intensely controversial. The Law Commission itself said in its report, quoting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, at one point, that the choice of law questions raises,
"one of the most vexed questions in the conflict of laws".
The Law Commission took a great number of opinions on it. It sent out a consultative document. It also heard a great number of witnesses, a list of whom appears in its report. It received a number of very differing views, all of which appear very fairly reflected in the Law Commission's report. These will certainly surface again. So one cannot say that this is an uncontroversial Bill within the terminology which has been used until now. Therefore, I must ask the indulgence of the House to give me the opportunity in a few moments to explain why I am opposed to this part of the Bill. The explanations slightly overlap those of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but on rather more general grounds.
First, I take the general point that the subject 'of conflict of laws is essentially one which ought to be left to the judges. It has been developed by the judges over the years and, on the whole, the judges have done a very good job. There are very few cases where injustice has been seen to be done. One does not want this part of the law to be frozen into the lapidary phrases of the Parliamentary draftsmen, however well drafted they may appear to be. It is better to leave it to the judges.
Secondly, perhaps I may take this point. I suggest to your Lordships that statutory intervention in this area, or any area, is only justified if one has certain conditions fulfilled. For example, the first is where the common

841
law has given rise to injustice which it is feared may continue to exist; secondly, where the law is seen to be too complex or uncertain in its application; or, thirdly, where the reform of the law is thought to be necessary for some international reason to bring us into line with an international convention with other countries. But none of those conditions is fulfilled in the present case.
Since 1870 when this rule was enunciated in the case of Phillips v. Eyre 124 years ago, there has been only one case which has resulted in injustice. That was a Scottish case with very particular circumstances which would certainly not be applied in England or in Wales and very doubtfully followed in Scotland. Therefore, the case of injustice simply does not exist.
The law is not either uncertain or complex any more than follows from the infinite variety of cases which may have to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave some instances of the very great variety of cases which may happen. When one considers that there are 175 countries in the world with different nationalities, and the numbers are multiplied, one can see the number of varied cases against the hundreds of thousands of cases which may occur. You cannot cater for them all in a few phrases.
Thirdly—this is rather an interesting point—the origin of the Law Commission's report, and why it was called upon to report, was that it was hoped at that time (in the early 1980s) that there would be an international convention dealing with all sorts of obligations generally. That convention came into existence in relation to contracts. As your Lordships know, a convention was concluded and brought before this House not so many years ago. Legislation was duly and properly enacted to give effect to that international convention, but there is no such convention in relation to torts. The project for a convention has been abandoned, so there is no case whatever for saying that we need this Bill to bring us into line with some international convention.
So, in my respectful submission, the three classic reasons for legislation do not exist here. That brings me to the substance of this Bill, to Part III. Let us remember that we are talking about double actionability. You must have actionability under the law of the place in which you are suing and under the law, if you can identify it, where the wrong took place. I now make the proposition that, as the law has been perfectly well adjusted by the judges, it is not in need of any further reform.
I shall have to explain that, I am afraid, in relation to two reported cases, but I shall do it as simply as I can. It could have been said before 1969 that the rule about double actionability was too rigid. It was stated in a very rigid form in Dicey's Conflict of Laws with no exceptions and no modifications. Then in 1969 we had the case of Boys v. Chaplin. That case involved two British servicemen who were serving in Malta where they had a road accident. An action to recover damages was brought in this country. The question was: could you award the damages in accordance with English law, taking account of pain and suffering, or were you limited to Maltese law, which gave only about £50?
842
That case came to this House and was decided by the appellate committee, which decided that it was a case where one should not be limited by the rule and that a flexible approach should be applied. It was decided that British law could be applied to the issue of damages. Certainly there were a number of rather ambiguous speeches which were long and difficult to comprehend, but in the end it was decided, almost by process of Darwinian selection. One of the speeches came to be accepted generally by the textbooks and judges and can be said to be a fair description of the law so far as it went.
The Law Commission knew of the decision at the time. It referred to it in its report, stating that it was very good so far as it went but that it did not go far enough, leaving a number of points undecided. I would respect that view entirely if the situation had been left there, but it was not.
Let us see what happened in July 1994—only five months ago. The case of the Red Sea Insurance Company Limited v. Bouygues SA—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly —and 33 others was decided by the Privy Council. The case was brought in Hong Kong and related entirely to matters arising in Saudi Arabia to do with the University of Riyadh. Everything arose in Saudi Arabia, except the fact that the action was brought in Hong Kong. Action could not be brought in Hong Kong but could be brought under the law of Saudi Arabia. But the judicial committee of the Privy Council decided that it was a case in which the full and unequivocal terms of the rule could not be applied and although it was not actionable in Hong Kong, it could nevertheless be dealt with in Hong Kong under the law of Saudi Arabia.
A magnificent judgment was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn—I am sorry that he is not in his place —and by four other Law Lords sitting with him—not retired Law Lords, I may say, but full-blown Law Lords. That judgment has swept away the whole of the law of the first part of Phillips v. Eyre. The common law rule has gone. The Law Lords said that there is complete liberty, where there is a proper case, to decide according to the law of the place where the tort took place. They did so in that case.
So, Clause 10 which sweeps away the common law rule, has nothing to do with the rule that is being swept away. There is a perfect opportunity for judges to decide these cases in accordance with the law of the place where the tort occurred or any other relevant place. They can decide the whole of the case in accordance with that law, not just one particular issue.
It is worth adding that the judgment referred fully to the Law Commission's report and quoted from it. It said that it was quite right to require further flexibility. It decided to give effect to that flexibility by judicial decision. In effect, therefore, the important aspects of the Law Commission's report have been carried out. It may be said that the decision is uncertain, that it does not cover every case, and that how far it does and does not go still remains to be decided. Of course, it does not cover every case. No judicial decision ever covers every case—nor is it desirable that it should—but nor does the Bill. The Bill contains all sorts of general expressions

843
about "substantial connection" and "relevant circumstances". Obviously, such questions have to be left open. However, the decision completely frees the court from the shackles of the old rule, to sweep away which was the main purpose of the Bill.
Finally, it is worth adding quite unofficially but, I believe, firmly, that the editors of Dicey's Conflict of Laws are satisfied with the decision and think that the new rule can be perfectly well stated so as to give effect to it. On that point, I respectfully suggest to the Government and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that they should consider whether it is wise to proceed with Part III of this controversial Bill, which will give rise to any number of disputes, whether it reaches a Special Public Bill Committee or is dealt with on the Floor of the House. Is it wise to freeze in statutory language a result which the courts have already achieved? We do not need it for an international convention. We do not need the law further to be clarified. Admittedly, this is flexible and leaves many doors open, but the Bill rightly does that also. It leaves open many doors and refers to "significant elements" and all the "circumstances". So, why not leave these matters to the judges?
I have two short points to make in conclusion. First, it is correct that Part III deals with matters other than the direct question of double actionability. That is quite true, but on the other hand it is the double actionability point that is central, as the Law Commission said, to the whole of that suggestion. On most of the other points, the Law Commission has either left the position open or has said, "Let's leave it to the judges". Once you have dealt with the double actionability point, as I suggest the judges have, there is no real case for law reform in this area.
Secondly, assuming that there is a case for statutory intervention, the question that we must ask is: Has the Bill got it right? I do not want to argue that point now—certainly not when there are more fascinating subjects to follow—but suffice it to say that there are a number of considerably difficult points in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, this is not an easy subject. It is not uncontroversial. It is going to take a very great deal of time if we are going to sort it out. As the Law Commission said, quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, choice of law questions raises,
"one of the most vexed questions in the conflict of laws".
Although I welcome Parts I and II of the Bill, I most earnestly suggest to the Government that it might be wiser to leave the matter where it has now been brought with the 1994 decision and to leave this to the judges rather than take up a very great deal of Committee time, as would be the case if we were to go through the Bill to try to bring it into statutory form.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like to make two preliminary points about the treatment of Bills which emanate from the law commissions. The first, which has already been touched upon, is the delay in turning them into legislation. This Bill is the product of three reports from the English Law Commission and two reports from the Scottish Law Commission. Those reports were
844
published in 1983, 1985 and 1990. Each report was itself the result of a lengthy consultation process. The English Law Commission has justifiably commented upon the problem of delay in implementation in at least its last two annual reports.
It is characteristic of Law Commission proposals that they are researched and argued thoroughly and that they are generally uncontroversial. The reports typically come complete with draft Bills annexed to them, and when eventually introduced such Bills usually take up little parliamentary time. Thus, Law Commission Bills may not need any particular fast track or special track through Parliament but rather a faster track to the parliamentary starting gate.
The consequences of delay are various. Two consequences have struck me. First, the reports and draft Bills themselves are overtaken by other developments in the law, sometimes, but not always, small and unforeseen developments. Secondly, there is created a degree of uncertainty in the minds of the public and the legal profession who read the law commissions' proposals and assume—and indeed are entitled to assume—that change will follow within a reasonable time, and are entitled to organise themselves accordingly. Likewise, after a lengthy delay they are perhaps entitled to assume that, after all, the proposed changes will not take place. I hope that the Bill's introduction marks the beginning of an endeavour to clear up some of the backlog.
The second point is more technical. For some time of course it has been possible for the courts to look at Law Commission reports and draft Bills as an aid to statutory interpretation. It is now also possible for the courts to be referred to parliamentary debates in certain circumstances for the same purposes. With that development, the courts can focus on the reality of what Parliament intended if there is an ambiguity or obscurity apparent on the face of the Act.
However, more often than not, the lawyer who trawls through the Hansard reports finds that in the debates there was little or no reference or guidance to the intention behind the use of the word or phrase which concerns him or her. In the case of legislation being debated which uses the same wording as a Law Commission Bill, the absence of parliamentary comment is generally not surprising. What can be perplexing—I am speaking with experience of a case which is presently sub judice—is the absence of an explanation to Parliament when there are significant, or possibly significant, differences between the Law Commission's draft Bill and the Bill as introduced to Parliament.
If there are such differences, it would add to the effectiveness of the parliamentary process, as well as helping the courts in their interpretation of the enactment at a later date, if the existence of, and general nature and reason for, such differences could at some stage be mentioned, if only in the explanatory memorandum which we have as part of the printed Bills introduced into this House.
What may or may not be an example of what I am referring to is in Part I of the Bill. Paragraph 4.12 of the relevant Law Commission report and the draft Bill

845
annexed to it proposed a power to order a variable rate of interest. In the Bill today there is no such express power, and the word "rate" appears in the singular. I suspect the reason is that the Acts of 1838 and 1970 allow for a single rate only and there is no reason to treat judgment debts which are not in sterling any differently.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, indicated his understanding that a variable rate could be ordered. It may therefore be that there is some other simple explanation for the difference which I am too stupid to have grasped, but it may also be that in such a situation in years to come the courts will have to speculate as to why the draftsman of the Bill, and Parliament in enacting it, departed from the words in the Law Commission Bill.
Likewise, in respect of Part II of the Bill, there are certain differences of wording. I think that I understand the reasoning behind those changes, but I may seek to probe further in Committee. In any event, the law commissions are to be congratulated on tackling the law concerning the validity of potentially polygamous marriages in the way that they have, following the difficulties thrown up by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Hussain. Even for those who have to consider that area of law frequently, it is sometimes complex and confusing. Accordingly, the sensible proposal in the Bill to treat potentially polygamous marriages as monogamous is welcome. It is to be hoped that it will remove any disadvantages in terms of matrimonial relief, the right to remarry, rights of succession and the right to social security.
I believe that Clause 6 deals with the various particular consequences of the proposed change. I do not believe that Clause 8(1) can be read as suggesting that polygamy is an option available to the Royal Family, merely that whatever other problems the Royal Family may have to trouble them, potential polygamy is not one of them.
So far as concerns Part III of the Bill, I had thought that the proposals were uncontroversial, removing the double hurdle placed in the way of intending plaintiffs by case law both in England and Scotland. Successive works on the conflict of laws by the late Dr. Morris have cited the condemnation of the first branch of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre by Professor Lorenzen who wrote over 60 years ago:
"English law manifests an illiberal attitude which does not obtain elsewhere except in China and Japan".
Having recently read the trenchant criticism of the Law Commission's proposals in the Law Quarterly Review of 1991, which has been echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and having heard my noble friend Lord Lester on Part III of the Bill in so far as it departs from the Law Commission's Bill, I know that I am now in waters too deep for me to make any useful contribution on that aspect of the Bill beyond asking for certainty for those of us who may have to dip our toes in only occasionally.
3.57 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that I can safely be grateful for the extent of the welcome the Bill
846
has been given, notwithstanding the reservations expressed in respect of part of it. I am anxious to bring to the statute book, as soon as I can, those recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission which appear to be generally accepted.
Before I speak about one or two matters of detail, I have to remind your Lordships that, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, the only ultimate way of giving effect to Law Commission work is by statutory provision. It is true that the analysis of existing law which the Law Commission provides in its working papers and its final reports can of itself be useful: I have found those analyses useful from time to time while sitting judicially. But the ultimate proposal of the Law Commission is for a Bill, and therefore it is by statutory intervention only that the proposal can be given effect to.
It is a consequence of what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce said, that, so far as concerns private international law at least, it would be difficult for the Law Commission to operate because it is bound to innovate ultimately—if it is to innovate effectively—by statutory means. I hope that we shall be able to have a number of these Bills. As your Lordships know, the gracious Speech indicated the promotion of law reform measures. I hope that that will occur.
One of the difficulties of law reform is that it is sometimes hard to obtain the necessary measure of agreement. In that connection, I refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. In a sense law reform embraces all changes in law. Those are proposed by the Government on the basis that they are reforms. However, here we are dealing with law reform which flows primarily from the law commissions, although from time to time other bodies may produce proposals which fall properly within that category.
I wish to comment on some of the special issues that have been mentioned, but perhaps full discussion is best left to the Committee stage. The Law Commission formulated its proposals, which are incorporated substantially in Part III of the Bill, against the background of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre and Boys v. Chaplin, as referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. The latter case contains a distinguished account of the law as it then stood. The law was developed in the Privy Council in the Red Sea Insurance case. I believe that, technically speaking, the decisions of the Privy Council, while a persuasive authority here, are not part of the law of this country. I have come across at least one case in which the House of Lords in this jurisdiction did not follow closely a parallel case in the Privy Council in relation to the effect of duress in the criminal law.
It is fair to say that in the Red Sea Insurance case the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expressed difficulty in knowing to what extent exceptions were to be permitted to the law of double actionability. Therefore, I believe that the Law Commission's proposal that that rule should be abolished is wise. I say that with all due respect to the great learning and

847
experience in this area of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. Obviously, the matter must be discussed further and I shall reflect on all that he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, claimed a larger effect for the proposal of the Law Commission than it had. I understand the proposal to be that where the conduct constituting tort or delict took place in the United Kingdom the law pertaining to that part of the United Kingdom should apply. I do not believe that that proposal will in all cases have the effect that the noble Lord suggests. However, the difficulty is that if that is a good rule for England, Wales and Scotland, it is hard to see why it is not a good rule for everyone else. If that is right the whole system is undermined. The criticisms levelled at the Law Commission's proposal—that it is nationalistic in character and undermines the commission's own proposals—has a good deal of substance. As has been pointed out, there are public policy provisions and, as I indicated in my opening speech, the possibility of enforcement by reference to the convention laws of this country.
My submission to your Lordships is that these matters are technical. They involve controversy which is not party political but technical, and a good deal can be said on both sides. However, I hope that whatever is said will not be at such length as to destroy the possibility of this route for this type of reform. Those of your Lordships who are interested in having the Law Commission's reports brought forward and implemented—I know that that is true of your Lordships as a whole—will agree that the proposals of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, which we are now using, are most important. Consistent with the proper consideration of these matters, I should not like anything to happen that would undermine the utility of that proposal for dealing with questions of this kind. I suggest that these are questions of a technical kind which are appropriate for the special committee, as I mentioned earlier. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading I propose to move that it be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, given the nature of the debate to which we have all listened with great interest; given the noble and learned Lord's reminders that the Jellicoe Report referred to uncontentious Law Commission Bills being suited to the new procedure; and given that the most recent view of the committee of your Lordships' House was that such a step should be taken only in relation to a few Bills of a technical nature and largely devoid of party political controversy—and I accept that the controversy that has arisen is not party political—does the noble and learned Lord believe that in the light of the major matters that have been debated
848
on Second Reading today if we take the step proposed by him we shall be stretching the previous decisions of your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think not. The nature of the controversy is of a party political kind which goes beyond the type of consideration raised here. I accept that these questions are important but they are of a technical kind and I suspect that not all Members of your Lordships' House will feel inclined fully to participate in a debate on them. I may be wrong—there may be a tremendous desire to participate in the debates—but I think not. I believe that in order to make progress this is the only way open.
I suggest that my Motion that the Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee is wise. The matters can then be discussed and perhaps when the Bill returns to your Lordships' House they will have been settled. I must then consider carefully what to do in the light of my general anxiety, as far as is possible and practicable, to get reformed law on the statute book. I move the Motion in the belief that it is wise and suitable if we are to be able satisfactorily to implement proposals of this kind.
On Question, Bill committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.

BBC: White Paper
4.10 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the future of the BBC (Cm 2621).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on 6th July the Government published their White Paper on the future of the BBC. In drawing up the proposals in that White Paper we have taken account of the results of a consultation exercise, following the publication of a Green Paper in November 1992. We have also had the benefit of a report on this subject by the National Heritage Select Committee in another place.
The main proposal in the White Paper is that the BBC should continue as this country's main public service broadcaster. That should remain its primary role, and it should be spelled out in its new Royal Charter.
The White Paper identifies a number of objectives for the BBC's public services. Those include providing programmes of information, education and entertainment; giving priority to the interests of the public, and being open and responsive to their views; providing diversity and choice in its services; and enriching the cultural heritage of this country through support for the arts. We have proposed that those obligations on the BBC's public services should be stated more clearly and explicitly in the BBC's new Royal Charter and Agreement.
The White Paper also proposed that the BBC should take steps to exploit the commercial opportunities represented by its experience and reputation around the world, in partnership with the private sector, and that it should develop into an international multi-media enterprise.
I believe that it is fair to say that the White Paper received a good measure of support on all sides of this House, in another place, and in the country at large. The Government invited views on the White Paper by 31st October. By the end of November, some 109 members of the public and 93 organisations had sent in their comments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has today placed a list in the Libraries of both Houses of organisations responding to the White Paper. The vast majority of responses that we have received have welcomed the continuation of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. There has also been broad support for our proposals for the BBC's commercial activities.
There have, of course, been concerns raised about certain aspects of the White Paper. The Government welcome all the comments received and we will take those into account very carefully before reaching final decisions.
I would in particular like to thank the multi-party broadcasting group of this House, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, for its considered response to the White Paper, and would like to spend a little time addressing its main anxieties. Your Lordships were mainly concerned to ensure the accountability of the BBC to Parliament and to the public. The Government share those concerns, and the White Paper makes a number of proposals to achieve that.
We have proposed that there should be clearer objectives for the BBC's programmes and services and that the basic obligations on programme standards, including the obligation of due impartiality, should be stated clearly in the new Agreement between the Government and the BBC.
The BBC should publish a statement of promises to its audiences, which should include undertakings on programme standards. The BBC should also consult audiences on its services, and publish information about its performance against its objectives and promises.
I know that the multi-party group is concerned about who will ensure that the BBC meets all its obligations. The White Paper makes it clear that this is the primary responsibility of the BBC's board of governors. The board's role is not to manage the BBC, but to represent the interests of the BBC's audiences and the general public. The Government do not favour interposing a separate, outside regulatory body between the BBC and its audiences. That would undermine the close, direct links with audiences which we see as essential if the BBC is to fulfil its duties as a public service broadcaster.
The BBC's position is significantly different from other broadcasters in this country. The BBC is a public body, established solely to serve the public. It has no other object. By contrast, the commercial broadcasters are primarily motivated by the requirement to make a return for their shareholders, subject of course to their licence conditions.
The BBC's governors are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, on the advice of the Prime Minister. They carry out the regulatory functions which in the
850
independent sector are borne by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. If they do not fulfil their duties, they can be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has raised an important point, in his amendment to the Motion before the House, concerning the obligation of impartiality. I can say straight away that the Government accept without reservation the noble Lord's point that the concept of impartiality is too important to be left to a reference in the annex to the BBC's current Licence and Agreement. The White Paper itself acknowledges that in agreeing with the purpose of the recommendation to that effect in the report by the Select Committee in another place.
The Government propose that the BBC should be subject to a specific obligation to observe due impartiality in dealing with controversial issues. That obligation will be expressed in the same terms as that which applies to independent broadcasters. We have considered very carefully how that should be framed, and where we should include it in order to ensure that it is effective and enforceable.
It may help the House if I briefly outline the purpose of each of the main documents which will replace the current Charter, Licence and Agreement. First, there will be a new Royal Charter. That will establish the BBC as a public corporation and will set out its constitution and give it its powers. It is, broadly speaking, an instrument of enablement.
Secondly, there will be the Agreement. As I said, that will be a binding legal contract between the Secretary of State and the BBC. It will set out the BBC's obligations and undertakings for the programmes and services which it broadcasts, and for its other activities. Those will include all the current undertakings which are currently found in the annex to the present Licence and Agreement. The annex itself will disappear. The new Agreement will therefore be, broadly, an instrument of control.
The third document which will be required will be a Licence for the BBC to transmit its television and radio signals. That is a licence dealing with technical matters only, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the Telecommunications Act. It will be issued on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, as for other broadcasters. The new Licence will replace the technical parts of the current Licence and Agreement. That will allow the new Agreement to concentrate on programme obligations, rather than technical matters.
Returning to the question of impartiality, we have considered very carefully which of the governing instruments would be the right place for an obligation of this sort in order to ensure that it is effective and enforceable. We have concluded that the reference should be placed in the Agreement. That provides the most effective guarantees. It will mean that the obligation extends explicitly to every programme in each of the BBC's services.
After the recent Question in your Lordships' House, I considered very carefully the alternative approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, of placing the reference in the Royal Charter. However, that would not provide such an effective safeguard. The Charter

851
does not cover specific programme requirements or set controls. It is, as I said, an instrument of enablement, not of control, as is the Agreement.
We could not therefore easily frame a requirement to go into the Charter in the firm and explicit terms that we envisage putting in the Agreement. The Charter and the Agreement have equal weight in law, but do different things. In the case of the obligation on impartiality, the Agreement is the right document for such a reference.
As I said, I accept without reservation the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The Government will place a specific obligation on the BBC to observe due impartiality, and that will be included in the body of the new Agreement, which replaces the current Licence and Agreement.
On the same question, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has previously raised the position regarding the role that this House will play in considering the new documents which will regulate the BBC's activities for a further 10 years. I shall try to explain the position clearly to your Lordships. The Royal Charter is issued under the Royal Prerogative. It is not, therefore, subject to the approval of either House. However, we intend that it should be debated in both Houses.
The Agreement will be a contract between the Secretary of State and the BBC. Because it deals in part with communications overseas—and only for that specific reason —it will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons, under Standing Order 55. Your Lordships' House has no equivalent standing order.
The technical Licence, setting the rules for the transmission of the BBC's radio and television signals, will be issued on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade. In common with the technical licences for all other broadcasters, there is no parliamentary process.
As I said, the Government intend, with the agreement of the usual channels, to provide your Lordships with an opportunity to debate both the Royal Charter and the Agreement before either document comes into force.
We have welcomed the responses which we have received to the White Paper and will take them carefully into account. I also look forward to hearing the views that will be expressed in your Lordships' House today. I can assure noble Lords that we shall also take those views into account. By my explanation of the Charter and the Agreement and their nature, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that we have indeed taken the right course. I also hope that we have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who has also tabled an amendment to the Motion—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend has made it perfectly clear that the power resides in the Agreement and the Charter together. If it is felt that the Agreement has been ignored, or not dealt with correctly, but that it is in keeping with the general purpose of the Charter, which of them would have pre-eminence in any decisions that arise from that difference of view?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that any have pre-eminence in the way suggested by my noble friend. I do not believe that there is any conflict of
852
interest in that way. If we had one rule of impartiality in the Charter and a separate one in the Agreement, then we could possibly find a difference between the two. But, as I said, the Charter is an enabling document which continues the establishment of the BBC as an entity; the Agreement actually applies to the specific obligations of the BBC. It is an agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC. If the BBC does not keep to that Agreement, it is accountable to the Secretary of State.
As I said, I shall obviously listen very carefully to what your Lordships have to say. At the end of the debate I shall have the opportunity to answer any points raised. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the future of the BBC (Cm 2621).—(Viscount Astor.)
4.23 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that it does not meet the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the 2nd Report of the National Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1993–94 (HC 77) that 'the principle of impartiality is too important to be confined to an Annex'; and requests Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that this principle will be included in the Licence and Agreement of the BBC").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment because the National Heritage Select Committee in another place made the cogent criticism that impartiality was really too important a matter to be left in an annex to the Charter. I should like to say immediately that I am very satisfied by what the noble Viscount said. I cordially accept that, of course, the Agreement is the place in which impartiality should be imposed upon the BBC.
However, the amendment was designed to go a little further. It was designed to probe the ministerial mind. Ministers are very busy men and women and they cannot spend their leisure hours watching television or listening to radio. In a sense they are rather worse placed than many members of the public to judge what the broadcasters are saying. But I am sure that the noble Viscount accepts, as I hope we all do in this House, that impartiality does not mean that every programme has to be balanced and express an anodyne view. We must accept that some programmes will express a bias or at least an individual outlook.
In defending that principle the BBC says that its staff are instructed to keep a balance between conflicting views. Unfortunately, some producers interpret that principle in a somewhat cynical manner. A sizzling programme designed to cast doubts on conventional values in the most provocative way is broadcast in January. They then argue that that is balanced by transmitting the Trooping of the Colour in June.
Timing in the balance of programmes is all important. The chieftains of television and radio really must accept that if they transmit a controversial programme they must in the interests of impartiality transmit a programme, not necessarily on exactly the same topic but something as pungent, that represents the views of

853
those who found the first programme offensive. Similarly in news both sides must get a hearing on a critical news item.
The BBC should recognise that where opinions are concerned viewers and listeners are rather like Jekyll and Hyde. The noble Viscount knows me as a mild, ineffectual old fellow. But put me in front of a television screen and I am transformed into a fighting cock. If that brilliant master of words, Mr. Christopher Hichens, addresses me—he is, perhaps I should explain, the Derek Hatton among Left-wing journalists—my hackles rise. But they rise even higher when I listen to Mr. Paul Johnson, who was once an angry young man of the Left and is now an angry old man of the Right. Long may those two live to enrage me and make the adrenalin flow through my veins. But I do ask that their views should be counterbalanced within a few weeks.
There is only one exception to impartiality. When the state —I do not mean the Government—is under threat in a battle against armed terrorists or against the armed forces of another state, the BBC has a duty to remember that it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and cannot be impartial between the two sides.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Annan: It must of course be truthful. The BBC won an international reputation during the Second World War for trying to be so. But when our soldiers, sailors and airmen are risking their lives, broadcasters should never treat the military authorities as potential liars and on an equality with our enemies. We do not want broadcasts of the kind, "I counted them all out and I counted them all back", which suggest that our commanding officers will lie if given a chance.
Understandably enough people ask: what happens if the BBC disobeys the terms of the Agreement? Indeed, the noble Viscount tried to address himself to that. What happens if the BBC is not impartial, and disobeys them not once but continually? In commercial broadcasting the ITA and the Radio Authority have sanctions to hand. They can fine companies or, indeed, withdraw their licence. But there is no corresponding sanction within the BBC. The governors represent the public interest but, if they fined the corporation, they would simply be penalising the public who pay the licence fee. It is absurd to imagine that any government would even dare to sack the governors en masse because the governors, not the Government, are responsible for seeing that the BBC obeys the law.
The governors are often attacked by the public for not insisting on impartiality or for sanctioning extravagance and so on. And they are attacked just as ferociously by the broadcasters for interfering with their freedom.
I want to defend the governors this evening. In the 1980s the BBC got into deep political trouble over Ireland, over the Falklands and over a considerable number of other matters. The governors showed they had a sanction; they sacked the director-general. They also cleared out the top echelon of BBC policy-makers. Since then they have left Mr. Birt to improve the standard of news and current affairs output. No doubt some will say that there is still room for improvement.
854
There always is—perhaps the director-general would like to have a look at the "Today" programme. But in my judgment there is a substantial difference between now and 10 years ago.
Some will urge that the governors ought to be strengthened and should regard themselves as the equivalent of the board of directors of a plc. I do not myself agree with that because I think that the BBC must remain a public corporation, and the governors have to represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Probably also someone from the Foreign Office is needed among their number. They cannot be like the board of a private limited company. But I do think that the board of management of the BBC might well invite some men and women of experience in business to join them as non-executive directors. It is there, I think, that outside advice would be particularly useful.
On impartiality, the governors and the director-general can do only so much. Impartiality depends on the heads of television and radio and the producers beneath them. Anyone who puts on controversial programmes is like a man driving along an unmarked frontier that he knows he must not cross. At some point or other he is bound to make a mistake and cross that frontier. Those who control programmes ought to work on the studio floor in rehearsal and in run through to see that that frontier is crossed as rarely as possible. Similarly, the creators of programmes must not be grindingly hostile to the controllers. They must consult right up the line to the director-general himself if necessary. And that goes for independent producers as well as for the BBC staffers.
In the 1950s when the BBC was in hot competition with ITV the creators were pushing back the frontier in the BBC. But in those days they did not regard themselves as avant-garde rebels cocking a snook at the top BBC brass. There was merry co-operation and a readiness to admit that some of the most audacious ideas went way beyond the frontier and had to be scrapped. Above all, it is important that there must never be an in-house interpretation of political events within the corporation.
I sometimes wonder whether broadcasters have read the admirable advice that the BBC gives in Producers Guide, chapter 3, section 5. Of course the director-general and the governors are right to back up their staff when they consider that a particular criticism is unjust. But it would impress the BBC's critics more if the BBC acknowledged that when a mistake had been made, it had been made; and if it is a gargantuan error, to state what action has been taken in regard to the offender.
More years ago than I care to remember, I wrote a sentence in the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting which ran as follows:
"He who drops the clanger should carry the can".
It is because I would like occasionally to see a producer with a gloomy countenance carrying a can, that I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that it does not meet the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the 2nd Report of

855
the National Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1993–94 (HC 77) that 'the principle of impartiality is too important to be confined to an Annex'; and requests Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that this principle will be included in the Licence and Agreement of the BBC")—(Lord Annan.).
4.35 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I must begin by thanking the Minister for the opportunity to have this important debate and for his characteristically positive and accommodating style in opening it and especially in accepting the first amendment on impartiality. My amendment from this Bench includes that aspect and therefore we are happy, although my amendment does go much wider.
We welcome the White Paper which is commendable in a number of respects. It has been received with great relief both inside and outside Parliament. There is relief that the fanatics of privatisation have been kept at bay and that the licence fee is preserved as a source of finance, at least until 2001. It should have been for longer but we shall come to that. There is relief that the White Paper does not introduce advertising, sponsorship of programmes or a wide dependence on subscription, although a big door is opened for that with the onset of digital development. There is relief too at the continued support for the BBC World Service, surely almost the brightest jewel in the BBC's crown.
Some of the changes proposed in the White Paper such as merging the Broadcasting Standards Council with the complaints commission presumably will require primary legislation at some time—although I stand to be corrected on that—before the new Charter comes into effect. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if there are any plans for that and the Government's timetable for publishing the draft Charter and Agreement. We welcome the promise to give us an opportunity to debate that.
It is well known that the Opposition preferred an Act of Parliament to replace the Royal Charter to give greater public accountability. That was rejected by both the Select Committee report in another place and by the White Paper on the grounds of alleged greater flexibility and political independence. Personally—I speak personally here—I am content to accept the Charter approach on the grounds that it has worked reasonably well for 70 years and also based on the assumption that the needs of accountability, which we were looking for in a statute, can be met specifically in the new Agreement.
Having expressed relief that the White Paper is not as bad as had been feared in the heyday of what historians might term "late loony Thatcherism" I must, however, raise several questions about its detailed content and what it does not contain. First and most important is the White Paper's central assertion that the BBC should evolve into an international, multi-media commercial enterprise, as described by the Minister. Presumably that is based on the assumption that if that is very successful it could lead to the abolition of the licence fee. Of course, we all accept that the BBC must change and must adjust to the new
856
technologies that are emerging. The convergence of media technologies means that the old boundaries between broadcasting, telecommunications, the printed page and other media are being eroded. The BBC must adjust to that and survive in what is now an intensely competitive industry. We welcome the efficiency savings and the commercial successes it has already achieved although one feels there are probably still too many layers of bureaucracy sitting on top of the programme makers at the sharp end.
We accept also that the BBC could do much more to exploit its great broadcasting assets, both the historic treasures in its archives and its unequalled programme making skills. But I do not accept, as the White Paper may imply, that such commercial enterprise could at some point become the BBC's main priority. What the Minister said on that was, I thought, reassuring, but it still can be interpreted as a strategic view.
I question whether the BBC can ever hope to be a major world media producer. Its best programmes seem to me to have a particularly British flavour and currently sell only to specialist markets abroad. If it tried to produce what one might call mid-Atlantic pap it could fall between two stools and compromise its domestic appeal.
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. I am in favour of maximum commercial expansion compatible with the BBC's public service broadcasting priorities. However, we must be realistic. The present commercial revenues are still, I believe, less than £100 million. They might be doubled, trebled or quadrupled, but that would still be only a fraction of the £1.5 billion produced by the licence fee.
There is a more fundamental underlying issue about which the White Paper, like the Minister today, is encouraging. The BBC is above all a public service broadcaster. It invented public service broadcasting 70 years ago. It is still the best exponent of public service broadcasting in the world, as the Select Committee report on the BBC asserts. Maintaining that role and supremacy must be its first priority, over and above any drive to achieve commercial advantage. It must avoid the terrible traps offered by the global media market.
Therefore, striving to remain Britain's, and the world's, best public service broadcaster is a large, worthy and perfectly satisfactory corporate objective. That glittering niche offers a sound basis for the BBC's future; it is certainly better than following the siren calls of total commercialisation. The BBC has been, and can only be, built as a public service broadcaster on the foundation stone of financial stability, derived from the licence fee secured for many years ahead.
In return the BBC must deliver the public service broadcasting goods. It must be informative and educational as well as entertaining, to use the old phrase, and must satisfy the highest quality standards and standards of decency and good taste as well as impersonal performance indicators. It must produce a wide range of diverse programmes meeting the needs of minority as well as of majority groups. It must be editorially independent of all financial pressures, and should have a high percentage of programmes made in

857
the United Kingdom. For me, that is a definition of public service broadcasting; it is what the BBC must continue to do. It is not something that all of its commercial rivals seek to, or do, achieve.
Only the financial stability of the licence fee enables the BBC to perform that role in full. That is why I question in my amendment why the licence fee is only for five years. The Charter and the Agreement are extended for 10 years. In my view, so should the licence fee be. Hence the first part of my amendment and my suggestion that the commitment to public service broadcasting should be—and I sense that it may well be—explicit in the Agreement.
Given that supreme commitment to public service broadcasting and given the financial stability to support it, the BBC does not need—unlike the rest of the commercial media facing, as they do, intense competitive pressures—to descend into the sewers of contemporary tabloid journalism. The BBC has no need to experiment with so-called tabloid television, which is a cover phrase for descent into trash. It can and must avoid the trend to downmarket scheduling so apparent—and sadly increasing—elsewhere, especially in satellite but also in terrestrial television.
While the preservation of the fundamental principle of public service broadcasting is my main argument today, there are several other issues of importance which I wish to raise briefly with the Minister. While commendably attempting to confront the dramatic technological changes facing the BBC, the White Paper fails to exploit some of the opportunities which the new technological revolution offers. The first is in the area of education, and the BBC's great potential as a provider of educational services. Broadcasting is a unique educational instrument, an extra teacher in every classroom. The new interactive technology now emerging makes it much more potent, providing scope for active participation by the pupils. The opportunity must not be missed. That applies internationally. I believe that World Service Television should be encouraged to link up with the Open University and the British Council to provide British educational services to the outside world, especially to the developing third world. I believe that the commitment to expand the BBC's educational services should be explicit in the Agreement.
The related questions of the BBC's accountability, regulation and user representation also greatly concern this side of the House. The appointment and the role of the governors require further examination. Section 5 of the Charter provides that opportunity. Clearly, self-regulation has not been wholly successful. In the regulatory field we support the White Paper proposal to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. However, we wonder whether that should not go further to include the integration of the Independent Television Commission, with the remit clearly specified to provide a powerful unitary body regulating the BBC, ITV, satellite and cable television. That would be a body strong and
858
comprehensive enough to cope with the cross-media ownership of the converging multi-media services we now see.
There is also urgent need to clarify the mushrooming structure of some 60 advisory bodies and to specify their representative, consultative and monitoring functions. Again, we probably need a single, strong institution to look after the consumer's interest.
In the arts, the BBC is the greatest single patron in Britain, spending more on the arts than the arts councils. It provides vital training for practitioners in the arts. It is unique in its scale of commissioning, especially of new drama and of new and live music. None of those would survive in a primarily commercial enterprise. We welcome the fact that that vital cultural role is highlighted in the White Paper and deduce—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that it will be written explicitly into the Agreement as a continuing cultural obligation.
On the privatisation of the transmission service, which is contemplated although thankfully not promised in the White Paper, the Government should be aware that the Labour Party in government will oppose any privatisation of the BBC, whether as a whole, which, in my view, would be ideological vandalism, or in part, such as the transmission service or BBC Enterprises. I believe that the BBC's conclusion is that it needs its own transmission service. That was announced by the deputy director, Bob Phillis, last night.
Turning to the question of impartiality, what I have to say derives from all my previous arguments. Impartiality is intrinsic to public service broadcasting. It must be highlighted in the Charter and the Agreement. I am pleased by what the Minister said so positively and constructively on the question. However, I should like to go further and propose the inclusion of other explicit requirements, some of which I have mentioned.
Hitherto, a narrow range of obligations on quality, taste and impartiality has appeared in the annex to the Agreement as a resolution by the governors. I wish to suggest—and this may well be in line with the thinking of the Minister and the Government—that henceforward the new Agreement should contain both the comprehensive range of services which the BBC is required to provide and an extended list of the explicit conditions which the Government require from the BBC in return for granting the Licence. The Agreement should also contain the governors' resolutions to meet those conditions and obligations. So it is quite simple and logical: the Government set out requirements in the Agreement; the governors resolve that they will meet them. It is not clear to me whether the Minister, when describing the new organisation, was proposing to include in the Agreement the substance of the old annex with its valuable commitment by the governors to obey certain conditions and requirements.
I conclude by summarising our extended list of explicit conditions for inclusion in the Agreement: first, due impartiality; secondly, commitment to public service broadcasting as the BBC's supreme priority; thirdly, a commitment to universal access to BBC services, free at the point of delivery; fourthly, commitments to the highest standards of quality, taste

859
and decency; fifthly, the expansion of educational broadcasting; sixthly, the continued patronage of the arts, including and specifying new arts; seventhly, freedom of expression; and, eighthly, the continuing coverage of parliamentary proceedings. In my view, those should be the public broadcasting service requirements of the BBC which it should give in return for the guarantee, I suggest, of a 10-year licence fee.
The challenge facing the BBC in this technological future is very daunting. It must compete with so many changing technologies. If it seriously loses market share in that competition, then it will obviously grow more difficult to justify a universal licence fee imposed on everyone. However, if it maintains its share through going downmarket it compromises its unique public service broadcasting status so making the licence fee again hard to justify.
We on this side of the House will give the BBC every support in the difficult task of reconciling those pressures, on the assumption, of course, that it will meet the standards and requirements I have set out. But we accept that it can only do so if the Government provide it with the financial stability that it deserves.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in thanking the Minister for the way in which he introduced the White Paper. I ought to begin with a declaration of interest, as a former chairman of the former Independent Broadcasting Authority. One of the advantages of a decade at the IBA is that it inoculated me against over-excitement at the prospect of white-hot technological revolutions. When I was invited to join the IBA in 1979 I was confronted by Ted Turner of CNN. He prophesied that a tidal wave of satellite and cable broadcasting across frontiers would wash away European terrestrial public service broadcasting and put it in the dustbin of history. We are now in 1994 and it has not happened that way, despite the growth of cable and satellite channels—a few of them good, adding to our total choice and enjoyment, but many of them full of the cheap end of American imports.
Of course, the new channels will continue to grow, but I venture a prophecy: if Parliament and governments in this country keep their nerve, if the broadcasters keep their nerve, then I believe that they will remain the heartland of British broadcasting, with the loyalty of perhaps two-thirds of the audience, well into the next century.
It is in that spirit that I give a welcome to the Government's White Paper on the BBC, albeit not an uncritical welcome. It is an infinitely wiser White Paper than the one which produced the Broadcasting Act 1990. That Act has destabilised the commercially funded half of British broadcasting and damaged the quality and character of the service it provides for its viewers. I notice that Mr. Andy Allen, the chief executive of Carlton Television, recently attacked daytime viewing for its banality. He said:
"Those who are housebound should qualify for a special allowance for watching it".
He should know.
860
Nor should the BBC be smug and complacent in this situation. It is not immune to the present pressures to lower standards. When I watched the launching of the National Lottery, such was the vulgarity of the programme that I wondered whether the editorial control had been handed by the BBC to Camelot, the lottery company. Gresham's law that the bad drives out the good applies to broadcasting as well as to economics. I was therefore glad to see the Government agreeing in paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper that,
"the BBC should continue to be the main public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom, and that this should remain its primary role".
I was also glad to see that the White Paper recorded the first objective in the Government's view as,
"giving priority to the interests of audiences. The BBC's services should be provided for the benefit of viewers and listeners".
That may seem almost a platitude, but it is a very important platitude.
While the commitment to keep the licence fee is welcome—at least until 2001—I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is a great pity that, in extending the Charter for 10 years, the Government did not decide to extend the commitment of the licence fee for the same period. For all its defects, and after all the argument and investigation of the licence fee, it remains the least bad method of funding the BBC. Currently at around 23p a day, it is a lot better value than all the competing offers from the new breed of cable and satellite broadcasters.
The licence fee also deals with the problem of maintaining BBC radio in a television age. If the licence fee were to go for television, it is hard to see how it might be maintained for radio. Since, sadly, commercial radio appears to have abandoned much of its public service role, the maintenance of BBC radio remains very important.
However, with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I regret that the Government have failed in that field to respond immediately to the many proposals that were made for a single body to deal with complaints from viewers and listeners and to influence standards. Those proposals came in different forms from the Select Committee itself, from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer—of which I am a patron—from the Consumers' Association and a number of other organisations. Contrary to what the White Paper argues, I believe that such a body would strengthen rather than undermine the broadcasters and the regulators. The merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a small step in the right direction, but I hope that the Government may have some second thoughts about the larger vision of a broadcasting consumers' council.
The two amendments on the Order Paper deal with the question of impartiality. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, goes a good deal wider than that and I find myself in great agreement with its general spirit. I am glad that the Government have responded, as they have done, to the way in which impartiality should be dealt with under the new Charter and Agreement. It is right in principle that there should not be a dual standard in the legal sense between the

861
impartiality requirements for the independent television companies and for the BBC. As I understand it, the government proposal deals with that aspect.
I entirely agree on the general issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Annan. Given the special degree of influence that broadcasters have on the climate of opinion in this country, if we are to have a well-informed electorate it is vital that controversial issues should be presented fairly. I recognise that for some journalists—I had plenty of experience of this in the past—"due impartiality" is regarded as dull impartiality; crusading is much more exciting. On the other side, however, one should not let the whole issue get out of perspective. The presentation of politics in broadcasting is generally fairer than the presentation of politics in print. It is now only on television and radio—and indeed mainly on the BBC—that there is any real reporting of the proceedings in either of the two Houses of Parliament. The so-called quality press has virtually abandoned its former practice of reporting parliamentary debates.
The BBC is currently required to provide daily reports of proceedings in Parliament. There is no mention of this in the White Paper. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister at the end of this debate that that requirement will be included in the new agreement.
I turn now to the importance that the Government attach to what they describe as the BBC evolving into a multi-media enterprise. I share almost exactly the views of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on the importance of the BBC operating as successfully as possible abroad and selling as many of its programmes abroad as it can, and also in the cautionary words that the noble Lord felt obliged to offer.
Clearly, the BBC's world radio service is one of the great achievements of Britain and is widely recognised as such round the world. For my part, I do not see why the development of a world television service from the BBC should not enjoy the same degree of public funding support from the Government as the radio service enjoys. It is important and adds value to Britain's reputation abroad.
Turning to the programme selling aspect, one has to watch this side of things rather carefully. The prime role of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain the British public. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that if the BBC becomes over-obsessed with providing material for world markets rather than attending to its domestic duties there is a risk of ending up with too much rather bland cosmopolitan programming. In any case, I believe that the market-place for British programming is sometimes greatly exaggerated. I sometimes think that the President of the Board of Trade in another place lets the excitement of that go to his head a little. Any broadcaster will tell you about the difficulties of getting a British programme, however good, from the BBC or from ITV, into prime time in the United States.
In regard to the proportions, one has to bear in mind that at present BBC sales yield under £100 million as against the licence fee running at more than £1½ billion.
862
Against those proportions, programme sales abroad will not make a dramatic change to the British balance of payments.
There is the very real practical problem of insulating those operations in terms of sales abroad from the BBC licence revenue. Anybody with any experience of these matters in purely commercial undertakings knows how difficult cross-pricing can become. In the BBC's case, I do not believe that it has yet fully faced up to an adequate solution to the problem. It is not sufficient to rely on an internal audit in the BBC, even inviting distinguished people of the right experience to sit on the Board of Governors to chair the audit committee. That is a matter with which only the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee can deal effectively.
In the old IBA—and, I understand, in the present ITC—the chief executive is the accounting officer and is responsible to the National Audit Office and the PAC. I would be interested in the Minister's comments. I can see no reason why the Director-General of the BBC should not face the same discipline and be exposed to the same openness and transparency in terms of dealing with this problem.
Finally, the future of the BBC must be seen as only part of the future of British broadcasting—important part though it is. I beg the Government, when they bring the new BBC Charter before Parliament, to bring along with it a new broadcasting Bill. I understand from the White Paper that a Bill will in any case be necessary to implement some of the proposals that are in the White Paper. It would be wise for the Government to use that opportunity and to see the future of broadcasting in this country as a comprehensive whole.
There is, for example, a need for new provisions for cross-media ownership. The Government have been grappling with this issue for some time. The rules relating to media monopoly within Britain need modernising. I do not believe that there are simple solutions, but modernisation is necessary. It is also clearly unfair that continental media within the European Union can bid to take over British television companies whereas it is impossible for a British company to take over a European one.
It is now time to insist that BSkyB conforms to the rules which the terrestrial broadcasters have to follow. BSkyB has enjoyed several years of a privileged situation to enable it to get itself established. As the present flotation on the Stock Exchange shows, that has been successful. In terms, therefore, both of ownership and responsibility for making its share of original programming, BSkyB should now be ready to compete on the same playing field as the traditional British broadcasters.
There is also a need to change the provisions in the Broadcasting Act that relate to Channel 4. These provisions were designed in 1990 to provide an ITV safety net to ensure that Channel 4 was able to continue its remit for special programming even though it was now competing in the advertising market. It was never really intended that Channel 4 should begin to produce

863
a substantial annual subsidy to the shareholders—I believe to the shareholders rather than the programme makers—of ITV.
The year of the new BBC Charter, 1996, is an opportunity to put the whole of British broadcasting on a new footing and to face the challenges of the 21st century. Despite digital technology and fibre optics, and the potentiality for hundreds of channels, I suspect that most people will finally settle for eight or 10 buttons to press in the evening; but perhaps I am getting old! As I said at the start, there is no reason why the public services of the BBC should not continue to be at the very heart of British broadcasting and still be regarded in the 21st century as the best broadcasting in the world, as they have been up to now.
5.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the opportunity which this debate provides to express appreciation not only of the Government's White Paper but also of the long tradition of excellence in broadcasting by the BBC. I believe I can speak for the Church of England, and also for our ecumenical partners, in expressing the conviction that the BBC should continue to serve the nation as a public service broadcaster, reflecting the nation's culture in all its breadth and richness.
Given the present period of upheaval within the BBC, with a fifth of the staff having been cut, the White Paper affords the corporation the opportunity of a period of relative calm, free from major anxieties about funding. Given also the pace of development in communications technology, it seems appropriate for the BBC's Charter to be renewed until the year 2007, by which time the broadcasting world may look very different.
My interest covers all aspects of the White Paper, but as chairman of what is euphemistically called "CRAC", the Central Religious Advisory Committee, which acts on behalf of the BBC and the ITC, I have particular concern for the role of religious broadcasting. I wish to concentrate my remarks on that subject. In doing so, I assure the House that I am not interpreting religion in a narrowly Christian sense.
It seems clear that, since the days of Lord Reith, the dramatically changed social ecology of Britain has resulted not only in deep social fragmentation but also in a pluralism which has left seriously weakened our concept of the common good. However, it would be a mistake to draw a further conclusion; namely, that religion in all its forms is being discarded and cast aside. The evidence does not seem to support such a view.
Many people still claim to be religious. In any poll which asks about the level of religious belief, the large majority will claim to believe in a supernatural being. Many parents who do not go to church still want their children to be baptised; and more than half of the marriages that take place each year are conducted in a place of worship. There is growth in the numbers of people going on religious retreats. There is parental demand for religious teaching in schools. The interest in religion and the search for the spiritual is an integral part of many people's lives, even though they may not he expressed in regular church attendance.
864
Television more or less consciously reflects that spiritual dimension to life. It cannot avoid it. News footage about the murder of James Bulger aired serious questions about the nature of evil, punishment and forgiveness. Documentaries, dramas, even soap operas such as "Coronation Street" and "East Enders" periodically tread in religious territory. Indeed, I believe that the broadcast media have a special responsibility. Like it or not, television in particular has enormous potential to help make or mar in our societies a sense of responsibility for each other, a sense of shared values and a sense of spiritual possibilities and meaning.
As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury recently remarked, religious broadcasting has a special role. It is as the trustee of that spiritual dimension, ensuring that the media's heavy responsibilities in influencing the spiritual life of the nation are exercised consciously, coherently, and for good, in both the programmes made by religious broadcasting departments themselves and other programmes too. That role is all the more essential and difficult in a society beset by the increasing fragmentation and privatisation of religion.
Bearing those matters in mind, I believe that more attention and emphasis should be given to the role of religious broadcasting within the BBC's output. If there is a moral vacuum in our society and if, for the health and wholeness of the nation, there is a desire for a shared public morality, the BBC is ideally placed to explore and express moral and ethical issues from a religious standpoint.
In the White Paper there is only one reference—on page 11 —to religious programmes. But I am quite sure that that particular and somewhat passing reference picks up three very important statements contained in Extending Choice, the BBC's own document, in which it outlined its role in the new broadcasting age. The quotations are brief and unequivocal. First:
"The BBC should place priority on … religious, moral and ethical programming, which maintains a prominent place in the radio and television schedules for programmes of religious worship, music and journalism, covering a wide range of faiths, portraying many aspects of religious culture, and exploring the major moral and ethical issues of our time".
Secondly:
"BBC1 should be the main national channel, delivering quality programmes to a wide audience. It should … ensure that religious programmes retain a prominent place in the schedule".
Thirdly:
"BBC2 should be the more innovative, experimental channel, addressing different groups within the audience … [and] ensure that programmes for special interest groups (whether religious, ethnic or community of interest) are offered when these groups are available to watch".
Noble Lords will have noted the commitment of the BBC to maintaining the place of religious programmes in the schedules. Your Lordships will also have noted the repetition of the phrase "in a prominent place in the schedules". In that connection, the BBC has kept faith. It is to be congratulated on taking the decision, for instance, to leave its "Songs of Praise" programme at its peak time slot on Sunday evening. Despite competitive scheduling on other channels, the audience figures are higher than they have been for the past six years. They

865
regularly reach the 7 million mark; they are watched by one in eight of the population. That is surely an indication that commercial pressures and religious programmes are not necessarily opposed.
Given the fact that for some of its other religious programmes on radio and television very considerable audiences are attracted, the BBC would, I hope, not be averse to increasing its religious output. As a lover of sport I am grateful for the full and quality coverage that sport receives on the BBC. But it is worth remembering that more people attend church, chapel, synagogue, mosque and temple than attend sporting occasions each week.
One other key factor which emerges from the quotations that I gave from Extending Choice concerns religious broadcasting covering a wide range of faiths and portraying many aspects of religious culture. The Central Religious Advisory Committee, which I chair, is a multi-faith committee, and rightly so. One of the key roles of religious broadcasting lies in allowing communities of different faiths to speak to one another. It is also a key aim of the Inter-Faith Network of Great Britain and Ireland, which I have the privilege to co-chair. As a former Bishop of Bradford, I know the inherent dangers of stereotyping. I know also that ignorance creates fear, which in turn produces tension and all too often intolerance. In a pluralist society the role of religious programmes must at least partly be to help people understand what others believe and how they practise those beliefs. Understanding is a key requisite for tolerance; and tolerance is a vital ingredient in a healthy society.
I thank the noble Viscount for having made this debate possible. I want to thank the BBC for the quality and spread of its religious programmes. I am not complacent; nor, I believe, is the BBC. There is room for improvement. The BBC has committed itself to that task. Along with many others, I look forward to monitoring progress and measuring delivery against commitment.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying how very much we enjoyed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. The three or four contributions that we have heard so far all made positive suggestions as to how we can go forward, not necessarily strictly in line with the White Paper. We are at liberty to make constructive suggestions because the document was described, unusually, as "a White Paper edged in green". If that means anything, it means that it is flexible; that ideas will be gathered and, where appropriate, incorporated in the final plan. I should like also to congratulate warmly the mover of the amendment. He always entertains us because he has such a light touch. The whole House is sympathetic and he gets his message across clearly and briskly.
I must pass on the apologies of my noble friend Lord Renton, who sadly underwent an operation on his eye last Friday and is therefore absent today. He was a loyal member of our group and attended every meeting. He asked me to say that, had he been here, he would have
866
said that there is no excuse within the BBC for some of the sex and violence currently shown; that it is not appropriate to public service broadcasting. It is harming the morale of the community as a whole and it seems that powerful producers continue to compete with some of the independent elements rather than carrying out the duties of a public service lighthouse which is so appropriate to the BBC.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, vast numbers of views on the White Paper were probably received. It is a question of keeping up with the reading of them, and the noble Lord mentioned one or two. On balance, our group favoured the cohesion of one complaints authority. We felt at one time, as one of the earlier Green Papers suggested, that there could well be a broadcasting council. I concede that we have probably lost that battle unless the Government decide to rethink the matter.
One task must be undertaken with regard to the ITC, the Radio Authority, Sky, Cable and so forth if they are to be in touch and complaints are to be dealt with fairly. The standard letter is too often used in replies. I was glad to see at the beginning of the year that the BBC set up its own complaints authority. I am sure that that is a move in the right direction. Peter Dannheisser is in charge of that and I have been in contact with him. However, it still means that it acts as judge and jury for itself, even if the BBC does not like that accusation being made against its administration and programmes.
When we look to the press complaints authority, we realise how difficult it is to bring a regulatory body into existence. We spent 45 years in that regard finding different chairmen and different solutions and it was not altogether successful. We wish the BBC's internal organisation well. However, it is difficult to believe that the people serving on it will not find their careers adversely affected if they are harsh on some of the headstrong leaders among the producer staff. That is just the sort of accident that happens, with people being sidelined rather than remaining in the main body of the promotions ladder. I fear that that may happen. I hope that the service of those good people will be reserved to carry out what we all hope will be to the advantage of the viewers.
The 1990 Act contained certain argumentative points. But the main thrust was to do with impartiality, taste and decency, which were to be found in Clauses 6 and 7 and in relation to the Radio Authority Clause 90. We spent 13 days in this House debating the issue. And this House is perhaps better suited to undertake such consideration than the other place, where there is less expertise than there is on these Benches. Many of us cannot see why those clauses cannot be lifted out of the Act. The BBC said that it would take cognisance—I believe that was the phrase used—of all that was contained in the Act. Perhaps we can look once again to see why those clauses should not be lifted straight out and included in the new Agreement.
Impartiality was strongly recommended, incidentally, by the House of Commons Select Committee. I wonder whether when we come to the great issues of the mixed constitution of the public service BBC it would be a good idea to have a joint Select Committee. There is a

867
great deal of expertise and experience in this House—I think of the noble Lord who spoke earlier—which could he brought to the counsels on these issues.
It is worth looking at the results achieved by both the ITC and the Radio Authority on the question of sanctions. It is easy to say that this or that must be done. But what is the possible alternative for admonishment or even standing down a contributor who continues to disobey or disregard the rules? I have read the ITC quarterly reports since they were first published. I am sometimes surprised to find that complaints made by viewers are not upheld. I do not need to tell the House that most complaints concern Channel 4. Last week's programme on "The Word" contained a vivid description of Mr. and Mrs. Bobbitt and was pretty close to pure pornography. It was not appropriate for broadcasting into private homes.
"Spitting Image" is bad enough when it lampoons the Royal Family and particularly our Queen. But when it produced the figures showing Jesus Christ, 150 people immediately wrote in. Those complaints were only "partially upheld". But what can be more abusive to the Christian faith than to make a spitting image of Jesus Christ?
I was in touch with the authority and asked what was done about the thousands of complaints, of which only 100 or so were upheld in the past year. I will describe later the action taken by the Radio Authority. But I was told that nothing had yet been done; nobody had been fined; nobody had been stood down. I made the point that on Saturdays and Sundays there is a good deal of evidence of footballers who are shown a yellow card and warned. If they repeat their actions they are shown a red card and sent marching. Why cannot we do something like that when people continue to disobey the codes of conduct, which are very strict? I have the latest one here, but it is almost too heavy to hold up. I wonder whether any of those in control at the BBC ever read, learn and inwardly digest its contents. If they did there would not be a problem. But I fear that some of them become rather more arrogant than humble and the rules are disregarded.
"Spitting Image" was a classic example. But one example which received publicity is Granada which has been disobeying the rules of advertising codes—I believe eight times so far. At present the authority is trying to levy a £6 million fine on the channel. But that is not as bruising as some may think. Its total turnover for the year is £190 million, so it is roughly 3 per cent. That is the first action taken in the independent sector.
I asked the Radio Authority for a summary of its actions and received a fax this morning. Apparently nine stations were fined for code offences, amounts ranging from £500 to £5,000; a further five stations were fined from £800 to £1,000 for failing to record programmes. That is a little bit of a discouragement, but I wonder whether we will see any action by the ITC. I am sure it would not have happened in the noble Lord's day.
I congratulate the Government on stopping the broadcasting of Red Hot Dutch. That porn channel may be a sign of what is going to happen in the future. Perhaps we should initiate a change in the European law that satellite and cable should be licensed in the country
868
in which the programmes are received rather than just in the country from where they are transmitted. Such a change might be universally popular in Europe and even certain people in the House of Commons might vote for it. Perhaps we could make that change. I do not believe there would be much argument about it.
I wish to make two other brief points. First, because we are not setting up a Broadcasting Council we are giving much more power to the governors. The introduction to the Directions to the Governors, signed by Duke Hussey, which I received from the BBC this morning, asks:
"How can the BBC be made more accountable to viewers and listeners while maintaining its independence?".
The governors have a part to play, but when I read this document I wondered whether they would have enough time to carry out all their responsibilities. They will have to look into cross-subsidisation as between the private sector and the public sector and it will be very difficult to unravel overheads. They will have a real problem on that score if the private sector is to be a substantial amount of the whole. The more I looked down the list of their responsibilities in the document, the more I wondered whether they would have enough time and energy to carry them out and also whether they would be suitably rewarded for all the time that they would be taking attending to the many functions for which they are now taking on responsibility.
Secondly, I should like to say a few words about the watershed. A good debate on the issue was initiated last January by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and noble Lords in all parts of the House seemed to agree that the watershed should be later. In France it is 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m., but still we make it 9 p.m. That really is unrealistic. Nine o'clock is far too soon, particularly when young people are so adept now at using video recorders. They can set them up and go to bed and watch the programme the next day. I believe that the watershed is being used as an excuse. I have seen dramas in which four-letter words are liberally used. When one asks whether that is not objectionable, the answer comes, "Well, it was after the watershed". But taste and decency and all the qualities that we are trying to encourage in this country are not allowed after 9 p.m. We are suborning the young. I believe that we should take account of the recording methods now available and strengthen the watershed. It should not be an excuse for showing sex and violence and all the other things that are leading our nation astray.
One of the biggest consumer protection associations in this field, the National Viewers and Listeners Association, which is run by Mary Whitehouse, was set up in 1966. Mary Whitehouse is now a very elderly lady but is still energetic. She wrote a book entitled A Most Dangerous Woman. In it she records that an order was issued by the then director-general, Hugh Greene, that,
"under peril of losing his job no employee of the BBC was to have any contact with me whatsoever".
That lasted for 11 years. Hugh Greene left the BBC three years after he made the order but it stayed there. Twenty five thousand people accepted that she could not

869
be talked to. Even her letters were not allowed to be forwarded. They had to be sent to a national newspaper and then sent on.
It is extraordinary how a modest, humble lady, who was trying to work against the general swing of an extreme political slant, was sent to Coventry and was not in any way used. It is nothing new, but I hope that it has now finished. In 1981 only two people were on the list which had to be sent up for approval. One was Mary Whitehouse and the other was Enoch Powell, obviously for some past reason. I am not blaming the current BBC because I am sure that it has reconsidered the matter. However, it is very unpleasant indeed when the most powerful media influence can make sure that someone is not used on any programme. I recognise that Winston Churchill had exactly the same treatment in the 1930s. The people of the day also used their power to keep him off the air. If that had not happened we might have been better warned than we were of the rise of Hitler's militarism.
I shall finish with a quotation from the most admirable speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in the debate on the Address. He finished with some classic words which bear repeating in this context. He said:
"The aim is not to knock as many people as possible off their pedestals and feel good about their downfall. The aim is to help all of us … to serve the common good as well as we can".—[Official Report, 22/11/94; cols. 175–6.]
Those are the words of the most reverend Primate and I do not apologise for repeating them. They stand repeating. I hope that notice will be taken of them and that we shall get that message across to the broadcasters who have the power to influence for the good or for the bad.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, personally I find the White Paper a somewhat disturbing document. However, I know a great deal less about this subject than I used to and mine, I think, will be regarded rather as a voice crying in the wilderness.
My attitude may well be due to my inability to anticipate and understand the full extent of the technical progress that is likely to take place sooner than we think in the broadcasting industry, nationally and internationally. Many of us have heard qualified people speak of the air being full of satellites of the Murdoch type which will be able to penetrate this country without our ability to impede them in any way. That may all be an exaggeration, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was very encouraging about the situation. But there is a real possibility that some of these horrors are nearer than we really think. Others may be able to see and understand more clearly what is happening in the technical world and are content therefore to await events and just "take note" of the White Paper. The Government clearly believe that the BBC will be able to evolve into an international multi-media enterprise. I wonder whether that is true. I do not believe that the phrase "multi-media enterprise" is a very encouraging description.
870
It is perfectly true that the BBC has an unrivalled reputation, but it will be competing with a host of powerful competitors with great resources and very wide international experience. There is every evidence that standards of programmes, generally speaking, are declining worldwide and the BBC may well find that its virtues will be insufficient to sustain its position. I very much hope that this expectation is not ultimately found to be true.
As a governor of the BBC in the early 1970s I found the corporation a pleasantly confident organisation; financially well off, with a staff of skilled and experienced broadcasters still relying, rightly, on their wartime reputation. They faced little competition and enjoyed public support. The governors were politely treated, quietly deceived from time to time and starved of information about future programmes. I shall refrain from giving examples. Since those days the Corporation has, of course, in many ways changed for the better. The noble Lord who follows me will be able to explain what has happened. But it is still possible for laymen to pick holes in its behaviour. Impartiality is one of the key issues. I agree very much with what the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Donoughue, said. The BBC has to be more honest than it has been in the past.
But if we are going to protect the BBC's position in the future, the most important thing to my mind is to change and enhance the role of the governors. They must decide the overall policies of the Corporation and ensure that the management carries them out. The chairman must exercise ultimate executive responsibility and although the governors should be non-executive their position should be virtually the same as that of the non-executive director of a public company. The present quaint arrangements must be eliminated. This, I know, has long been rejected but when the Corporation finds itself facing several powerful international rivals the Government may like to think again.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I suppose I should declare a past interest in that I was deputy chairman until last year. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not like the White Paper. I find myself therefore in the somewhat unusual position of defending the Government because I do like the White Paper. I formally welcome it, although I am bound to tell the Minister that in due course I shall mention one or two reservations.
I welcome the fact that in the White Paper the Government, as has been said, propose that the BBC should be the main public service broadcaster. I am sure that that is absolutely right and a sensible thing to have suggested. I am bound to say to my noble friend Lord Donoughue that I agree with him—and I believe I understood what he was saying—that he and I both disagreed with the Labour Party in the idea that there should have been an Act of Parliament to deal with the BBC. I believe that the Royal Charter and the Agreement which have been proposed are a much better proposition if we are to be really concerned about the independence of the BBC. That is a matter to which I wish to refer in a moment.

871
There has been reference to the commercial nature of the BBC; I want to say a word about that. I know that there is some anxiety about the commercial activities of the BBC, as expressed by a number of bodies outside and in this debate. Bob Phillis, the deputy director general, in a very good speech yesterday, made it clear that there would be a level playing field and that there really is no need to worry about the way the BBC proposes to carry out its commercial activities.
I believe it right to continue the establishment of the BBC with a Royal Charter. I agree with my noble friend Lord Donoughue about the period of 10 years and I wish to return to that. It is right that it should be 10 years from January 1997 and not 15 years. A great deal is going to happen in the 10 years to the year 2007. I wish I could foresee the possibilities; clearly, however, there are going to be many technological changes. It would be silly to take the matter beyond that, given that we do not know what the position will be.
I wish to say a few words on the subject of impartiality. A great deal has been said about that. I believe that my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Annan knows very well the enormous respect and regard I have for him even if I had not agreed with what he said, which I did. I am glad that the Minister also agreed that the word "impartiality" should appear right at the heart of the Agreement. It is made clear under Recommendation viii in an annex to the document.
As regards the period of five years or 10 years, I shall return to that in a moment. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, about programmes such as "Spitting Image". I am bound to tell him that I do not normally watch it. When I did watch it in the past it was so awful that I decided not to watch it again. The noble Lord suggested that if a broadcaster had been lacking in impartiality in a programme he had produced he should perhaps be given a yellow card or two yellow cards which is the equivalent in football, as he knows, of a red card and then dismissal. I am not sure whether we should get to that level although as a strong Manchester United supporter I always regret it when one of our players gets a red card or two yellow cards or whatever. Certainly, I share the noble Lord's concern about impartiality.
My noble friend Lord Annan said that in the past the board of governors sacked a director-general. I am sure that he is aware that the current chairman and I did sack a director-general fairly shortly after we became chairman and deputy chairman. We did that with the support of the board of governors because we did not think that the director-general was doing the job as we expected. That has and can be done. We have to be very careful how we handle that particular sanction. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Annan will agree that as governors we must not be seen to be constantly breathing down the necks of programme producers; otherwise independence will go straight out of the window and I do not know what kinds of programmes we would get. In the first instance the sanction must be in the hands of the director-general and then ultimately in the hands of the board of governors, particularly those of the chairman and deputy chairman. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was saying.
872
Inevitably, there is concern as regards the question of impartiality. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury I woke up every morning and used to think—I nearly said "My God"; I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me—how on earth did that come to be the first item on the news? Why did they put it that way? I thought that they were biased. The important factor to recognise is that we are not impartial, especially those of us who were in another place. None of us is impartial; we are all biased politicians. What we see as biased, others will see as unbiased. So one man's bias is another man's wholly and absolutely perfect programme. It is important that we recognise that. The programme producers are never going to get it absolutely right.
I believe that the Minister said that the balance should be in one programme. I hope that he did not mean it because the noble Lord, Lord Annan, recognised, quite rightly, that one has to balance over a series of programmes although, as he rightly said, one must not produce something which is lacking in impartiality in January and then say that it will be put right in July or maybe August when there is a quiet session. The matter should be put right within a few weeks. It is absolutely right that that should be done.
I know for a fact that programme producers, controllers and the managing directors of programmes care very much and look very closely at this whole question. They have produced the guidelines. If producers are not abiding by them they had better watch out. Whether they get the yellow card or not is another matter, but it would certainly be frowned on if they were not carrying out their remit of producing impartial programmes. Surely it is better to do it that way. There is a very good guideline which is sent out to producers and there is a systematic review and continuing discussions about it.
That is the situation at the moment. As regards impartiality, I know that there are programmes which can never be impartial because they give the particular view of one person. By the very nature of things that cannot be unbiased. But that is part of the editorial mix. The following week another person will be giving the opposite view. That is perfectly reasonable. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, nodding in agreement. It is dangerous to lay down rules that are so tight that they destroy the very independence of the BBC about which we all care.
I turn now to the question of producer choice, which has also been much criticised in many quarters. As the paragraphs in the White Paper make clear, producer choice has been abused. The new arrangements make an excellent change whereby responsibility for commissioning programmes is separated from making them. That ensures better value for money. Indeed, in its first year, there was a saving of £100 million which went straight into programmes. That has to be a good way of getting value for money.
I turn next to the question of listed events. I care a fair bit about sport and listed events bother me. I am bothered, for example, that Sky and other such channels can buy premium league football—and have done so—thus excluding public service broadcasting, apart from the BBC which has been able to get such programmes

873
late on a Saturday night. If we are not careful and the Government do not ensure that the question of listed events is watched closely, the only way in which the public will eventually be able to see a listed event will be by subscribing to Sky or some other satellite television channel. I am sure that none of us would want to see that.
Reference has been made to World Service Radio and increasingly to World Service Television. I shall not say too much about that except to note that it has been said that World Service Radio has a good reputation all over the world and is of great benefit to the UK. It certainly is. The Select Committee said that World Service Radio provides a superb service and greatly enhances the UK's international reputation. That comment related to audibility. In fact, the World Service is not only helpful in terms of radio and television; it is helpful to our traders around the world. It is a wonderful service that people tell you about all over the world. World Service Television only began in 1991 —it is hard to believe that—and is already building a similar reputation. I believe that the competitiveness of the BBC in World Service Radio and Television does us all a great service.
I turn now to the licence fee, a point on which I have some disagreement with the Government, as does my noble friend Lord Donoughue. I am pleased that the licence fee is being proposed as the main source of funding. Paragraph 1.17 says that that will be the case for at least five years and that the position is to be reviewed before the end of 2001. Frankly, that contradicts what is said later in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.9. The Government recognise, as I did when I served in government, that although it sounds fine, democratic and fair to say that they will take from income tax, value added tax or general taxation the amount that is now provided by the licence fee, in practice it would put the BBC into the public expenditure round every single year. As one who for five years had to deal with public expenditure, I know what that would mean. I would not want to see that happen. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter is nodding in agreement. We must ask why, if the Government believe that, they are saying that they will review the position in five years rather than 10. I simply do not understand it.
Of course, there is no disputing that the licence fee is a form of poll tax. It may be that because the Government had such misery over the poll tax they do not like the idea of continuing the licence fee beyond five years. I should be glad if the Minister could tell us that the review is only about the amount and that, in practice, they propose to continue with the licence fee for at least 10 years, and not five.
I recognise the problem that is posed by the licence fee, as would any of your Lordships who used to canvass at election time. That is especially so in sheltered accommodation where some people pay only 10p for the licence fee while others pay a lot more. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, agrees. One was not well received in such circumstances, especially if one was a Minister. One had to try to find an easy explanation—and it was not easy to find one. On the other hand, I am bound to say that, much as I
874
would have liked to find some other way of dealing with the matter, to adopt a means of funding the BBC other than by the licence fee would be to do great harm to the very independence of the BBC about which we all care.
I turn briefly to the question of the appointment of members of the board of governors. Again, I agree with the Government that to have such appointments approved by a Select Committee would once more be to bring the BBC right into the party political arena. I would be very sorry if that were to be proposed. Of course, party politics enters into the appointment of governors—although the fact that the present Government appointed me answers that argument, I suppose. I do not know, but it certainly shows a little impartiality on the part of the Government. In my seven years as deputy chairman, there was never one occasion that I can recall when party politics entered into our discussions on BBC matters. I do not know the party political views of other members of the board of governors. All that I know is that we did not have a problem with party politics.
I hope that any government would seek to be fair and balanced in making appointments to the board of governors but, after that, the board of management must be a matter for the board of governors. The board of governors should appoint the director-general, who will then advise the board of governors on the appointment of the rest of the board of management. We were very fortunate and, I believe, absolutely right as a board to appoint John Birt who has been heavily criticised and wrongly abused. I believe that he is doing an excellent job running the BBC in a way that should please all your Lordships.
Finally, perhaps I may return to the question of accountability to Parliament. Constant examination by Parliament of the details of the way in which the BBC is handling its affairs and programmes may sound like good parliamentary accountability but, as paragraph 6.41 says, it would subject the BBC to party political controversy and damage once again that crucial independence about which I have spoken.
Overall, I believe that the White Paper has got it about right. I do not have too many opportunities to congratulate the Government, so I am happy to do so today. I welcome the White Paper. The Government deserve our congratulations on introducing it.
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, those responsible have concentrated ex-governors of the BBC into the middle of the list of speakers. I have to confess that I, too, am an ex-governor of the BBC—of 1960s vintage. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and my noble friend Lord Greenhill probably have justifiable complaints that they wasted a lot of time correcting mistakes for which in my day I was responsible.
A great deal of what is at stake depends to a certain extent upon the meaning of words. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the temperate way in which he has addressed these problems in the correspondence that we have had from him in the unofficial all-party working group. By way of illustration, perhaps I may consider the word

875
"impartial". You cannot be impartial as between good and evil. Somebody had a bright idea and said, "Let's coin a new term and call it 'due impartiality' and leave other people to decide what difference the word 'due' makes". That is the sort of thing that makes the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a little difficult to agree with. When the noble Lord uses the word "impartiality" does he mean "due impartiality" or just "impartiality" stripped of any qualification? I do not know. Perusing the documents, here and there I come across a phrase and reflex action makes me search for my blue pencil immediately. It could never have been penned by somebody who understood what he was writing about. I wonder how it found its way into the documentation.
What that presupposes, of course, is some kind of hierarchical structure with a top and a bottom. Between the top and the bottom there is a process of delegation, including, possibly, the authority to delegate further. Somewhere down the lower regions of the organisation there is accountability, answerability, responsibility, and so on, to the source of authority. But when I read a combination such as "delegated responsibility" I wonder whether whoever penned those terms could possibly have been aware of what he was doing.
You can delegate authority; you cannot delegate responsibility. You cannot make someone else answerable for what you are answering for. That is the basis upon which I have been searching for the proper attitude to be taken towards the subject matter of our discussion. If one goes to any manufacturer of a product, whether it is a sewing machine or motor car, and ask him, "What do you make?", he will be able to show you a sewing machine, a motor car, a bottle of coca cola, or whatever it may be, but the product of the BBC, and all the programme companies, is variable. First, it is not the same from channel to channel; secondly, it is not the same from hour to hour; and thirdly, it is not the same from day to day of the week or from week to week of the year. It is an utter impossibility for any one person to monitor in real time the whole output of the BBC, either in advance or in retrospect. What can be done is to set up a system of monitoring. That is done for the BBC partly by the Government and partly by the BBC itself.
The answer to what should be done to those who violate the code has been much advocated by myself and the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, and has been discussed in philosophical terms by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. For someone who disobeys a clear directive there should be a warning, followed by a final warning, followed by dismissal. That should be understood clearly, and somehow or other written into the person's contract of employment.
If we compare the structure of the BBC with the structure of an ordinary public limited company there are certain differences which are worth noting. We should ask ourselves whether they are intentional differences or whether we have merely introduced them by inattention. Of course, the establishment document of a public limited company is its memorandum and articles of association, but the shareholders elect the directors to direct the company, to settle its policies and
876
to approve its managerial structure. They do not issue directives to the directors telling them how to do that. Directors are supposed to be qualified to know how to do that before they ever come forward for election.
Furthermore, the directors regard their position as more or less a marriage rather than a job to be initiated at one point and dropped at another. If one joins the board of a public company it is with the belief that one is going on with it until retiring age. Of course one has to suspend one's directorship and be re-elected every three years, or whenever the company articles prescribe, but one is not put on the board for a few years with someone else put on the board to replace one. It is not like that. There is a continuing team.
The board of directors appoints its own chairman as the board's spokesman. It has complete authority from the shareholders to make that appointment. The shareholders do not appoint someone to be chairman over the heads of the other directors. In the case of the BBC, we have an appointed chairman, and that immediately derogates from the authority and responsibility of his colleagues. He becomes thereby, through the exercise of ministerial authority, or whatever it may be, primus inter pares. However, even he is not a permanent appointment in the sense that the chairman of a public limited company is, of course, like the other directors, subject to re-election every so often. Normally the expectation is that he will go on as chairman until he reaches retiring age, whatever the retiring age for the company may be. He then retires and takes his place at the old boys' lunch with the other former directors.
None of that applies to public corporations such as the BBC or other quangos: the chairman is appointed over the heads of his colleagues, and that puts him in an unusual position. We must ask ourselves whether that is really what we want. I go back to the analogy. The directors of a public company appoint the managers. They may recommend one or two of the senior managers to be executive directors as appointed by the shareholders. They too must come up for re-election from time to time, and if they were not re-elected by the shareholders, they would probably lose their jobs as managers.
The directors do not get down to the work of managing themselves. They see that the company has the right managerial structure. When it comes to the relationship between the governors of the BBC and the management board, they appoint the director-general, and they and the director-general may choose certain selected managers to be members of the management board. But of course they do not, and should not, interfere with the day-to-day management. They should do that through the director-general and their executive colleagues. While they cannot inspect the BBC's output on a day-to-day basis or an hour to hour basis, they can monitor it.
I remember a conversation between my father and André Citroen. My father asked him, "To what do you attribute the success of your enterprise?" André Citroen's answer was, "I have a complaints department that reports direct to me. All complaints go ultimately through my hands, after being sieved out for me". It was

877
to that, he said, that he attributed his success. That is what the governors of the BBC should do. They should have a monitoring system for complaints. They should then take the appropriate disciplinary action, after due warning, in respect of people who systematically disobey the rules laid down.
Whether those analogies between a public limited company and the BBC should be followed exactly and precisely, I do not know; but those are the things we should be debating. Parliament must then monitor the monitors, as it were. We are responsible for everything. So I come to the vexed question of the Charter, on the one hand, versus Act of Parliament, on the other; in other words, do the memorandum and articles of association of the BBC come from the Queen in Council, the Queen in Parliament, or from both, or from one of them?
With our usual preference for compromise, the establishment document is issued by the Queen in Council, and the Agreement is subject to approval by the Secretary of State in Parliament—the Queen in Parliament, the final authority. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know, but with my general distrust of words and draftsmanship and our ability to put what we mean in unambiguous writing, I am in favour of having one document issued from one ministry approved by one Parliament, as opposed to two documents where it is not necessarily obvious that words in one mean the same as words in the other and one can go on playing hide and seek indefinitely with terms of reference.
I suspect strongly that game of hide and seek with the Charter, the Licence and the Agreement is something that went on in my day and that it still goes on. That is why the board of management can do exactly as it pleases, and treat the governors, very politely, as more or less nonentities.
I want to say one thing about the corruption in the world in which we live. I received a document—I expect that the noble Viscount has it—from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association which contained a potted version of all the pornography and violence that there has been in the broadcast media for the past six months. I was unable to circulate the document because it was embargoed until one minute past midnight this morning. However, I have placed a copy in the Library and it is available for everyone to read.
The document is absolutely shocking. The language is shocking and in that connection I must enter a disclaimer. Bad language is sometimes excused on the ground that for reasons of artistic integrity and so forth corrupt people must use corrupt language. Artistic integrity does not excuse the public display of corrupt documents. However, your Lordships should have no illusions as to where the corruption lies; it lies with us not as Members of Parliament but as human beings. The public are corrupt, we are corrupt and human beings are corrupt. We indulge our corruption at third hand, as it
878
were, by seeing it as entertainment on broadcast media. That is why we have tolerated it so far, but we should tolerate it no further. In that spirit I shall sit down.
6.10 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, it is a daunting task to follow three former governors of the BBC. I well remember an incident some 70 years ago. After fiddling with a cat's whisker, I suddenly heard through the earphones, "This is 2LO. Hello children". Since then, I have had a great admiration for the BBC and therefore I am in support of the White Paper in general—in particular the decision to continue the BBC as public service broadcasting funded by a licence fee.
However, there are present drawbacks which need to be rectified when the new Charter comes into operation. Many of them stem from the lack of clarity about the responsibilities of the governors. As other noble Lords have said, clearly it is not the job of governors to manage the BBC. However, it is their job to agree the policies of the BBC and to monitor the management in carrying them out. At present, those tasks are far too remote from each other. The question is whether the governors accept full and ultimate responsibility for all the activities of the BBC, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested they should, or whether they see themselves principally as guardians of the public interest, acting as a regulator remote from what management does.
If it is the latter it is too much of a "judge and jury" arrangement for the BBC when criticisms are made. In limited specific cases complaints can be dealt with by the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Now they are to be merged but apparently will have no more power than they have at present. In my view, the Board of Governors should act in the same way as the board of any plc. However, I entirely accept that the analogy must not be taken too far, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The board should have similar obligations to obey the law and it should be answerable to a regulator, in the same way as directors of plcs are responsible to the DTI, the independent television companies to the ITC and the trustees of charities to the Charity Commissioners.
It would be perfectly possible to make a combined BSC and BCC perform the regulatory function of ensuring that governors abide by the Charter and the Agreement. That would be preferable to setting up a second regulatory body. However, in the absence of a regulating authority, the BBC has set up its own internal complaints department. As far as it goes, that is good. It is set up to deal with criticisms not covered by the BCC or BSC but it simply emphasises that the "judge and jury" factor still exists.
I believe that there should be a regulatory body for the BBC similar to that for the ITC. It would deal with all the accusations relating to breach of the Charter and the Agreement. How else can the Agreement and the Charter be enforced, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Astor? As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, there are no problems with the ITC because it has full powers to revoke licences or impose financial

879
penalties. But, clearly, that is not practicable for the BBC because such penalties would simply be passed on to the public.
That is a most difficult problem to solve. Perhaps, as has been suggested, individual producers could be penalised for consistently breaking the rules. It is possible that governors could be held to account and personally penalised, as are directors of plcs for unlawful trading. Some solution to the problem must be found, otherwise we shall continue with the flabby disregard of the present Charter and codes of practice that lead to the kind of broadcasting so forcefully described by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We must find a solution or we shall have a continuation of the present situation whether on impartiality, violence, sex, crime or children's programmes.
I have one final question. Will my noble friend Lord Astor give a categorical assurance that this House will have the opportunity to debate the Charter and the Agreement in draft form? Time can then be given for amendments to be made before publication of the final Charter and Agreement. Surely, that is the best way of enabling this House, which has so much experience in this field, fully to contribute to the continuing high quality and success of the BBC.
6.17 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, the "ex-governors of the BBC" section has now come to a close. I thought that perhaps I should make that clear. It is right that we should have a debate on this most important, complex and sensitive subject, even though some of the "light blue" noble Lords might have wished for a happier date on which it might be held. I thank the noble Viscount the Minister for his assurances in respect of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Annan.
Just as beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I am inclined to the view that partiality principally lies in the ear of the hearer. Impartiality is of importance and is greatly to be desired. But control of taste and decency and of the right of people not to have their cherished beliefs mocked or ridiculed, or of ethnic minorities not to be spoken of disparagingly, seem to me to be equally important objectives. We have heard all about impartiality; but those issues must be thought about, too.
The fact is, however, that politicians—and I hope that they will forgive me for saying this—tend to be obsessed with the subject of impartiality. As the distinguished biographer, Philip Ziegler, recently wrote:
"It can be taken for granted that every British politician believes the BBC to be prejudiced … in favour of the other party".
How true, my Lords! I seem to recall a downward twist in the earlier relationship between the government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and the BBC—so nothing much changes over the years.
I further believe—and I have no statistical evidence to support the belief—that politicians tend to exaggerate the influence which radio, TV and the press have on the electorate. Incidentally, by doing so, they unconsciously diminish and patronise that very body of the people.
880
Having made that observation, let me say straight away that it is vital to have in place machinery to ensure that the common-sense rules of impartiality are not breached and that standards of taste and decency are not grossly offended.
The Government's statement from another place said:
"Like other broadcasters, it"—
that is, the BBC—
"will continue to have obligations to observe due impartiality on controversial issues and to ensure programmes do not encourage crime or offend against good taste, decency or public feeling".— [Official Report, 6/7/94; col. 1292.]
Well, Amen to that!
The objectives are certainly admirable. But with regard to "like other broadcasters", the whole point surely is that the BBC is not like other broadcasters. It handles its own affairs in isolation from the statutory framework which embraces all other broadcasters. It only has to satisfy its governors who admittedly represent the listeners and viewers but who scarcely mirror the role of non-executive directors, as we have been hearing this afternoon, in terms of a hands-on commitment. Of course, it also metes out its own justice.
Indeed, in the White Paper the Government go further and at paragraph 6.10 they envisage that the governors' main responsibility will be,
"to ensure that the BBC's programmes, services and other activities reflect the needs and interests of the public".
That may be satisfactory to ensure that the BBC does not bury Radio 4 in future or switch all listeners to FM bands; but it does not exactly send out a message to producers who are seeking to try it on that their card is numbered. After all, it is hardly the same ball game for independent broadcasters where, in extreme cases, the licence may even be removed and where financial penalties for infringement of obligations are imposed.
In a service financed by the public purse, such an outcome is clearly not possible. Very well; alternatives should be considered, and it really is important that we should not just tiptoe round this issue. We really must get down to start thinking about it properly.
Although I am doubtful whether the suggestion about the football referee's yellow and red cards or indeed a points system not unlike that in use for motoring offences, where you gradually come up until you become a "totter", would necessarily work in respect of erring directors and producers. They might be adaptable or they might not. But if they are not, then let other ways be found for I cannot seriously believe that human ingenuity cannot devise a procedure acceptable to most people which protects the freedom of artistic endeavour but which punishes those who usually abuse it—and I have to say this—for sensational or commercial reasons. That is why they do it.
I do not wish to appear unhelpful. No one could be more relieved than I at the Government's acknowledgement of and commitment to the concept of excellent public service broadcasting as exemplified by the BBC. Gone (one would hope for ever) are the flushes and fancies of the 1980s with regard to ideas such as the BBC paying for itself through advertising or appealing to the lowest common denominator in

881
programming to achieve success in the ratings war. Conversion is always to be welcomed, and I harbour a sneaking hope that like all converts, this Government, should they be in a position to be so, will in future become a stronger advocate of the merits of public service broadcasting than even the most vociferous disciple of the late Lord Reith.
As I have said, I do not wish to appear unhelpful; but I cannot for the life of me understand this preoccupation with Royal Charters. Perhaps it was a good wheeze in 1926 because it enshrined the new corporation's freedom from political control. I can understand that. But that was nearly 70 years ago and if the penny has not dropped by now that the BBC is an independent body, it never will. Why cannot the BBC be established by statute, just like all other forms of broadcasting in this country, and be not controlled by Parliament but directly answerable to it? I have the distinct feeling that that preference for Royal Charters, which, as we have heard, inevitably obscures the direct lines of responsibility, is a more cosy arrangement for the principle players involved. I believe that it serves only to obfuscate the chain of command, thereby making largely unenforceable control of the corporation's obligations.
I conclude by welcoming two proposals arising from the White Paper; first, the development of the BBC's commercial expertise in partnership with other organisations, which must be widely welcomed as must secondly be the proposed merger of the BCC and the BSC, about which we have heard so much about today. That will undoubtedly result in less confusion which arises inevitably when there is a multiplicity of bodies with disturbingly similar names and whose very existence may perversely have had the effect of deterring potential complainants who, when it came to the crunch, could not be bothered to find out which body did what.
The trouble with a debate like this is that one agrees a little bit with nearly everybody so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not refer to them by name; but I also agree with the idea of a single body in future. I would hope that the Government will look again at that.
It is right that these matters should be fully debated in this House, for what we have here are a number of noble Lords with unparalleled experience and knowledge of these matters—former governors of the BBC; chairmen of broadcasting authorities; directors of radio and TV companies; broadcasters themselves; and even the principal player in an important and admired report on the future of broadcasting. Accordingly, I would ask the Minister to ensure, via his right honourable friend in another place, that the voice of this House is heard loud and clear as the moves unfold and not—as was the case in the composition of the Select Committee, I have to say—shamefully ignored.
882
Put quite simply, those matters and their implications are too important to become flawed by prejudice, ignorance or hearsay.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the Minister should feel very happy about this debate. He has been given a clean bill of health as regards the White Paper and he can report back that there is almost unanimous approval of the general message which comes from the White Paper. The only exception to that for a fleeting moment, was from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. He gave very wise advice with regard to future technical developments. He advised us not to take things for granted because matters which we now accept as being almost certain may proceed rather differently when these issues come to fruition.
At one stage at the very beginning of the debate I thought that we were not to have a debate at all. If one remembers the opening words of the Minister's speech, he used almost the identical words of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Since the agreement was so complete, I thought that he was going to say, "We accept the amendment and therefore there is no need to proceed further". That was not quite what happened but it was reasonably near to it. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend should feel satisfied because what he has commended today to the House has received almost unanimous approval.
At this stage, I do not believe that we want any more inside knowledge about the BBC, the governors, the deputy chairmen and those who have been part of the actual machine itself. They have played their part and their evidence is most valuable. Of course, it ought to be taken into account, as I have no doubt it will be. I am concerned that we, as part of Parliament, should examine the effect that the BBC, under the machinery as it is set up, is likely to have on the nation. We should be the watchdogs in that respect.
I have much admiration for the right reverend Prelate. He made no bones about it. He said that, whatever minutes he had in this debate, he would use them to sell his Church. He said that he would make clear the rights that his Church has to have its beliefs and its teachings focused properly through that important media; and he did so. In my small contribution, I should like to do the same. However, I should like to do so on the basis of a parliamentary party politician.
I believe that we ought to look at what happened pre-war as compared with post-war. It really has been quite tremendous in terms of its impact on the country. Many of us were parliamentary candidates before the war and operated as such because Parliament is a parliamentary democracy based upon the party system. That is what it is and that is what it is our duty to try to operate. Before the war, Members of Parliament were the real source of influence in arriving at what was a national view on things. They were the ones who, by and large, gave the lead and that was generally accepted. However, that is not accepted today. The power of influencing thought, especially in the world of politics, no longer lies with Members of Parliament; it now lies

883
with the BBC announcers, the people in the media and the columnists in the newspapers. They are the opinion-formers today.
Many of us were fascinated by party politics and government generally when we were very young. I recall the time when my noble friend was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I remember him as a colleague back in 1932 when we were organising political schools, and so on. When I think back to those days and compare where the power and influence have moved to, it seems to me to be quite tremendous. I do not believe that it is to the good; indeed, I believe that it is very much to the bad that the influence for creating public opinion should have moved to the areas that have it today. There is nothing we can do about it. It will not go back. It is a matter of harnessing it in a way where, if it is wrong—and I believe it is in terms of the trend—it will be less wrong than it might be if we did nothing about it.
One example I can give of the contrast is that before the war I was the candidate for Nelson and Colne—little Moscow they called it—against little Sydney Silverman, who was a most adept politician. I was a parliamentary candidate at that time, not a Member of Parliament. However, people turned up when one had a meeting. Indeed, 100, 200 and sometimes thousands on the odd occasions. One was able to use one's influence as a candidate and appeal directly to the people. The influence that one had at times was not that much; but at any rate the direct contact was there. Moreover, when one made a speech it was reported by the newspapers. They did not just pick out one or two words which happened to fit in with the message that they were going to put in their editorial column that day. That applied with the local press in particular, and often with the national press.
It is not good if what I am saying is true; but I believe it to be true. In terms of standing in society, especially in the area where one is operating, my status as a parliamentary candidate then was 10-times higher than that of a Member of Parliament today in terms of public esteem. MPs have been downgraded in a way which is very dangerous indeed. At the end of the day, they are the ones who have to prepare the statutes which eventually become the law of our country. That is what happened then. Now, all the influence is exercised by the columnists and the television announcers. If one wants to influence society, one should not think in terms of becoming Prime Minister or a Member of Parliament; one should think in terms of becoming a BBC or an ITV commentator.
What can we do about the situation, if anything? I believe that the most we can hope to do is to ensure that the new communicators—the ones who in this modern age are in the position to influence public opinion, which results in the sort of government that we have—are treated in the same way. I am not arguing only from the Conservative point of view, which happens to be my belief: the same problem applies to all sides. They are as insignificant as we are in terms of exercising that great influence. But what can we do about it? The most that we can do is to try to get the new communicators—the broadcasters and the columnists —on the same level
884
as the politicians who had this influence in the old days. Of course, our standing ought to be better; if we got theirs to the same level that would be a move somewhere.
When I first came into Parliament—and I have colleagues from those days here in the Chamber—we had no register of interests. We called each other the "honourable Member" on the basis that we were satisfied that we were honourable people. If people declared their interests before they made their speech or before they voted, which is quite correct, that was sufficient. However, that is not now the case. We have to have a register of declared interests, right down to the most minute detail. Then the new communicators pick a little bit out of that declaration, distort it and twist it in a way which makes the honourable Member concerned look as though he is a member of the corrupt brigade. That is how it works now.
I believe that that trend has had the effect of making people who make their contributions as Members of Parliament that much more careful to ensure that they do not allow their personal greed or their personal preferences to take over. Therefore, to that extent it has had a function. However, I should like to put a thought in someone's mind. It could be the mind of the BBC's complaints authority. In order to keep on the rails, why can we not have a register of interests for the new communicators, many of whom slip in as an aside some of the comments which cause the most danger? Why can we not know what is their true background? If those communicators have such power—and, make no bones about it, they have—which I argue they have taken from Members of Parliament, why can we not have something equivalent to, if not the same as, the register of declared interests for them?
It is the little aside which does most damage. "Any Questions" is one of our most prestigious programmes and some of our most estimable people act as the chairman. Great trouble is taken to ensure that the forum is properly balanced, with Government supporters, Opposition supporters, middle of the road supporters and people from industry. The chairman is supposed to be impartial and an outstanding character who can be trusted against all sorts of odds. If one or other of the people appearing on the programme seems to be making a good point which is swaying the programme, the chairman will pop in and make a few remarks as though he is one of the protagonists, but because of his position his remarks carry 10 times more weight than those of the person who made the first point.
I congratulate my noble friend on being able, after this debate, to take back to his department such unanimous approval. However, I hope he will not leave the matter there and that he will find some way of being able to control to some extent this new group of people I have mentioned who are, for the most part, represented by those who operate in the BBC. I am not talking about the governors, the deputy chairmen or the people who operate the machinery, but the people they employ, who appear on programmes and make their points from the powerful positions they hold which the BBC has given them. I support those who have suggested that there should be some way of dealing with people who find a

885
way through the impartiality fence. Why not show them the yellow card and deny them the right to make future appearances on this prestigious, valuable platform? We need to find some way of controlling the people who have taken over the authority which once belonged to Members of Parliament in informing public opinion on political matters. I am not talking about other matters.
It is right that one should speak from one's own experience. I remember vividly that I fought a by-election in Nelson and Colne. It was impossible for a Tory to win that by-election. Six months later I was brought out of the Army again to fight a by-election in Preston against Lord Shackleton, who was the most delightful opponent to have to deal with. When it was announced that I was to be the candidate, Lord Beaverbrook, who was then the great power in the land, rang me up. He asked me whether I would fight the election, with his backing, on the basis of being the anti-American loan candidate. I had to say no. I said that I did not think I could do that because I felt that, after the cost of the war and all that that meant, the loan to prime the pump such as was envisaged in the American offer was not only desirable but vital. Lord Beaverbrook was not very pleased about that. He sent a secretary to my first public meeting to say in public what he had said in private about the desirability of my being the anti-American loan candidate. I gave the same answer in public as I had given Lord Beaverbrook over the telephone. I was an insignificant candidate who did not have a wax cat in hell's chance of winning the by-election. The majority against me in those days was 15,000 or 16,000. However, when I gave a similar answer in public to the one I had given Lord Beaverbrook in private, the whole of the opinion column in his paper said that I was a weak-kneed, vacillating Tory candidate who lacked guts.
The next day Sir Anthony Eden was due to speak for me. He said to me, "Well, your view is ours". He made a speech which more or less supported what had been done and the column in the newspaper stated, "The master is as bad as the pupil". But the column space devoted to Sir Anthony was only half that devoted to me.
I make that point to show the influence that people have who are in control of these organs—in the case I referred to, it was a leading newspaper—such as the BBC and the television companies. If we do nothing about the influence these people have and the way in which they use it, where they allow their bias and their personal views to interfere with what should be impartial leadership, we shall be in trouble.
I wish my noble friend the best of luck. He has had a good evening and he has the debate as he would like it. I think it is right that that should be the case, but I would ask him, please, to make certain that his department and, as far as he can, any who follow him are aware of the fact that everything is not rosy, easy and quite as wonderful as some people would suggest it is.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome this debate and like most previous speakers I thank the noble
886
Viscount for making it possible because it gives us an opportunity not only to pay tribute to the BBC but also to air some concerns and, indeed, to make some suggestions.
The BBC is one of the few categories in which the United Kingdom is a world leader. It is a world leader in broadcasting and, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, the BBC World Service on radio and TV is indeed excellent. One only has to travel to experience that. The worldwide competition for the BBC tends to be banal at best and tasteless at its worst, and we really should take pride in the BBC and not knock it. I mentioned the word competition. The BBC competes both nationally and internationally for audiences and export sales, and indeed nationally for scarce financial resources.
As a country we have not yet accepted that there has to be greater public accountability in every case where public funding features. The creativity of the BBC is not an excuse for lax accountability. I hasten to say that I am not accusing the BBC of lax accountability but there is a perception, a suspicion abroad, based on evidence of, for example, TV crews "hunting in packs", that overmanning still persists. The new regime at the BBC under John Birt is to be congratulated in achieving greater management standards —producer choice being just one manifestation of this. There appear to have been strides made in achieving greater efficiency. We must be patient in demanding even more strides in these directions. Speaking from somewhat bitter experience I know that to achieve change in a creative environment is exceedingly slow.
Impartiality has featured very much tonight. I have nothing to add to that, but there are other concerns, two of which are of personal concern to me but I believe they are fairly widespread concerns and both can be tenuously linked. I refer to what I call the lowest common denominator factor and the subject of religious broadcasting.
In preparation for this debate I managed to obtain and read a copy of Producers' Guidelines, which refers to the objective of enabling,
"programme makers and the public alike to see the editorial and ethical principles that drive the BBC".
It is an excellent publication. It is a document of great clarity and it is easy to read.
The BBC has all sorts of responsibilities thrust upon it, some arduous and others that are almost impossible to achieve. But I believe that as a public service broadcasting organisation it has the responsibility to,
"do nothing to undermine standards of behaviour"
or, as the annex to the licence states, not to,
"offend against good taste or decency".
Both of those statements are couched in negative terms. I would prefer to be positive, and I personally should like to go further and state that the BBC should ensure that standards of behaviour are maintained or, better still, improved.
Of course I realise that I have now ventured into the quicksand of definitions of taste and decency, and that is a pretty hopeless situation. I shall try to explain my reasons by anecdote—a factual description of what occurred last Sunday evening.

887
Four people were in my sitting room at home. Three were watching television. The fourth, me, was struggling under a mountain of Christmas cards. I positioned myself at the far end of the room. I had no view of the television screen; there was a cabinet in front of me. However, I could hear the television. That point is relevant. The programme on the television was "Seaforth". Shortly into the programme one word appeared to be used frequently. That word was "bloody". It is a swear word. Having counted about 15 repetitions of that word I spoke to the viewers at the far end of the room. I said, "That's a bit much, isn't it?". "What is a bit much?" they replied. "The constant use of that word". They had not noticed. I was flabbergasted. I realised that while watching television one can downgrade one's attention on the words and concentrate on the visual action. It is subliminal, I fear.
If the words spoken—the dialogue—had featured, say, on Radio 4, there would have been an outcry. We are subjected to lower standards on TV than on radio. Why? And why was that word so essential to the plot that it had to be repeated ad nauseam? I asked the viewers in my sitting room if it would have detracted from the story if the word had not been used. The answer was no.
I know the counter-argument: it is real life. It is said that people speak like that. Sadly, that may be true to a large extent. However, it is not real life. This is real life here in Parliament, and we do not use that word. It is not true of the boardrooms of our commercial companies. It is not true of the Church. It is not true of the professions—the law and medicine (at least, not universally true). Therefore, why stoop to the lowest common denominator? Speech programmes on BBC Radio 3 and 4 maintain standards and set standards in terms of little use of swear words. Why is that not true of TV?
As part of its role of public service broadcasting I suggest that the BBC should have the responsibility to try to encourage the population to desist from using swear words. Swear words cause distress and show a complete lack of respect for fellow human beings.
It is universally acknowledged that there has been a relentless and insidious deterioration in standards of behaviour and respect for others. That downward slide has led, I believe, to an unhappy and even degrading sense of malaise in so many walks of life. It is seen to be smart, chic and radical to push constantly at the existing bounds of decency. Surely the BBC can help to stop that rot rather than encourage it.
I am not so sure that programmes which offend are particularly popular. This week I have heard nobody talk about "Seaforth" but I have heard many people talk about "Martin Chuzzlewit".
My concern about the issue of the lowest common denominator and how it could be tackled is linked with my second concern —religious broadcasting. That subject was ably addressed by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark. Again, I know that I am on dangerous ground and will be told that we are a secular society, and so what if you have to switch on the radio at 6.25 a.m. for "Prayer for the Day", and so what if, because you have been indoctrinated by the BBC to rely
888
on FM you are unable to find the "Daily Service" on medium wave. I know that "Songs of Praise" is popular, as we have been told. An audience of 7 million viewers is terrific. But it is difficult to find religious broadcasts on radio. In this decade of evangelism, subscribed to by all Christian Churches, very little encouragement is given by the BBC to those who wish to learn, to be informed and to draw strength from The Bible.
The timing of religious programmes—or is it a fact that they do not seem to be "trailed" as much as other programmes?—leads me to feel that they are accorded very low priority. Better advertised and better timed religious programmes, plus special programmes to take account of the decade of evangelism, could help to restore standards of behaviour and respect. Coupled with a reduction in bad language, that could make a big difference and enhance the public service broadcasting responsibility of the BBC.
I ask, is that Utopia? Is it achievable? Who would be responsible for effecting this? Would it be the board of governors? From what we have heard on this aspect today, I fear not.
I said at the outset that I would make some suggestions about how the BBC could be improved. I have dealt with my concerns and have given suggestions. I should like to endorse the suggestion that the organisation of the top echelons of the BBC should ensure that there is true responsibility for the product of the BBC at the highest level, as there is for any product from any commercial organisation at board level. If that is not possible at board level, I subscribe totally to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Annan, that the board of management at the BBC be strengthened by non-executive directors. Until then, I fear that there will always be a charge of "all power and no responsibility", or, as per my noble friend Lord Annan, not enough people who drop clangers carry the can.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate the White Paper. Indeed, I welcome the White Paper itself. I hope that the BBC will continue to be our major public service broadcaster, despite all the new technologies, for at least another 10 years. That is an important responsibility.
Several knowledgeable comments have been made by experienced Peers. I agree with many, especially the point concerning the role of the BBC in relation to education and the arts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I should like to make just one point.
The BBC has great influence in Britain. It has even greater influence worldwide, due entirely to the high respect in which it is held. The World Service has a worldwide audience of 130 million people a week, not only for its wireless broadcasts, but now also its highly successful television broadcasts. I wonder how many people in Britain listen regularly to foreign radio or television stations. Perhaps they do, as we did as children to "Top 20" on Radio Luxembourg.
When I visited Bulgaria at the time of its first free election after the fall of Mr. Zhivkov, so many people came to thank me—not, I hasten to add because it was me, but because I was British. Their main ray of hope

889
for years was the possibility, often illegally, of listening to our BBC World Service. It played a vital role in their lives.
Yet back here the television that speaks to us in our own homes has an unrecognised, even disproportionate, influence on our lives and on the way we form our ideas and arguments. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls stated so clearly—and I repeat the point because it is so important—during any national election campaign in this country today any large political meeting can no longer compete with the television screen. The BBC accordingly has an enormous responsibility.
Edmund Burke referred to the fourth estate as:
"more important than them all".
As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, explained recently, he meant that through what the media wrote and said they had more influence on people's thinking than the other three estates—the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.
A natural tension always exists between journalists working in a free and open society and the government of the nation in which they operate. It was said recently by a foreign journalist that,
"governments have the natural tendency not to reveal all the facts about their departments and operations. That tendency often clashes with the duty of the free press; to uncover and tell the people what they need to know about their government's operations".
He went on to say that,
"there should be no restrictions placed on the press when it investigates government, acting in its role as 'watchdog' or guardian of the public good".
However, investigative journalists—whether they be from the television, wireless or the written press—should always conduct themselves in accordance with professional journalistic standards when pursuing their investigations. Even in a country like Britain which is very open, where we have a great tradition of free press and free expression, any government nevertheless wants to protect itself. Our free written press and the audio visual media are vital elements in the reporting of everyday life, of the good things in our society as well as the exposure of corruption and wrongdoing.
But, in turn, my point today is that they have a duty to report responsibly and fairly. I want to thank the Minister for introducing the debate today. I welcome the Government having produced the White Paper setting out a blueprint to carry the BBC into the 21st century. I hope that they will continue the exciting new steps they have taken recently in forming a global strategic alliance with Pearson Plc. That will keep the BBC—as is the aim of the White Paper—serving the nation and competing worldwide.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, like many other speakers, I also welcome the White Paper on the future of the BBC. As a corporation, the BBC has played a major part in our lives. The licence fee ensures that it remains publicly funded with a firm commitment to public service broadcasting. However, the commercial advantages offered by opportunities opening up in the
890
media market should still remain secondary to the corporation's fair and balanced public service broadcasting commitments. I sometimes wonder, I must admit, whether those principles have gone a little astray. At this point I should like to thank the Minister for his clear assurances on the matter.
I accept that there is a long-established rule of impartiality now incorporated into the BBC Licence. This should mean freedom not only from government but commercial influence. It is very important to the corporation's national and international standing.
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council are to be merged. I hope that a stronger body will emerge from this union. Am I right in thinking that it will not have any statutory powers? By comparison, the ITC does have statutory powers. Its code on impartiality is clearly drawn up with no room for misunderstanding. The code applies to all licensees and compliance is a condition of the Licence. It is the responsibility of licensees to ensure that employees and programme makers—independent or on the staff—observe the provisions of the code. A section under the heading "Objectives" states:
"Impartiality does not mean that broadcasters have to be absolutely neutral on every controversial issue, but it should lead them to deal even-handedly with opposing points of view in the area of democratic debate. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact".
The BBC has undergone a substantial change to its structure in recent years and some of that change relates to training schemes. For instance, the reporter training scheme appears to have been abandoned, as have apprenticeships in engineering and technical operations. Sadly, the closure of the BBC radio and script units may mean that guidance which used to be offered to young writers has been reduced, though I now understand that a team might be transferred to the drama department.
Traditionally, the BBC has provided the seed corn for most of the entertainment industry. Practically every media person I know has either been trained by or worked at the BBC. Because of its role as a leader in industry training, it is worrying to see the BBC contracting in this department.
I am afraid I am going to take a slightly different view. I believe that the introduction of producers' choice has gone some way to undermining the stability and continuity of employment at the BBC. I gather that the input from independents has risen as high as 46 per cent. for drama and light entertainment. Just how the percentage is split between those two groups I do not know. It must be that, on average, independents could usually underbid the BBC because of differing base costs. John Birt himself has said that the BBC needs to ensure that its in-house departments are good enough to win orders but that could only come about if there was a level playing field between the two sectors.
At an all-party media group meeting, John Birt accepted that morale was at a low ebb, and that in the short term it was probably not likely to improve. However, he stressed that once the restructuring of the corporation was completed, morale would improve. He himself has also said that there are powerful arguments for the BBC to maintain its strong production base.

891
However, could it be that the structure of employment contracts, with their potential lack of continuity, need to be reviewed in order to preserve the BBC's greatest asset—namely, a committed, qualified and experienced workforce? Within the current climate, surely it must be difficult to retain and motivate individuals of the calibre which in the past enabled it to establish an unassailable international reputation for diversity and for excellence.
We need to make sure that the BBC, with its enduring service to public sector broadcasting, continues to prosper and build on its already considerable achievements well into the next century. I do not want to see any part of this large corporation sold off to the private sector. Once it becomes fragmented, it will gradually cease to be great.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I wish to address two issues in my brief contribution this evening: the importance of maintaining standards of taste and decency within the BBC and the particular challenges arising from increased satellite broadcasting from abroad.
I have told the House before how I believe that there is no better guide for standards in broadcasting than the inscription which appears in the foyer of Broadcasting House in Portland Square. It bears repeating:
"To Almighty God, this shrine of the arts, music and literature is dedicated by the first Governors in the year of our Lord 1931, John Reith being Director General. It is their prayer that good seed sown will produce a good harvest, that everything offensive to decency and hostile to peace will be expelled, and that the nation will incline its ear to those things which are lovely pure and of good report and thus pursue the path of wisdom and virtue".
We have sadly often had cause to feel that the BBC has departed from that path in recent years. I am glad, therefore, that this White Paper does stress in paragraph 3.13 that the BBC should pay more attention to audience concern about violence, sex and bad language.
The BBC should, for example, study seriously the latest report from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, showing that in 20 films screened on BBC 1 and BBC 2 between January and June this year there were 67 violent assaults. Such violence makes a profound impression on young people and surely must be one contributing factor to some of the horrific violent incidents we have seen involving young people in recent years. I should say, of course, that there was violence on other channels mentioned in the report, but this debate is mainly on the BBC.
I would favour that the proposed agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC board of governors, mentioned in paragraph 6.3 of the White Paper, should spell out in simple terms what is meant by standards of "good taste and decency". Then no one would be in any doubt about what to expect from programmes.
Of course, the BBC does not operate in isolation from other broadcasters either in this country or abroad. I am not suggesting one set of rules for the BBC and one for other broadcasters. They should all operate to the same high standards on issues of taste and decency.
892
We caught a glimpse of what the future might hold with the broadcasting of Red Hot Dutch earlier this year, first from Holland and then from Denmark, which, thankfully, the Government stepped in to ban. I understand that the European Commission will shortly announce its proposals for a new trans-frontier broadcasting directive controlling broadcasting in Europe. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will fight hard to protect standards to avoid a repeat of the Red Hot Dutch débâcle.
In closing, I make one suggestion to the Minister. If a satellite broadcaster wishes to broadcast into a country it should have a licence in the receiving country and not just in the country from which the broadcast is made. If the new directive included such a provision, the UK could maintain standards and protect the BBC by preventing anyone from broadcasting unacceptable material into the UK. That was, of course, the point made by my noble friend Lord On-Ewing in his balanced and authoritative speech earlier in the debate. Is that not something which, surely, we would all support?
7.10 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Viscount for enabling us to have this debate. I also welcome him back to DNH, with its major broadcasting responsibilities not only for the BBC but also for the Welsh fourth channel. I declare an interest as chair of Screen Wales, which is a media partnership agency involving BBC Wales as one of the senior partners; and also my membership of the general advisory council, which makes me responsible, among other things, for the selection process for membership of the Broadcasting Council for Wales.
I shall not, however, talk about the specifics of the structure of the BBC this evening. I want to take as my text paragraph 1.7 of the White Paper and to welcome the statement there that:
"The BBC's programmes should reflect the interests and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom as a whole. Programme-makers, presenters and performers in all parts of the United Kingdom should contribute fully to the BBC's national output, as well as to its regional and local services".
Having read my text, I want to congratulate the Government, and indeed the BBC governors and board of management, on taking the debate on broadcasting in the United Kingdom a little further than we took it in our debates in another place on previous broadcasting legislation. As a number of noble Lords emphasised, we are in the world of multi-media global culture. I make no apology for using those words. They are used generally within the industry and within culture. They present a challenge to traditional terrestrial broadcasters. They also present a challenge to traditional nation state regulators. This is where the Government are catching up with the real world. They are understanding that it is only as a public service broadcaster which is also an international media player that the BBC can survive and contribute not only to the internal cultural diversity of the UK but to broadcasting systems worldwide.

893
In relation to that, I would emphasise that competition in the multi-media global scene does not just emerge from the BBC centrally. It is not just BBC Enterprises or the BBC's board of management in Broadcasting House and White City which is a multi-media player. The national regions—as the BBC has always fondly called them—are also players in their own right. It is important therefore that there should be opportunities for them to play their role, not just within the network structure but also on the broader basis of the multi-media scene.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to the role of the BBC in the multi-media market and to looking at the BBC as an engine of economic development in the cultural field. That is just as important as the contribution that it makes to reflecting the life of the United Kingdom internally. In that sense, I do not share the concern that was expressed by some noble Lords about the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in the promotion of broadcasting (or of broadcast product) or indeed the role of the Welsh Office in the context of Wales in the development of multi-media. I warmly welcome the speech that was made on this very issue this week at a conference in Cardiff by the Secretary of State for Wales. We have an opportunity now to develop our cultural product in all parts of the UK in a way that will benefit us economically and will also benefit our cultural image. I believe that there are people world-wide who look to us to do that.
I do not share the pessimism which, again, was expressed by some noble Lords about the difficulty of programme sales in other markets. The demand for content now in our multi-media industry is so enormous that we shall be at pains to fulfil it. Therefore, there is clearly a role for the quality product of the BBC and other broadcasters in the UK in that market.
I turn now to some of the issues that arise in the way in which the White Paper is to be implemented. I share the view that was expressed by a number of noble Lords that perhaps the time has come for us to have conventional broadcasting legislation for the BBC rather than the arrangement of Charter and Agreement. I say that because, as someone who debated previous broadcasting legislation involving both the ITC (as it now is) and S4C, there seems to me to be no inherent difficulty about legislating in the normal way for broadcasting structures. I appreciate that, historically, at the time that the BBC was created there was a different relationship between the state and broadcasting. Now we are in a world of greater diversity in terms of numbers of broadcasters. It might have made more sense to go down the road of regulating for all public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom in one piece of legislation. I agree with the noble Lord on that matter. After all, it is not just the BBC that is a public service broadcaster. All our broadcasting is either publicly funded or publicly regulated in some form or other. Therefore there is a case for an organising principle in legislation which bears all those matters in common.
894
That is where some of the difficulties that we have arise in relation to some of the specific matters that will be in the agreement.
I turn back now to the commitments set out in the White Paper on regional product and regional programming. I refer in particular to paragraph 3.24, which reads almost as well as if it had been written by Screen Wales itself in that it talks about the importance of the variety of programme production; it says that there should be significant programme bases in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the major English regional centres; and of course in that way incorporates part of the recommendations of the Select Committee, which emphasised that the possibility of a commitment to network production outside London might be included in the Charter.
I understand that the Minister's view is that such a statement might be included in the Agreement. I shall be very interested to have his response on that point at some later stage in our debates. I do not share the view that was expressed by some of our Scottish colleagues, and by some independent producer representatives, that there should be a quota for programme production. I believe that we are capable in the national regions of competing on a level playing field with the rest of the BBC or indeed with other independent production centres. However, we need to make sure that the playing field is level, in the sense that the resources are there and also in terms of staffing, and in financial terms to enable our media centres to develop a competitive base. For those reasons, I hope that there will be clear reference, if not in the Charter then certainly in the Agreement, to the whole question of programme bases outside regions. I understand that that may well be the Minister's view, and I look forward to hearing his response.
A related issue is the structure of the broadcasting councils, the role of governors and the role of the national councils. I welcome the statement in the White Paper about the specific role of the governors in relation to the board of management of the BBC centrally. I also welcome the fact that a similar role—to use the word in the White Paper—is envisaged for the broadcasting councils. This is significantly more than their present role. It means that they now have a role in the management, or at least in the accountability, of the BBC's operation in the national region. Controllers, will have a greater independence in relation to their budgets. (This is stated in paragraph 6.22 and in the whole range of surrounding paragraphs from paragraph 6.16 on, which I shall not quote in detail so as not to lengthen my speech inordinately). Paragraph 6.22 gives controllers a budget for programmes produced specifically for audiences in each country. We have therefore a clear devolution of the internal structure of the BBC.
My questions are: how much of this will appear in the Charter; how much will appear in the Agreement; and how is it to be policed, as it were? I appreciate that the BBC itself has taken some major steps in transferring its programming out of the metropolitan centre to other metropolitan centres or to regional centres. I appreciate also the fact that the BBC now has an English regional structure. I always believed that it

895
was important for the English regions to be treated at least on some basis of equality with the national regions of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. On all those counts therefore I welcome the level of debate which is now seen in the White Paper.
But as I said, there are a number of concerns. To what extent are we to have a clear programming policy incorporated into the objectives of BBC management? How are resources to be allocated equitably between national regions and other regions? How will we ensure that there is a sufficient level of capital investment in talent and production skills throughout the UK? How are we to ensure that the responsibility towards a regional policy is clearly stated? Is it to be in the Charter or only the Agreement? How are we to ensure that the structure for appointing the various governors and councils makes them as democratically accountable as possible? With all due respect, I do not believe that the present structure of parallel selection and nomination amounts to democratic accountability.
Having asked those questions, I end by welcoming the White Paper and the fact that there is a clear statement of the way in which public service broadcasting can be revived and made multinational in the true sense of that word, in the context of our multi-media global village and its mass culture. I believe that it is important that the whole of the UK in its cultures, regions and nations participate in that process.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I view my position in the list of speakers as that of a long-stop and I shall not ask your Lordships to stop long, having regard to my contribution. I propose to confine my observations to the question of impartiality.
My first point is that the BBC accept, and so inform their producers in their written guidance, that,
"the notion of impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. No area of programming is exempt from it".
It has been said that an Irishman—maybe an Irish BBC official—when asked how he managed to be fair and just, said that he always tried very hard to be halfway between partial and impartial.
In the annex to the Licence and Agreement, which prescribes the terms and conditions of the corporation's operations, the BBC accepts as a duty,
"to ensure that programmes maintain a high general standard in all respects (and in particular in respect of content and quality), and to provide a properly balanced service which displays a wide range of subject matter [and] to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality … both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy".
That vitally important aspect of the BBC's constitutional position is clearly far too important to be confined to an annex. I am delighted to learn that that is also the view of the Government.
I should like to attempt to make a positive suggestion. I believe that the obligation to act with due impartiality needs to be spelt out, particularly having regard to the absence of any effective sanction when impartiality is not exhibited.
896
Noble Lords' viewing and listening habits no doubt vary considerably, but I imagine that none of your Lordships will have any difficulty in producing some clear examples of the media's failure to act fairly and justly. Let me take a recent example known to all noble Lords: the programme on your Lordships' House. It was a mocking, insulting programme, designed to ridicule and to parody the activities of the House and its important contribution to the legislative function of Parliament. Some may say that such trivia has no impact and that its lack of quality and content ensures its own almost immediate destruction. But does it? Last Friday, at a dinner in Cambridge, I met a German professor who told me that the film had been shown on Bavarian television because Bavaria has an upper House in some respects comparable with ours. He was astonished at the way in which our House had clearly been caricatured.
What is involved in the obligation to act with impartiality? I suggest that there are five features at least. First, the programmes must be properly balanced. If the programme itself does not contain its own internal balance, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, the balancing views must be produced within a reasonable time in order that all views should be reflected in due proportion.
Secondly, a complete and detailed picture should be presented, thus avoiding any suppression or censoring of valid points on one side or another. Thirdly, questions should not be hostile, hectoring, aggressive or rude. Interruptions in the middle of a sentence should be avoided. Fourthly, the approach to contentious issues should be dispassionate. For example, the easy ride should not be allowed to one side when the other side is examined vigorously. Fifthly, the personal views of the presenters and reporters should not feature in the programme. An interview is not an occasion for the interviewer to put across his opinions and views. Its purpose is to obtain the views and opinions of the interviewee, developed and tested by questioning.
There is not the slightest novelty in any of the observations I have just made. I culled them from the guidelines produced by the BBC for its producers. I add a further proposition of my own; namely, that there should not be put in the mouth of interviewees answers which they have not given but which the interviewer hoped they would give and put into their mouths as a preamble to a long question. The experienced person will say, "One moment, I didn't say that" and then go on to deal with the question. The inexperienced person, anxious to answer the question, will overlook the fact that there has been attributed to him something that he or she did not say at all. I submit that it is essential that the elements of due impartiality are adequately recorded either in the Agreement or in some suitable exchange of letters between the Government and the BBC.
The noble Viscount observed that the obligation of due impartiality should be stated clearly. How else can it be stated? Secondly, he said that the binding legal contract is the instrument of control and added that the obligation of due impartiality should be there stated to

897
make it effective and enforceable. However, the obligation must be adequately particularised if it is to be taken seriously. That is the purpose of my suggestions.
7.29 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have had a particularly interesting and wide-ranging debate in relation to the Government's proposals for the future of the BBC. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that he agreed a bit with everybody. So do I. I wish on that note I could sit down, but I should perhaps attempt to respond to some of the individual points raised by your Lordships, even though I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he said that Ministers are not often able to see much TV. Indeed, I shall not make my remarks too long so that I can go home this evening to watch some television.
We had wide agreement in your Lordships' House on the importance of the role of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was particularly concerned with what happens if the BBC disobeys the terms of its Agreement. The Agreement is a contract between the BBC and the Secretary of State. If it contravenes the terms of the Agreement, a number of important sanctions are open to the Government. Under the Charter the Secretary of State can take steps to revoke the Charter if the terms of the Agreement are broken. I am sure the BBC would be loath to put itself in a position in which the Charter was placed in jeopardy.
The noble Lord suggested that if contraventions occurred, heads should roll. Members of the BBC staff who do not abide by the rules which stem from the Charter and the Agreement are subject to the normal disciplines of the organisation. If the governors were responsible for such contraventions, they could be removed.
It is always difficult to achieve a balance and impartiality between programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right in saying that it is not sufficient for the BBC to say that a balance can be achieved by broadcasting an unconnected programme some months later. That does not achieve the obligation of "due impartiality over time". The BBC's Producers' Guidelines say,
"It is not sufficient to claim that other unconnected programmes or media will ensure that balancing views will be heard".
Those are its own guidelines in Section 3.5 to which the noble Lord referred.
The noble Lord also put forward the suggestion that the BBC's board of management should invite members of the commercial sector to act as non-executive directors. The Government have said that we will ensure that appointments are made to the board of governors to ensure that there is the necessary commercial expertise on the board. The BBC appointed senior management staff with considerable private sector experience to direct its new commercial activities. In addition, by participating in joint ventures with the private sector, the BBC will also have the benefit of the expertise of its private sector partners. However, if it wishes to appoint non-executive directors to the board of management, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.
898
I welcome support from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for the BBC, one of our more important institutions in this country. I am only sorry that his party feels unable to support one of the other great institutions in this country at the moment.
The noble Lord made two important points in relation to the BBC's commitment to the arts and its educational role. It is agreed that the arts are an important part of the BBC's role as a public service broadcaster. It is a major patron of the arts, spending more than £300 million a year on arts programming. The White Paper says that,
"the BBC should remain a major cultural patron of music, drama and the visual arts. It should continue to commission and broadcast new works, and to nurture creative talent".
It has undertaken to maintain its support for the arts, and that undertaking is currently contained in the annex to the Licence and Agreement. We propose that an obligation on those lines should be included in the new Agreement.
The three aims of the BBC in its programmes and services are to inform, to entertain and to educate. We propose that those three traditional aims should be stated more clearly and explicitly in the new Agreement and Charter. The White Paper says that,
"the BBC should continue to broadcast educational programmes of all kinds".
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that the Agreement should contain both a list of services and an extended list of conditions and, importantly, the governors' resolution that they will meet those requirements. The new Agreement will contain all three elements. As I said, it will be a contract between the BBC and the Secretary of State. That is an important point and I hope that it resolves the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. We aim to bring forward the new Charter and Agreement to give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the documents during this parliamentary Session.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked also whether parts of the White Paper needed legislation to be implemented. The merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will require primary legislation amending the 1990 Broadcasting Act. We hope to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The noble Lord referred also to the privatisation of transmission services and the BBC's view. The BBC is assessing the future of its transmission service. At present it has not come to any conclusion on the most effective way forward. As I said in response to a recent Question in your Lordships' House, we are considering that matter carefully ourselves.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that the deputy director of the BBC last night announced that it concluded that it needed to keep the transmission service?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware of what the deputy director of the BBC said last night. I do not believe that there is a yes or no answer on this. It is important that we put the BBC in a position where it is able to take advantage of and have the money to finance

899
the important step into terrestrial digital television in order to be competitive in the market and in the BBC's world market.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked whether the new Agreement would contain an obligation to provide a daily report of Parliament. Yes: that is an important part of the BBC's obligation as a public service broadcaster and the requirement will be carried into the new Agreement.
The noble Lord made the interesting point of why world service television should not be funded from public funds in a similar way to world service radio. World service radio has a wide reach and provides news coverage and other programmes in many countries and languages. To build up that network required a large input of public funds. But world service television is different. We do not see it as replacing radio or matching its wide coverage in the near future. It is an attractive commercial product for the people around the world who value the BBC's reputation for high quality programmes and fair coverage of events. People are willing to pay for these new services, and it is right that the BBC should be able to take advantage of that interest to generate a return for the licence fee payers at home. That is why we do not propose that world service television should be paid for from public funds.
The noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing were concerned about the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council. They offered the alternative of a merger with the ITC to bring forward a consumer council for broadcasting. The main responsibility for considering complaints rests properly with the broadcasters themselves and the broadcasting regulators. The BBC is subject to both the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and their procedures. A consumer council would weaken the links that we believe should exist between the BBC and its audiences. It is essential that broadcasters stay closely in touch with public opinion and it is preferable for audiences to speak directly with broadcasters. The role of the governors is absolutely crucial in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, asked whether the two merged bodies would have statutory powers. The answer is yes. The new body will continue to produce statutory codes of programme standards. All broadcasters, including the BBC, are subject to these codes. If the BSC finds that a broadcaster has failed to keep within the codes, it can require it to broadcast its findings and prevent it from repeating the offence. That will continue to be the case for the new merged body.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested that the BBC governors should have a complaints unit and should discipline producers who break the rules. The Government are very keen that the BBC should listen carefully to the views and complaints of its audiences. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote said, the BBC has already set up a programme complaints unit and a complaints committee to give independent consideration to serious complaints. Where the governors discover that the BBC's own rules have been breached, they will
900
take steps to ensure that the breach does not recur and to exercise the normal desirable disciplines over its employees.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was concerned whether the BBC governors could realistically carry out the onerous responsibilities that we are putting on them. We believe that the duties we are placing on the governors are reasonable and realistic and similar to those on directors of other major organisations. The governors will have primary responsibility for all the BBC's activities and will be accountable to Parliament and the public for them. That does not mean, of course, that the governors have to have direct control over these activities. Their main duty is to ensure that the necessary framework and rules are in place to enable the BBC to meet its obligations and objectives and to ensure that the BBC employees work within that framework and those rules. That is no more onerous than the very broad responsibilities borne by boards of many major companies.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who told me that, unfortunately, he had to leave at 7.30 p.m., referred to the importance of religious programming. The BBC has committed itself in Extending Choice ensuring that religious programmes retain a prominent place in the schedules. We support that commitment and the BBC's wider responsibilities to serve all parts of the community. I listened with great care to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on religious programming.
Three distinguished former governors of the BBC shared their experiences with us: the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Barnett, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We also had the opposite view. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, spoke from the other end of the spectrum, from the point of view of the viewer, and referred to the effect of the BBC on this country. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls spoke while wearing what one would describe as his political hat. He explained why his career of standing in elections is over. In his speech he probably persuaded your Lordships' House why his career of standing in elections should be far from over. He made a campaigning speech which I am sure would win him any election now.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, outlined the role of the governors and the director general in giving guidelines to producers on programme standards, including impartiality. I very much agree with the noble Lord that the governors and the director-general have responsibility for setting the framework of standards for the BBC's programmes. The Producers' Guidelines, to which the noble Lord referred, provides that framework. Ultimately, it is the governors' responsibility to ensure that producers abide by the rules set out in that document.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was also concerned about sport and listed events. We believe that viewers and listeners should have the best possible range of choice. Choice is being enhanced by the introduction of specialist sports channels, increasing the extent and variety of sports coverage on television services generally. The sale of rights to broadcast sporting events

901
is one of the principal ways for sporting bodies to generate income. They generate significant income. Sporting bodies should themselves be allowed to judge the balance between the amount of income from broadcasting rights, the size of the television audience, the amount and type of broadcast coverage, and the impact on potential spectators and players and on the individual sport.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked whether we would debate the Charter and Agreement in draft. As I said, we shall ensure that there will be a debate. The Charter will be laid for debate in draft. The Agreement will also be capable of change if that is regarded by the Government as necessary because of what is said in debate in either place.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, talked about the new responsibilities of BBC Wales and how they would be spelt out in the new Charter and Agreement. The Charter will include a clearer definition of the role of the national councils. The Agreement will include an obligation on the BBC to make a reasonable proportion of its network production in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together, the two documents will make it clear that all parts of the UK should contribute fully to the BBC's activities. The BBC's commercial activities will largely be built on the vast archive of quality programmes which the BBC holds. Those will include programmes made in Wales and other parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked about an accounting officer and whether the BBC should be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. The BBC is different from most of our public bodies. Its very establishment by means of Royal Charter helps to ensure that the BBC remains properly at arm's length from the political process. In this country we have a long tradition of ensuring that there is no undue control over broadcasters by all of us who are closely involved in the political process. That must continue. The functions of accounting officers provide a direct link of accountability to the PAC in another place. For the BBC to be put in a position of such direct accountability to Parliament could place the principle of separation in some jeopardy. The BBC reports to Parliament in laying its audited annual report and accounts before both Houses. The National Heritage Select Committee in another place can, and does, probe the activities of the BBC. I believe that these are appropriate means of holding the BBC to account.
In the second part of his Motion the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asks, in effect, why the licence fee should not continue for longer than five years and whether the review is only about the level of that fee. We may well conclude in five years' time that the licence fee is still the best way of paying for the BBC. That is our conclusion at the moment. We looked at the other options, as your Lordships know, and we have concluded that at present the licence fee is by far the best way of paying for the BBC. But who can tell what will happen in five years' time?
902
We have heard tonight of some of the changes that may happen in broadcasting. The broadcasting picture is changing very rapidly and so we cannot be sure. That is why it is important that we keep it under review, at the five-year point, before the end of the new Charter. I do not think we should prejudge this and I do not think that the Government are prejudging it. All we are saying is that we need a point to look at in five years' time in order to review the position and make sure that we are still doing the right thing.
The Government welcome the responses to the White Paper and the contributions which your Lordships have made to that process in the debate today. I can give your Lordships the assurance that the Government will consider carefully all the points made in this debate before reaching any final conclusions. I reiterate that your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate these issues again before the BBC's new Charter comes into force. It is important that I should point out that it is not only the Government who should pay careful attention to this debate but also the BBC itself—the chairman of the BBC, the governors of the BBC and the management of the BBC. I am sure that they will pay close attention to this debate. I hope that they pay particularly close attention to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I hope that the assurances I have given this evening will have gone all the way to satisfying the very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I have said that I agree entirely in principle with what he is trying to do. I hope I have explained why we believe that the Agreement is the best place to put these important elements of impartiality. I also hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who has a similar intent to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I trust that I have satisfied his concerns.
I hope that following what I have said about the review it will be felt that in no way are the Government prejudging any debate on the licence fee. To keep that option open is not a detriment but could be an advantage. It could easily be an advantage to the BBC. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will feel able to withdraw his amendment to my Motion.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Viscount has spoken so generously that I very much hope that the House will give me leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

South Birmingham: Hospital Services
7.51 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to ensure that South Birmingham Health Authority provides adequate hospital services for patients.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, my noble friend Lady Fisher has had to go home. She has not been well recently and has had to withdraw from this debate which I am sure your Lordships will understand. Secondly, I believe I am right in saying that according to

903
information which has reached me rather late the Minister spent a considerable amount of time in Birmingham yesterday visiting the hospitals and no doubt acquainting herself with what she believed I might say and getting the answers. Perhaps I may say how much I welcome that. It is very good—especially in the context of these hospitals—that Ministers themselves are trying to investigate and come to grips with the story as I shall unfold it. Although I am critical I want the noble Baroness to know that her visit was appreciated.
I have initiated the debate because it is no longer possible to tolerate the disastrous state of affairs governing the management of the South Birmingham hospitals. There has been financial and administrative chaos in this hospital group for many years past. Vast sums of money have been abused. At least an extra £6 million was provided to bail them out of their financial predicament, following which specific assurances were made to the Public Accounts Committee which have not been met. Now redundancies and closures are taking place on a grand scale. The essential point of this debate; namely, the health service of the good people of Birmingham is being sacrificed on the altar of financial book-keeping to which this hospital group management now gives top priority over patient care.
These are strong words, but I intend to prove every one of them. There is a long history of this matter, but I do not need to detain the House over much about it. It became so notorious that the Public Accounts Select Committee of the other place held hearings about it and issued two of the most damning reports I have ever read in 40 years' membership of Parliament. They ought to produce resignations or sackings, but no such events occurred; nor did the appropriate Ministers of the day—they are not the present Ministers—think it right to accept any responsibility.
Perhaps I may comment that every penny of public money is a Treasury and ministerial responsibility. It matters not whether it is spent by a quango or a health authority. If there is abuse, or worse, it is the ultimate responsibility of the department and the Minister. No such responsibility has been accepted in the affairs of the South Birmingham Health Authority.
In its first report issued in October last year, the Public Accounts Committee says that serious shortcomings in the management control and accountability of the regionally managed services led to a waste of at least £10 million, this at the expense of health care for sick people in the West Midlands. The PAC says that it was astonished that the privatisation of the supplies branch proceeded without the knowledge of the regional health authority. There were serious failings at all levels of management and a serious failure by members of the RHA and its then chairman.
A second hearing of the PAC took place and it reported as recently as July of this year. In the interim the RHA had provided an additional £6 million of funds to meet redundancy costs and to balance the books. The questions and answers at this second hearing on 16th February this year are the starting point for my anxieties.
My colleague, Mr. Terry Davis, Member of Parliament, took the lead. Again and again he asked for assurances that after the £6 million payment and the
904
previous report, the financial affairs of the South Birmingham Health Authority were now in order and that it now had enough money to balance the books and to provide treatment for all who need it. He asked: is it a question of overspending or underfunding? Sir Duncan Nichol told the committee that he thought so but that he relied on the judgment of the region. Yet he was the chief executive of the National Health Service.
The same question was then directed by Mr. Davis to the chairman of the West Midland Region, Mr. Brian Baker. That revealed that an extra £11.2 million was given to the South Birmingham authority in 1992 to clear up its accumulative debt. Sir Duncan Nichol believed that the authority had now been allocated enough money year by year to meet its obligations and to ensure that there was no underfunding; so did the regional chairman.
I must now ask the House to consider the present chaos, which I shall describe, in the affairs of this group of hospitals in the light of those specific assurances. There has been a most serious and continuing deterioration of services; a serious collapse of morale affecting consultants and nursing staff; and a continual worsening of services for patients who have the right under the law—the National Health Service Act—to receive full and immediate treatment for their illnesses.
I spell out some of the factors: a daily fight to get very sick patients into an inadequate number of beds; routine cancellation of operations for seriously ill patients; no ophthalmology service now available for this large area of Birmingham; a pioneering gastro-intestinal unit has disappeared; the world-renowned burns unit is under threat. The consultants there wrote directly to the Secretary of State in September. I ask the Minister whether any action has followed their approaches to the Minister. Varicose veins patients are now shipped to Manchester for treatment which could be provided much more cheaply in Birmingham. One hundred waiting heart patients were contracted to receive treatment at the infamous Clydebank hotel, or Clydebank hospital, which has now collapsed. It is now hoped to send them to King's College Hospital in London. I shall return to that matter shortly.
There is at present a total ban on non-emergency admissions. The intensive care unit had to refuse 60 emergency patients during the year because there were no beds. The breast cancer unit was left without a consultant surgeon when he left saying:
"it is not possible to provide a top quality service under the financial restrictions".
Fracture clinics are cancelled due to the shortage of junior doctors. The consultant urologist says,
"he is ashamed of the service he can offer after having his bed complement reduced from 52 to 22".
In that department 1,000 patients have been waiting for up to two years for treatment. That is a most serious matter and one can imagine their discomfort.
In its policy document Looking Forward the RHA proposes to axe 1,100 beds and replace them with community care. That is in just one group of hospitals. Not only is there no money for such a programme, but

905
the community care programme is now being asked to transfer money back to acute services to keep those acute services alive. The same policy document forecasts a reduction of between 332 and 482 beds —that is 43 per cent. of all beds—by 1997–98. In fact, the programme has been accelerated to such an extent that a 375-bed loss has already been achieved in 1994—not 1997. Staff cuts of the magnitude of 1,200 have been ordered by the region. In fact, 300 went last year, 775 this year and another 400 will go next year when the general hospital loses its acute unit.
It is my contention that the care and treatment of patients is the National Health Service's supreme duty. All financial management and book balancing are merely mechanical factors to enable patients to be treated. That is the purpose of the National Health Service, but that is not the position in that group of hospitals. The very opposite is the case.
On 11th April this year, Mr. Bryan Baker, the chairman of the West Midlands Executive, wrote to Mr. Brian Stoten, the chairman of the South Birmingham Authority and demanded a robust action plan to achieve real savings. He promised £6 million for redundancy costs and another £10 million for price support. He confirmed in his letter the 1,200 staff reductions in the acute unit and the additional 400 to be added from the general hospital. He concluded by expressing his concern that the:
"Corporate information care plan and the quarterly monitoring information have been rendered largely meaningless".
That is a disgraceful letter. It contains not one word of concern about the effect of all that on patient care and the services provided for the sick, which is the prime responsibility of those gentlemen and that authority.
The authority is now taking refuge for its policy of mass destruction in the hearings held before the Public Accounts Committee, which is why I went into detail about them earlier. In a letter to the British Medical Association dated 12th May 1994, Mr. Michael Waterland, the chief executive of the acute services unit, says that the focus of the PAC hearings was on its fiscal duty. So it was, but equally compelling were the assurances that were sought and given that funds are adequate to meet patient needs, as I have already shown.
In his letter to the BMA, Mr. Waterland says that, irrespective of quality, his hospital group has three priorities. I shall quote what he stated in his letter. He said that priority No. 1 was "income and expenditure balance"; that priority No. 2 was "income and expenditure balance"; and that priority No. 3 was "income and expenditure balance". When he made the same point to the Community Health Care Council, I understand that he added:
"patient care is a secondary consideration".
That is quite intolerable, quite contrary to the purpose of the health service and, I believe, quite contrary to the purpose of the Government. So it is, and that is the gravamen of my charge. Patient care and attention, the first duty of the health service, has been sacrificed in those hospitals on the altar of financial expediency.
Finally, I turn to the effect of all that on waiting lists and staff morale. The waiting list deterioration is quite deplorable and totally in contrast to the Government's wishes and claims about improvements. In March 1993, 218 patients had been waiting over one year. By March this year, that number had increased to 1,037. In September 1993, 20 urology patients had been waiting for more than one year. By June this year, that figure had increased to 227. In general surgery, no patients had been waiting more than a year in September 1993, but by June this year 235 patients were waiting. In ENT, the number of patients waiting for treatment for more than a year rose from 36 in September 1993 to 135 in June 1994.
I could give many examples of the suffering that that is causing very sick people. I shall content myself with just one case. Mr. Anthony Damms lives at 111 Eastfield Road, Bordesley Green. In June 1993 he suffered a heart attack and was treated at the Heartlands Hospital, from where he was referred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in December last year. He was told he needed bypass surgery and that that would take place in six to eight weeks' time. In April this year he was told he must wait until July or August. In August he was told it may be another 12 months. However, on 21st November—a month ago—he received a call to report for tests on 25th November with a view to being operated on on 2nd December—last week. Told to check the position on the day before—1st December—he did so only to be told not to come in as there were no beds available.
Out of the blue last Saturday morning, two days after he should have been admitted, Mr. Damms received a letter, not from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital but from the consultant he had seen 18 months ago at the Heartlands Hospital, telling him that he may still have a considerable wait and asking him whether he would consider treatment in London. His wife tells me that he also suffers very badly from arthritis and cannot walk across the road, much less travel to London
No citizen should receive such treatment. At this point I was going to ask the noble Baroness to look into the case, but such is the expedition that occurs when Members of Parliament raise matters in the House that I am glad to report that the television companies interviewing me today have informed me that Mr. Damms has now been told that he will have his operation on 29th December. Perhaps I may say how very pleased I am for Mr. Damms that we have achieved such a remarkable success, but I am bound to ask: What about the other 99 patients who have been waiting a long time and need an operation? Is somebody going to do something about them? However, we must be thankful for small mercies and on behalf of Mr. Damms and his family, I must express my appreciation.
I turn now to staff morale. It could hardly be worse. The number of consultants who have resigned is frightening. They include four consultants in haematology; one vascular surgeon; one general surgeon; and one microbiologist. Seven other consultants have taken early retirement.
In September and November last year one of the ward sisters felt it to be her duty to draw the serious situation to the attention of the directorate. Among other matters in her letter which I have seen she referred to the fact that her ward had been left with only two nurses on duty, no provision for meals or help for the manual handling of patients. Agency nurses were of poor quality. There were often no domestic services and no team cleaning. In September she wrote:
"In short, the ward is filthy. Nurses already stretched to the limit are having to clean toilets and baths. I have written to the hotel services manager to no avail. My ward has an excellent reputation. I have never known morale so low, my keen conscientious staff are looking elsewhere for other jobs where they will be valued".
Then in November the sister wrote again. She said that she had no alternative but to close the ward as patients' lives were at risk and the few remaining staff could not be expected to manage under those pressures. That shows an alarming situation which merits the most intensive investigation. Like all the facts that I have quoted, they speak for themselves. No embellishments are necessary.
Mr. Brian Edwards, the chief executive of the West Midlands NHS Executive, has kindly sent me during the past few days a copy of a letter he has written to the South Birmingham Acute Unit. I have no doubt that he has also sent a copy to the Minister in anticipation of the debate. It was obviously an attempt to anticipate what I was going to say. It expresses confidence that waiting list targets can be met and that performances will be improved. One can only hope so, but those generalised comments ignore totally the vast cuts in staff and beds that have taken place, and the vast increase in demands for admissions.
My belief is that the only way to restore confidence is to have an independent outside inquiry into the affairs of the hospital. That is not into the financial mismanagement—the PAC has done that—but into the level of patient care which is the sole purpose of the NHS.
Sir Duncan Nichol gave firm assurances that the action plan put in place to rectify the financial mismanagement in that area health authority would not damage the service. The truth is that it has not solved the financial problems, and it has damaged seriously the services provided for the public. That is why an independent inquiry is now essential to restore public confidence. If the Minister cannot grant me that request today, perhaps I may hope that she will continue to apply her mind to the hospital to ensure that the finances are put right and, what is most important, that the good people of Birmingham receive the services to which they are entitled.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend has revealed a sad and serious catalogue of errors. It is hard to believe that a management team could have miscalculated so often, and gone against professional advice. It has been said, with some justification, that one possible beneficial effect of the Government's NHS legislation has been to remove decision-making power from the vested interests of the hospital consultants and move it to managers
908
acting on behalf of patients and communities. But in South Birmingham that policy seems to have misfired totally.
What has happened is the equivalent of a ship dropping its pilot while it is still going through a dangerous passage, full of rocks and dangerous currents, and handing the wheel to the purser who is more skilled in financial calculation than navigation. However, even in financial terms, the Birmingham managers have managed to run the ship aground.
A further example of that, which was given to me by an orthopaedic surgeon, is the decision of the managers to ignore a carefully costed plan put forward by the clinicians concerned accepting that the famous Birmingham Accident Hospital had to be closed but proposing that the Selly Oak Hospital be the site of a new burns and trauma unit. However, that plan was rejected. The general hospital was chosen as the site for the accident and burns service which was created there at a cost of some £4 million. However, after less than two years the decision has been taken to resite the unit at Selly Oak, as originally proposed by the professional staff involved, at a cost of some £6 million.
While the bulldozers are now pulling down the old accident hospital, and patients are being treated at a new unit at Birmingham General Hospital, contractors are building yet another new unit at Selly Oak. That has meant a loss of £4 million of taxpayers' money. That is at a time when the grave shortages, redundancies and bed closures which my noble friend described are taking place. The situation has become so uncertain that, as my noble friend pointed out, a number of senior clinical staff have resigned or taken early retirement. Among those are two general surgeons, Mr. Geoffrey Oates and Mr. John Harman, who have been re-employed in a private hospital which receives patients who cannot be accommodated at the acute unit. Despite that, as my noble friend pointed out, South Birmingham has a waiting list which has been increasing steadily.
I turn now to primary care which, as the Minister knows, is my own field. One of the key features of the RHAs Looking Forward … Moving Ahead strategy was the development of primary care. That involved, in particular, improving practice premises and increasing the number of nurses. But funds are needed for that, some of which were to come from the savings being made in the acute unit. However, as my noble friend pointed out, so rapid has been the run down of beds, and so great has been the disruption of services as a result, that money has had to be diverted to the private sector to contain the increasing size of the waiting list.
As a result, improvements in primary care have hardly been noticeable, except perhaps in fundholding general practices. Incidentally, in creating multi-fund administrative units of a rather luxurious nature, they seem to have no shortage of funds. Fundholders' patients are partially cushioned from the results of the administrative bungles which have been described—a further example, if one were needed, of the two-tier system that the fundholder scheme has created. Sadly that is a case of "to he that hath shall more be given", since poorer districts with the greatest health needs have the lowest proportion of GP fundholders.

909
In South Birmingham £500,000 has also been taken from the allocation for the psychiatric services—an area in need of more, not less funds—to buttress the acute unit in its difficulties. One answer often proffered by the Government —I have heard this from the Minister—when it is said that there has been too great an increase in the numbers of managerial staff, is that the NHS was previously undermanaged. The South Birmingham story shows, however, that far from improving services for patients these new managers have made them worse and wasted huge sums of public money in the process.
8.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for this opportunity to debate with the select group here tonight the health services in South Birmingham. Although the Chamber is not crowded, I recognise that the subject is of enormous concern to the people of Birmingham. There has been room for misunderstanding and therefore I welcome the opportunity to go into some of the issues tonight.
As your Lordships will be aware, South Birmingham has been dogged with financial problems since its inception in 1991 when it was created out of the merger of the old Central and South Birmingham Health Authorities. I do not wish to retread old ground as to why the financial problems occurred or why it took so long for them to be rectified. As the noble Lord said, this has been thoroughly investigated by the Public Accounts Committee and was covered in detail in its 36th report, which was published last July and to which the Government responded via a Treasury Minute on 18th October 1994.
The Department of Health and West Midlands Regional Health Authority have accepted that senior managers failed to resolve the financial problems within South Birmingham Health Authority in the prescribed timescales.
New senior management teams for both the South Birmingham Acute Unit and South Birmingham Health Authority have been recruited and together they will work to resolve the immediate financial problems and ensure that the acute unit achieves a balanced income and expenditure position by October 1995. It will be announced tomorrow that John Boyak will be appointed chief executive of the acute unit and therefore both teams are fully appointed.
In parallel with these changes, new and exciting developments have also been taking place across Greater Birmingham. We should not lose sight of those. Your Lordships will appreciate that, as South Birmingham is an integral part of the city and comprises one of its two health authorities, anything that affects Birmingham as a whole has equally strong implications for health services in the South Birmingham conurbations.
Many cities throughout the country are becoming aware of the growing need to plan their health services so that they take account of today's rapidly changing demands and in doing so are in a strong position to carry
910
them forward into the next century. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will know only too well, medical science and clinical practice do not stand still and we need to be aware of developments and harness them. That is good management and better quality care for patients.
Birmingham has recognised this need and accepted the challenge. On 9th December 1993 the health authorities in Greater Birmingham jointly published a discussion document called Looking Forward. This sets out broad proposals for reshaping health services in the city by recognising the important changes that are taking place. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that among those changes are plans to enhance and expand primary care.
I am well aware that in developing its health care services Birmingham has had many false starts. It is an enormous task and quite understandably local people have a right to be sceptical over this latest attempt. However, it was with this scepticism in mind that the Greater Birmingham purchasers ensured that Looking Forward was subject to as much public discussion and consultation as possible. They listened carefully to local people's views and amended the proposals to meet their concerns.
On 1st July the West Midlands RHA announced the outcome of these consultation exercises. None was formally opposed by the Birmingham Community Health Councils and this meant that the planned £100 million plus investment programme for Greater Birmingham could now begin.
In South Birmingham this involves investment of more than £70 million. It includes the planned transfer of the Children's Hospital from its present dilapidated location to a refurbished Birmingham General Hospital at a cost of more than £20 million; the development of a high quality accident and emergency service throughout the city and in particular a new £6.8 million accident and emergency department at South Birmingham Acute Unit; and the development of a new £8.5 million oncology centre for cancer sufferers at the South Birmingham Acute Unit.
During my visit to Birmingham yesterday I was told that Professor David Kerr, a leading cancer specialist of international renown based at the South Birmingham Acute Unit, has rejected the opportunity to move to a number of other leading cancer centres in this country because of the excellent facilities in South Birmingham and the encouragement and respect he has had from the management. Also planned is a new £6 million neurosciences centre, again at the acute unit; a £14 million refurbishment of Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust; a new health centre at Quinton as part of a £23 million investment in primary care across the city; and a major investment in the fabric of hospitals in South Birmingham, including £37 million on upgrading and improving facilities at Selly Oak Hospital, part of the South Birmingham Acute Unit.
Some of these initiatives are already under way and others are scheduled to take place over the next few years. In all, they represent a significant investment in local services across both the primary and secondary care sectors and all will considerably benefit the people of South Birmingham.

911
The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Rea, drew our attention to the bed closures taking place in particular at the South Birmingham Acute Unit. As I have already pointed out, improved medical technology and clinical practice means that more patients are being treated more quickly using fewer beds. Since 1987 the average length of stay in hospitals in the West Midlands has fallen substantially. For example, in the past six years the average length of stay for general surgery has fallen from 12 to eight days and for eye surgery the fall has been from five days to three.
Day case surgery has become a more common method of treatment. In South Birmingham since 1987 the number of day cases treated has risen by 234 per cent. In the West Midlands about 40 per cent. of cases are now treated on a day case basis. The West Midlands RHA believes that a target of 60 per cent. is reasonable. This is good news for local patients. Credit must go to those who planned, built and now work in the new £640,000, 18-bed day case unit which has recently opened at Selly Oak Hospital and which will benefit the people of South Birmingham.
However, in the midst of all this investment there is a complicating factor. In the past, many health authorities have sent their patients to the South Birmingham Acute Unit for treatment. These authorities are now developing services more locally and this means that fewer patients are being referred to Birmingham. This is better for patients but means that the acute unit has had to look at the various services it provides. It has had to match the changes in demand to the income that it now receives. This is one of the key issues underlying the acute unit's current financial situation.
The noble Lord quoted from a letter from the chief executive citing the importance of having a sound financial position. Every health authority must live within its means, and there is nothing more demoralising for staff or miserable for patients than having services that are expanded one moment and cut back the next. South Birmingham has to get its house in order and regain the stability which staff and patients so badly need.
Inevitably, the review of services has had an effect on the acute unit's organisation, although actual permanent bed closures at the unit have been minimal; a total of 42 since January this year. A significant number of these have been the result of major refurbishment taking place elsewhere in South Birmingham, necessitating short-term bed closures. Unfortunately, there have also been a number of temporary closures at the acute unit because of a shortage of nurses with the required specialist skills. An example is the cardiac unit, where 10 of the 62 beds are currently closed for this reason. This matter is being addressed by the health authority, which is seeking to recruit suitable staff as soon as possible. Interestingly, the situation at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital and Birmingham Children's Hospital is the reverse, where there has been an increase in the number of beds available over this same period.
912
Noble Lords have also drawn attention to the redundancies taking place. I wish to say, first, that it is always regrettable when redundancies are necessary but in this case it is essential in order to ensure that South Birmingham lives within its resources.
No significant redundancies have occurred at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital or the Birmingham Children's Hospital; but, since the beginning of the year, 770 posts have gone at the South Birmingham Acute Unit. The vast majority have been administrative and clerical but some have been from the nursing and medical grades. Only 14 of those redundancies in total have so far been compulsory with the majority achieved through freezing of vacancies and voluntary early retirement.
Decisions on what posts should go is a matter for local managers, who must take account of local needs and the reductions in workload. It is certainly not the case that patients' lives are being put at risk because of those reductions. Posts go because the work is no longer there.
To help those whose jobs have been affected, South Birmingham Acute Unit has set up a staff commission which has been notified of some 400 nursing vacancies since June. In addition, there are plans to retrain about 60 acute nurses to work as community and practice nurses, reflecting the move towards greater care in the community.
Both noble Lords raised the question of waiting lists. The West Midlands Regional Health Authority is unique in that it has set all hospitals within the region a target of guaranteeing all patients who were on West Midlands waiting lists as at 1st July 1994 the offer of treatment by 31st March 1995—a maximum waiting time for treatment of no more than nine months. An additional £10 million region-wide has been made available to achieve that. South Birmingham is signed up to this target but to achieve it means an additional work load. I should explain to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that that is a short-term initiative, over and above the normal workload. It will not be of a long duration once the backlog has been cleared. Therefore, it is a good idea to use other facilities in order to accommodate that increased workload.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation concerning the cancellation of operations. That is an area of great anxiety, which needs careful management. In that authority, the level of cancelled operations is high. That is partly attributable to the fact that the South Birmingham Acute Unit is heavily involved with treating emergencies and many cancelled operations are a direct result of unexpected surges in the emergency workload. That is particularly true of the cardiac services.
The noble Lord mentioned also intensive care beds. Currently in South Birmingham there are 25 intensive care beds but a further four will be opened in January 1995. Also, a new cardiac bed is due to be opened early next year. I hope that that will relieve the situation.
In his Question the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what action is proposed to ensure that South

913
Birmingham provides adequate hospital services for patients. I have already outlined what is planned for the future, but let me also mention very briefly the excellent services already provided: the Birmingham Children's Hospital provides first-class patient care not only to the local community, but to patients elsewhere in the UK and overseas. Its expertise includes craniofacial surgery, oncology, cochlear implants, liver programme including liver and small bowel transplants, cardiac services; the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, a single specialty orthopaedic hospital where outcome measures compare favourably with world standards; a women's hospital providing excellent maternity facilities and gynaecological care; strong community and mental health support from the local community and mental health trusts. Perhaps the most significant is the South Birmingham Acute Unit which offers one of the widest range of specialist leading edge services in the country including: one of the largest and most extensive transplant programmes in Europe; a quick and early diagnosis facility for the early detection of cancer; a major injuries intensive care unit for burns and trauma patients; one of the top national comprehensive cardiac programmes in the country; a direct access service for GPs to the day surgery programme; the most extensive renal programme in Europe; and a urology department which was a finalist in the national Hospital Doctor of the Year Awards for this year. Add those services to the planned £70 million plus investment in services in South Birmingham over the next four years and I believe that your Lordships will agree that that shows considerable commitment to providing excellent hospital services to
914
the people of Birmingham in the future. Sadly, therefore, I cannot accede to the noble Lord's request for an inquiry.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in her reply she said that the reason for the smaller income of the unit was that fewer patients were being referred to Birmingham for treatment and presumably for operations. How is it then that the number on the waiting list has been increasing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I explained that it is to do with all the changes that are taking place: the need to close beds to refurbish some of the other units; and some of the moves that are taking place concerning the children's hospital and other developments.
Lord Howell: My Lords, the Minister said that she is not able to accede to my request for an inquiry; and I am sad about that. But will she assure the House that she and her ministerial colleagues will maintain a continuous interest in the affairs of those hospitals until the service provided meets the satisfaction of the Members of Parliament and the people of Birmingham?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I willingly give an undertaking to the noble Lord that we shall keep a very close eye on South Birmingham. The situation needs improvement and I shall give a personal commitment to that.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before nine o'clock.

  COUNCIL TAX BANDING APPEALS
  COUNCIL TAX BANDING APPEALS
  WINSKILL STONES AND ORTON SCAR: LIMESTONE
  WINSKILL STONES AND ORTON SCAR: LIMESTONE
  LANDLORD AND TENANT CODE
  LANDLORD AND TENANT CODE
  EQUAL PAY DIRECTIVE: JUDGMENT
  EQUAL PAY DIRECTIVE: JUDGMENT
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: RESEARCH PROJECT
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: RESEARCH PROJECT
  OPERATION GRANBY: LEISHMANIASIS TESTS
  OPERATION GRANBY: LEISHMANIASIS TESTS
  CBDE: STUDIES AND TESTS (DEFINITIONS)
  CBDE: STUDIES AND TESTS (DEFINITIONS)
  TERRITORIAL ARMY: ROLE
  TERRITORIAL ARMY: ROLE
  OPERATION GRANBY PERSONNEL: HEALTH
  OPERATION GRANBY PERSONNEL: HEALTH
  OPERATION GRANBY: RADIATION EXPOSURE LEVELS
  OPERATION GRANBY: RADIATION EXPOSURE LEVELS
  BOSNIA: US UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
  BOSNIA: US UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
  CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT, CAIRO
  CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT, CAIRO
  SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES
  SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES
  ASYLUM APPLICATIONS
  ASYLUM APPLICATIONS
  LLOYD'S OF LONDON DTI SUPERVISION
  LLOYD'S OF LONDON DTI SUPERVISION
  UK-IRELAND: MILK QUOTA
  UK-IRELAND: MILK QUOTA
  N.I. TRIALS: DELAY REDUCTIONS
  N.I. TRIALS: DELAY REDUCTIONS
  INCAPACITY BENEFIT: MEDICAL TEST
  INCAPACITY BENEFIT: MEDICAL TEST